How are ye dealing with the compulsory homosexuality in Ireland?

jochenstacker

splinter65 wrote: »

So you find the term “your ilk”objectionable and offensive and feel the post was actionable?
You do know “your ilk” is a term that is used, mostly sarcastically, to refer to people who identify with a particular group, could be a political group, could be a class sector....it’s not reserved for minorities?!?

I never said anything about the term you ilk until that post and I never said I wanted it actioned.
I'm more bemused, because whatever ilk that poster thinks I have, he may be entirely wrong.

jochenstacker

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Are u ok hun? What is your argument with the OP though? This is just another opportunity to be virtuous, to fulfill an unconscious need for acceptance and to get likes. This is cute. not brave.

I'm absolutely fine sugartits. Had you read the thread, you may have noticed my post, where I dealt with the "points" laid out by Lefty and where I addressed it one by, well, there was only one.
Lemme dig it up for you:

jochenstacker wrote: »

OK, let's deal with the point in the post I was replying to.

Lefty wrote:

who do those fags think they are strutting around like the own the place

To which my reply is Fcuk off.
No more needs to be said.

Hope that helps.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Please provide some kind of proof to back up this claim.

You'll be waiting a long time for that.

Tokyo

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of clerical sexual abusers were Homosexual men and the majority of victims were boys.
If thats uncomfortable for you then so be it.

Mod: Stupid post is stupid. You've removed circumstance and access (or lack thereof) from the equation. If you wish to continue posting in this thread, provide actual proof to back up that statement. Otherwise, don't post in this thread again.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I wonder the next time he pops up to repeat that in a thread, saying it's some kind of verboten subject rather than horsecrap, and the same people thank it, will they believe it's actually true?

Like is it deliberate deception, or an inability to comprehend reality? Both?

The sad fact of the matter is that correcting the untruth doesn't kill it, all it needs is repetition and an audience of people who definitely aren't homophobic, no siree, but just conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, and it'll keep lodging in there along with the traveller/roma/Polish woman leaving her buggy on the bus and all the rest of it.

Dominik Echoing Flute

Dominik Echoing Flute wrote: »

I wonder the next time he pops up to repeat that in a thread, saying it's some kind of verboten subject rather than horsecrap, and the same people thank it, will they believe it's actually true?

Like is it deliberate deception, or an inability to comprehend reality? Both?

The sad fact of the matter is that correcting the untruth doesn't kill it, all it needs is repetition and an audience of people who definitely aren't homophobic, no siree, but just conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, and it'll keep lodging in there along with the traveller/roma/Polish woman leaving her buggy on the bus and all the rest of it.

Take a read of their post history, one classic example as an Irish nationalist arguing that immigration is diluting Irish culture, they quoted an English academic who claimed that the Irish weren't that intelligent a race.
So no don't hold your breath.

Archeron

fritzelly wrote: »

Not sure how this turned from everyone in Ireland has to become gay to immigration policy

We need the immigrants to make new kids so we have a next generation to pay for our feather boas in our old age.

interactive

Dominik Echoing Flute wrote: »

Aanyways...

I was speaking with a Polish customer about this at the weekend, she's living here about ten years but gets home once or twice a year.

Her take on it was pretty much what I would have been thinking. That while compared to Ireland it is a more conservative, macho culture, it's a situation that's being exacerbated by the degree of emigration Poland has had for a long time but particularly since joining the EU, and that it's being fomented (from within and without in her opinion) by people for political gain. That over the last couple of years she's noticing a real change on her social media feeds from her friends back home, not necessarily specifically to do with LGBT issues but some of that and a degree of explicit, unselfconscious nativism etc that wasn't there before.

The target demographic for this kind of meddling is huge in Poland, and there's been a steady drain of young educated Poles for a long time. Kind of similar to here where constituencies like Donegal and Roscommon are the consistent no voters, but on a much bigger scale.

She also said the LGBT thing is a much less complicated issue to rally people around than the immigration one, though there are certainly lots of people to whom that appeals and there is a definite thread of that rhetoric too.

Things that never happened for $100 please.
"Talking to a customer"
Yeah , we all believe you

interactive

riffmongous wrote: »

I do wonder though if it will continue that course now that the Catholic Church sex abuses in Poland are finally starting to come to light

And the Catholic church sex abuses are carried out by male Priests on young Boys........ so what is your point?

jochenstacker

Dominik Echoing Flute wrote: »

I wonder the next time he pops up to repeat that in a thread, saying it's some kind of verboten subject rather than horsecrap, and the same people thank it, will they believe it's actually true?

Like is it deliberate deception, or an inability to comprehend reality? Both?

The sad fact of the matter is that correcting the untruth doesn't kill it, all it needs is repetition and an audience of people who definitely aren't homophobic, no siree, but just conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, and it'll keep lodging in there along with the traveller/roma/Polish woman leaving her buggy on the bus and all the rest of it.

The new type of right wing assholes don't stomp around with shaved heads shouting slogans (well, some do, usually the ones who need help lacing up their army boots), they give themselves an air of respectability and are "just concerned and making a reasonable argument".
They have all sorts of statistics why gay people abuse children, black people are less intelligent, Muslims are jihadis and as for women, well they are kind of tolerated but should know their place.
They will say that they certainly aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, just like a NIMBY will say "I'm not a NIMBY, but you're not building that thing in my neighborhood, sunshine".
The new tactics are gaslighting and turning the argument on you, accusing you of being phobic towards them, or racist for standing up for "brown" people or sexist for standing up for women.
They will also wheedle away till someone turns on them and then cry about it like a premiership footballer.
They are slimy, insidious worms.
If you're gonna hate, be open about it, but I hate this passive aggressive, dishonest, mock hurt and outrage bullsh*t.
There is a whole movement of them and their biggest bullcrap argument is "those nasty liberals made me do it!"
Anyone ever says that in real life, I'd kick their balls through their brains if they had either.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

interactive wrote: »

Things that never happened for $100 please.
"Talking to a customer"
Yeah , we all believe you

Well I mean it's not as credible as an organised agenda on the part of the LGBT community to make up homophobic attacks and remarks wholesale to cling on desperately to their victimhood, but, occasionally, bar staff and regular customers do have chats. Perhaps no bar person has ever engaged with you that way, can't imagine why with that charming attitude.

Also splinter, nice to see you're still reading and thanking every poster who vaguely agrees with you and not engaging with any arguments that don't!

tayto lover

Am I allowed to dislike, not to hate, people who are too much in my face regardless of their sexuality? These include show offs, noisy people and over flamboyant gay or straight types.

The Kang

tayto lover wrote: »

Am I allowed to dislike, not to hate, people who are too much in my face regardless of their sexuality? These include show offs, noisy people and over flamboyant gay or straight types.

That would be a completely sensible and normal stance to take. Unfortunately, we live in clownword of child drag queens, trans 'women' and lgbtxyz fundies, so you are actually a bigot and literally worse than Hitler.

hatrickpatrick

splinter65 wrote: »

And that the vast majority of the public don’t appreciate public displays of intimacy?

In that case, the vast majority of the public are pathetic, prudish busybodies.

splinter65

tayto lover wrote: »

Am I allowed to dislike, not to hate, people who are too much in my face regardless of their sexuality? These include show offs, noisy people and over flamboyant gay or straight types.

Apparently not.

splinter65

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In that case, the vast majority of the public are pathetic, prudish busybodies.

Or maybe we just think that there’s a time and a place for everything.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Or maybe we just think that there’s a time and a place for everything.

Who are this we you talk of?
I'm Irish straight and married, if someone came up to me and started saying that I shouldn't be kissing my wife in public they'd be lucky just to be told where to go.

jochenstacker

DubInMeath wrote: »

Who are this we you talk of?
I'm Irish straight and married, if someone came up to me and started saying that I shouldn't be kissing my wife in public they'd be lucky just to be told where to go.

Nail on the head and /argument as far as I'm concerned.

jochenstacker

tayto lover wrote: »

Am I allowed to dislike, not to hate, people who are too much in my face regardless of their sexuality? These include show offs, noisy people and over flamboyant gay or straight types.

You can dislike absolutely anyone, i don't see a problem there.
The problem starts when someone says "I dislike a group of people and now I want to get others to dislike them as well, based on nothing but a few superficial characteristics".
Also, it's a free country, so you're free to dislike someone because they're a bit too flamboyant for your taste, but people are entitled to be as camp as they want to be.
As long as they're not directly hurting you, what's the problem?

tayto lover

jochenstacker wrote: »

You can dislike absolutely anyone, i don't see a problem there.
The problem starts when someone says "I dislike a group of people and now I want to get others to dislike them as well, based on nothing but a few superficial characteristics".
Also, it's a free country, so you're free to dislike someone because they're a bit too flamboyant for your taste, but people are entitled to be as camp as they want to be.
As long as they're not directly hurting you, what's the problem?

I agree.
I have no issue with anyone except people who try to command my attention.
If I go out for a quiet pint or a chat with someone and there is someone there who is loud and constantly parading up and down trying to garner attention then I leave and go to a quieter pub. Can’t stand attention seeking behavior from anyone, gay or straight.

sbsquarepants

interactive wrote: »

Things that never happened for $100 please.
"Talking to a customer"
Yeah , we all believe you

As tall tales go interactive, i've heard taller. (I'm loving the ironic username by the way;))

Staff / customer conversations would be fairly common in the real world. In fact, many years ago, i even had one myself. True story!

Lux23

tayto lover wrote: »

Am I allowed to dislike, not to hate, people who are too much in my face regardless of their sexuality? These include show offs, noisy people and over flamboyant gay or straight types.

Who are these people?

interactive

Its blatantly obvious that its being promoted and pushed on the public, what percentage of the public are homosexual, if the media was to believed it must be close to 33%.
Look at adverts on TV and in Print, every single time you will see that is a mixed race couple, you never see a white man and white woman, or a black man and black woman couple, always a mixed couple, its not something you see every day, its probably 5% in the real world, but in the media its ubiquitous.
So the question is why are the powers that be pushing this?

sbsquarepants

The mixed race thing is hugely disproportionate for sure, I've noticed that myself. I don't think it's any agenda being pushed though, it's just advertisers wanting to appear modern and inclusive, and sure why wouldn't they?
It's just like not every woman who uses tampax is a sky diving, mountain biker at the weekends. But eating last nights left over chicken balls while hugging a hot water bottle on the sofa just doesn't make for that great an add however, so sky diving it is!

osarusan

interactive wrote: »

Look at adverts on TV and in Print, every single time you will see that is a mixed race couple, you never see a white man and white woman, or a black man and black woman couple, always a mixed couple, its not something you see every day, its probably 5% in the real world, but in the media its ubiquitous.

First two ads that come to mind are that annoying 'cheep-purr' insurance ad and the ad of the couple putting the sofa in every room before returning it to some charity shop. Both white couples.


So, straight off, your claim that you will never see it is just wrong. Why are you saying stuff you know to be wrong?

interactive

osarusan wrote: »

First two ads that come to mind are that annoying 'cheep-purr' insurance ad and the ad of the couple putting the sofa in every room before returning it to some charity shop. Both white couples.


So, straight off, your claim that you will never see it is just wrong. Why are you saying stuff you know to be wrong?

Mea culpa
The fact is its very rare in the real world, but in the media its now ubiquitous.

The One Doctor

interactive wrote: »

Its blatantly obvious that its being promoted and pushed on the public, what percentage of the public are homosexual, if the media was to believed it must be close to 33%.
Look at adverts on TV and in Print, every single time you will see that is a mixed race couple, you never see a white man and white woman, or a black man and black woman couple, always a mixed couple, its not something you see every day, its probably 5% in the real world, but in the media its ubiquitous.
So the question is why are the powers that be pushing this?

I have a theory that the ratcheting gay agenda is a very subtle way of reducing population growth. It's trendy and cutting edge to be LGBTQI+... and very very few of these people produce children.

Not a very controversial theory really tbh.

gmisk

The One Doctor wrote: »

:cool: no

I have a theory that the ratcheting gay agenda is a very subtle way of reducing population growth. It's trendy and cutting edge to be LGBTQI+... and very very few of these people produce children.

Not a very controversial theory really tbh.

"gay agenda".....Laughable if you werent being serious

Its lovely to be called trendy and cutting edge though......is it only if you are under a certain age?

batgoat

interactive wrote: »

Mea culpa
The fact is its very rare in the real world, but in the media its now ubiquitous.

Why does it upset you so much?

alastair

The One Doctor wrote: »

I have a theory that the ratcheting gay agenda is a very subtle way of reducing population growth. It's trendy and cutting edge to be LGBTQI+... and very very few of these people produce children.

Not a very controversial theory really tbh.

Other than supposing that there’s a trend for denying your actual sexuality. Is there an idiocy agenda too?