Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
i'm not seeing much love, nor understanding, and not even a bit of clarity.
but keep at it, big guy. i know you'll get there soon.
remember, we are ONE
Don't ask - Don't tell - RIP
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i'm not seeing much love, nor understanding, and not even a bit of clarity.
but keep at it, big guy. i know you'll get there soon.
remember, we are ONE
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
exactly
I do wonder, diamond, why you point out that in real life you have ___ and ___ and ___, all three positive qualities - perhaps you realize that this is not at all how you come across on the forums? I know if it were me, I'd want people to think well of me everywhere, and the way you present yourself here really leaves a lot to be desired and that's putting it politely. Given that most people here will never have a chance to meet you in person, much well know you well in person, I'd think you'd want them to get to see these qualities online so that they don't come to the wrong conclusion about you, your behaviour, your views, your intelligence or your tolerance for others.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Martina-
It's because I prefer clarity to agreement and I can go toe to toe on this issue and patiently pick apart agruments, however as you have suggested, I can or may potentailly come across looking as insensitive, shortsighted and/or being misinterpreted.
Instead of engaging, I will choose to stand down on this one. I think I made a few valid points anyway. Life wasn't meant to split hairs over issues that one day will sort themselves out. We're put on earth to help eachother up and love one another, first and furmost, not take one another out in a public fourm.
So, Melon you're off the hook on this one; and the first person that suggests that I'm chickening out bespeaks their own character.
<>
It's because I prefer clarity to agreement and I can go toe to toe on this issue and patiently pick apart agruments, however as you have suggested, I can or may potentailly come across looking as insensitive, shortsighted and/or being misinterpreted.
Instead of engaging, I will choose to stand down on this one. I think I made a few valid points anyway. Life wasn't meant to split hairs over issues that one day will sort themselves out. We're put on earth to help eachother up and love one another, first and furmost, not take one another out in a public fourm.
So, Melon you're off the hook on this one; and the first person that suggests that I'm chickening out bespeaks their own character.
<>
diamond said:
Do you have to duck when going through doorways?
I have yet to see you "pick apart" anyone's argument, but I have seen you casually dismiss arguments without imbuing much clarity in the process, while at the same time calling into question the character of those who disagree with you.
If you really prefer clarity to agreement, it might be time to start imparting some. Otherwise it's just a nice slogan without anything to back it up.
You might want to take your own advice there, buddy.
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
umm,
i detect hostility coming from the poster above,
regardless-
thank u diemure
i detect hostility coming from the poster above,
regardless-
thank u diemure
Last edited:
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
diamond said:
I don't think that most gay rights supporters would argue he was "on record" supporting gay rights. I personally would not presume to know which side he'd be on. I do think most gay rights supporters would argue that their struggle is similar to that of African American civil rights regardless of whether MLK would agree with that assessment or not.
diamond said:
I think the problem here is the idea that we're all lumped into one community and we have these "leaders." These so-called leaders are more often than not self-appointed (or so designated by white folks). Tell me what do white Americans in THEIR totality support in terms of gay rights. What about the white leaders--do they represent the white community?
People would call African Americans who don't support gay rights homophobes because of their views not because of their race and African Americans might be offended because no one likes to be called a homophobe. It has nothing to do with race.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
diamond said:umm,
i detect hostility coming from the poster above,
regardless-
thank u diemure
Well, there's no hostility here, my friend. And I think you really should consider Anitram's observations. It makes it harder for people to take you seriously when you decide to "get serious" as you did in the demon possession thread.
diamond said:umm,
i detect hostility coming from the poster above,
regardless-
thank u diemure
And I detect someone resorting to childish antics instead of trying to bring clarity to the issue. But I'm sure you'd like to think you're taking the high road here.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
That's the point diamond, why can't you see that? That's why it's a thread.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Fisrt off I want to thank the tone of the recent posts of Sean, Martina (Anitram) and Gina.
You see if I answer the above posts my words can or may be twisted here-so I will make this brief.
I will say that "asexuality" is an actual definitive medical/psycological condition of some people's sexual orientation or practice/preference.
http://www.answers.com/topic/asexuality
I threw the Togan (Polyonesian) angle in as an aside.
That said if this were a Togan with an asexual preference and he stumbled onto an IED-there probably wouldn't be a story here.
There wouldn't be "he died to advance his cause" claiming he saved other soilders lives-as the mindset here is and the story has been twisted here.
The Togan would have died honorably as Maj. Alan G. Rogers and both died accidently altough honoarably for their country.
I'm a stickler for historical accuracy of events-not a twisted version from someone's angle who is out to advance their cause.
If Major Rogers *knowingly* jumped on a live gernade saving 2 straight soldiers who he knew were straight then I think mentioning his sexual preference would have been merited.
So in the end the Post got the story right.
It's sad when any soilder gives his life for the advancement of freedom despite their sexual preference and or orientation.
dbs
You see if I answer the above posts my words can or may be twisted here-so I will make this brief.
I will say that "asexuality" is an actual definitive medical/psycological condition of some people's sexual orientation or practice/preference.
http://www.answers.com/topic/asexuality
I threw the Togan (Polyonesian) angle in as an aside.
That said if this were a Togan with an asexual preference and he stumbled onto an IED-there probably wouldn't be a story here.
There wouldn't be "he died to advance his cause" claiming he saved other soilders lives-as the mindset here is and the story has been twisted here.
The Togan would have died honorably as Maj. Alan G. Rogers and both died accidently altough honoarably for their country.
I'm a stickler for historical accuracy of events-not a twisted version from someone's angle who is out to advance their cause.
If Major Rogers *knowingly* jumped on a live gernade saving 2 straight soldiers who he knew were straight then I think mentioning his sexual preference would have been merited.
So in the end the Post got the story right.
It's sad when any soilder gives his life for the advancement of freedom despite their sexual preference and or orientation.
dbs
Last edited:
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
Agreed. Especially when he doesn't have the full freedoms his fellow Americans have.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
of everything you posted, this makes the least amount of sense.
how does it matter how he died? what if he died from a heart attack while in Iraq? or what if he died freeing 5 captive americans and leading a blazing gun battle out of an Iraqi prison, one wounded soldier slung over his shoulder, and killed 15 insurgents before taking several rounds to the chest? if that happened, would we get to know not only if he was gay, but if he were more top or bottom?
the point cannot be altered. this was a gay man. people knew he was gay. he worked vigorously to end the DADT policy. and he died in the service of his country. if an obituary is going to get into his life and personality, then this detail about his life, something that he obviously thought was pretty important, should be mentioned. and it's omission is what is homophobic.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
He was a soilder first, an activist second.
dbs
dbs
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
Says the man that tried to make MLK a conservative by today's standards...
Do you know if he would have agreed with that assessment, though?
I would think given today's climate for homosexuals, there's a good chance he would have identified himself as a homosexual before he identified himself as a soldier.
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
Irvine511 said:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:
My thought is if he was so disgusted with the policy he would have quit the military as a conscientious objector.
That he served even though he didn't like the policy and was fighting to overturn it makes him a solider first and an activist second, which is why I admired him.
His job was harder because of the circumstance he was in surely, but that does not supercede the fact he could of quit once the military implemented DADT.
He chose to be a soilder first and actvist 2nd, no matter how you slice it and we should be should be thankful as his countrymen for his service, end of story.
No need to start a pecking over KIA because of a soilder's conflict with certain military policies-when they die in the line of service.
dbs
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Wow, someone just doesn't know his facts...
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
i think for him, being a soldier *was* being an activist.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511 said:
That's fine, but it got him killed, which is heart wrenching.
dbs
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
That's fine, but it got him killed, which is heart wrenching.
dbs
i have no idea what you mean by this.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
I think he could have done more outside of the military (if it's meant to be) and still be alive today.
dbs
dbs
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
do you have any idea whatsoever how hurtful your comments are?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
My god, the more you post, the worse it gets...
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nevermind.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
anitram said:
I'm looking at this soilder's desires objectively and pragmatically and how he could have been more successful of what he felt his life's calling was.
In my view being an "interloper" (archaic meaning please) in the service wasn't his best or most effective move for his cause -that's all.
I love him for being a soilder first and foremost and appreciate his sacrifice.
dbs
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
He felt his life calling was to be a soldier, but you(and so many others) obviously don't want him there, so now he should change his "calling"? Why, your bigotry? Please.
There's nothing objective or pragmatic about your stance, so don't even try to pass it off as that...
Similar threads
