Opponents of Calif gay history law seek referendum Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/26/1986454/opponents-of-calif-gay-history.html#ixzz1THWjiMn4

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I already said I do not tolerate bigots. I see you refuse to give the actual context some value. I know this is a game you like to play- and you'll be playing it with yourself tonight.

I've given it plenty of context and still see you as a bigot pushing the gay agenda. So be it, but, true tolerance should allow you to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you without the name-calling. You suck at that.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Sofiyya

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dude you should seriously have some gay sex and get it over with. Really, look up that Freudian analysis... your graphic description is pretty telling.

He already has...in the form of nocturnal emissions. He just needs two gay neighbors inviting him over for cocktails to push him to the next level.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

He already has...in the form of nocturnal emissions. He just needs two gay neighbors inviting him over for cocktails to push him to the next level.

You coming out of the closet Steven? Seeing how your so pro homosexual I wouldn't be surprised one bit if you took the tube steak a few times...and probably loved it eh?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Why_Me

[Zero Sum 305]

I've given it plenty of context and still see you as a bigot pushing the gay agenda. So be it, but, true tolerance should allow you to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you without the name-calling. You suck at that.

I do not try to hide it nor my perspective that bigotry is a blight on human behavior.

If you take offense to my intolerance of bigots, that's your problem. Does this make me label you a tacit sympathizer of the bigots themselves? No, I do not say that. You are inventing things as they are convenient to you, and you have your reasons for doing so.

What I have been clear of since the first time I mentioned it- is that bigots will always fall back on the tolerance of intolerance argument when they know full well their bigoted views are not favored on in society as much as they were in less modern days. Maybe that's something you should think about a bit.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Lower left hand corner:

Be the first of your friends to like this.

No thanks!

[Zero Sum 305]

The only context and substance you provide here, Sofi- is that you can't provide actual proof of anything other than your own chips in your own game. And that is not being truthful in any way. An objective reader can decide that for him or herself.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I do not try to hide it nor my perspective that bigotry is a blight on human behavior.

Your own biases are an exception to that rule?

If you take offense to my intolerance of bigots, that's your problem. Does this make me label you a tacit sympathizer of the bigots themselves? No, I do not say that. You are inventing things as they are convenient to you, and you have your reasons for doing so.

I'm hardly offended. I'm just curious about why you're trying to deny things that are so inconvenient for you, but so obvious to others. I understand that bigotry is as normal as breathing. You're trying to stamp it out by embracing it. That's soooo interesting to me.

What I have been clear of since the first time I mentioned it- is that bigots will always fall back on the tolerance of intolerance argument when they know full well their bigoted views are not favored on in society as much as they were in less modern days. Maybe that's something you should think about a bit.

But, when you preach tolerance, especially in such a rigid manner, as you do, you open yourself up to questioning about how sincere your devotion to tolerance is. I seriously see no difference between your allowance that you can oppose and abuse people if you believe you are not being bigoted, but no one should oppose or abuse you without being labeled a bigot.

The only context and substance you provide here, Sofi- is that you can't provide actual proof of anything other than your own chips in your own game. And that is not being truthful in any way. An objective reader can decide that for him or herself.

This exchange would be a lot easier for me if you were an objective reader.

[Zero Sum 305]

In my opinion, my bias is against behaviors that are destructive to people getting along. Its unfortunate you wish to not notice that, once again. No, I fully accept the negative consequences of calling out bigots for what they are. In real life, these consequences usually involve violence by those same arses. Unless that is something you in your all-knowing truth will not confirm nor deny and instead focus on the evil, hurtful nature of not tolerating bigotry. It is indeed so very telling.

But because you continue to place words in my mouth, accusing me of denying things I admit- is this an attempt at trying to make me lose control like Why_Me does consistently? Keep trying then. Its your game.

At least I admit what I admit. You on the other hand, continue your exercise in online narcissism for whatever reason.

The exercise is over at this point.

Your own biases are an exception to that rule?

I'm hardly offended. I'm just curious about why you're trying to deny things that are so inconvenient for you, but so obvious to others. I understand that bigotry is as normal as breathing. You're trying to stamp it out by embracing it. That's soooo interesting to me.

But, when you preach tolerance, especially in such a rigid manner, as you do, you open yourself up to questioning about how sincere your devotion to tolerance is. I seriously see no difference between your allowance that you can oppose and abuse people if you believe you are not being bigoted, but no one should oppose or abuse you without being labeled a bigot.

This exchange would be a lot easier for me if you were an objective reader.

[Zero Sum 305]

Reminding ourselves of objectivity in reading- we need to be focusing on the actual law that is being avoided by the usual suspects. Only a couple of opinions have been shared here. Obviously the shock troll wants to avoid it. I see a couple of hidden members reading now.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If Kip would just go out and meet his neighbors, he'll eventually meet a gay couple who will help him come to terms with his repressed homosexual urges.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

this threads gettin locked soon.

Or, heavily dosed with disinfectant.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In my opinion, my bias is against behaviors that are destructive to people getting along. Its unfortunate you wish to not notice that, once again.

What I notice is that you're failing to get along, so, how's that working out for you?

No, I fully accept the negative consequences of calling out bigots for what they are. In real life, these consequences usually involve violence by those same arses. Unless that is something you in your all-knowing truth will not confirm nor deny and instead focus on the evil, hurtful nature of not tolerating bigotry. It is indeed so very telling.

I'm not tolerating your bigotry and advocacy without question. If people don't want gay sex and the gay lifestyle forced on their school kids, you blindly call them bigoted because they're not as "enlightened" as you believe yourself to be.

I say, hey, this is America; if people don't want the gay agenda, I don't argue. If they do, like you, fine, just don't tell me I have no choice other than to accept the choice you're making for me.

But because you continue to place words in my mouth, accusing me of denying things I admit- is this an attempt at trying to make me lose control like Why_Me does consistently? Keep trying then. Its your game.

You won't admit you're as bigoted as Why_Me, just pro what he's anti. You cloak your intolerance in a flimsy film of moral superiority which comes across as insincere. I just find that fascinating. You can cease to respond to my interest whenever you like.

At least I admit what I admit. You on the other hand, continue your exercise in online narcissism for whatever reason.

The exercise is over at this point.

More tolerant name-calling? Your admissions are dripping with hypocrisy. You've been called out and should consider toning your self-righteous denials down a couple of notches.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Zero Sum 305]

Yeah, Sofi... its not going to work.

[Zero Sum 305]

Given the reduction of observing members, its safe to say there is little reason that can be had with people that cannot be reasoned with.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yeah, Sofi... its not going to work.

No nefarious intent on my part. Finally, you must have caught on to how you sound to folks other than yourself.

Self-awareness is good for the bigoted soul.

Given the reduction of observing members, its safe to say there is little reason that can be had with people that cannot be reasoned with.

Or, they could have a life that takes them away from this board.