Just think of the most cliche-ed annoying pre-pubescent kid sidekick in any movie you've seen, multiply annoyance factor by ten, turn into a whiney teenager in a lycra jumpsuit and there you go.

Aldo wrote:Just think of the most cliche-ed annoying pre-pubescent kid sidekick in any movie you've seen, multiply annoyance factor by ten, turn into a whiney teenager in a lycra jumpsuit and there you go.

That's actually one of the better descriptions I've heard.

McCaully Kaulkin (sp?) in spandex?

*shudders*

Raa wrote:McCaully Kaulkin (sp?) in spandex?

*shudders*

ah, now you see it.

But subtract the slapstick comedy for poorly acted teen angst and technobabble.

Ahh, so like the kid they added at the end of Voyager? The ex-Borg?

aldo wrote:Are you saying that homosexual couples should not admit to be homosexual or display that in public, or what?

Of course he is. The sooner he makes it a dirty secret the sooner he can claim that it's an aberation that very few people have and therefore we can get back to stoning people who do it.

Raa wrote:
McCaully Kaulkin (sp?) in spandex?

Yes... yes I did write that... :nervous:

Anyway, yes. Kara's right.

Scary.....

That was my point!

Wil Wheaton has got to be one of the greasiest looking individuals since Peewee Hermann

karajorma wrote:

aldo wrote:Are you saying that homosexual couples should not admit to be homosexual or display that in public, or what?

Of course he is. The sooner he makes it a dirty secret the sooner he can claim that it's an aberation that very few people have and therefore we can get back to stoning people who do it.

It is an aberation. It doesn't have to be a dirty little secret for it to be. It's unnatural if nothing else. Everybody is worried about offending the gay segment. What about me? Homosexuality offends me.

So, it's not okay to be against homosexuality. However, because I and hundreds of millions like me are against it, it's okay to be against us?

No, but when you predjudice a group of people, you can usually expect another group to do the same to you.

Plus, you aren't going to make a lot of friends by being anti-gay/lesbian all the time. Thats like being pro-christian or anti-christian publically. There are GOING to be people who take offence at things.

liberator wrote: It is an aberation. It doesn't have to be a dirty little secret for it to be. It's unnatural if nothing else. Everybody is worried about offending the gay segment. What about me? Homosexuality offends me.

So, it's not okay to be against homosexuality. However, because I and hundreds of millions like me are against it, it's okay to be against us?

If you consider ok to be against someone, I consider it ok to be against you. Sorry if that's harsh, but I'm a pretty pacifistic 'find the best solution for all', pro-tolerance type bloke.

Tolerance is easy. I will admit that I can be - and indeed am - homophobic at a personal level but, intellecutally, I know that is wrong in both a logical and moral sense. You can't hate someone for being who they are, with the only exception to that rule being if they're hurting people (hence you can hate murderers for being murderers, etc). So I'm correcting that little subconscious defect to be more accepting.

If I judge people for what lifestyle they choose, or how life wires them up to choose it, then I'm being hypocritical - because I wouldn't accept someone judging my choices in life.

There's no more justification in being offended by homosexuality than there is in being offended by rain being wet, or grass being green. If you believe in God and on the basis of that it is wrong, then God'll judge them when they die, so why prejudice now? I always thought one of the fundamental tenements of Christianity was tolerance of others even if they are different, but maybe I was mistaken.

Besides which, you don't have to make any extra effort to be tolerant. But you do to hate something.

liberator wrote:

karajorma wrote:Of course he is. The sooner he makes it a dirty secret the sooner he can claim that it's an aberation that very few people have and therefore we can get back to stoning people who do it.

It is an aberation. It doesn't have to be a dirty little secret for it to be. It's unnatural if nothing else. Everybody is worried about offending the gay segment. What about me? Homosexuality offends me.

What I was saying is that you can't publically start stoning gay people now cause there are millions of them but if you succeed in driving it underground you can then execute the few who do stumble into the public eye and claim that there are only a few of them.

Besides this isn't just about them offending you. You've already admitted to the desire to commit a hate crime.

If a nazi were to say that people are too careful to not offend jews but no one cares that jews offend him would you support his desire to shut them up?

What if a klansman said the same thing about black people?

Your comments put you in the same group as those people. And that's why no one gives a flying toss what offends you. We care when someone with a reasonable outlook on life gets offended because that means it was likely something that would offend us where the conditions reversed.

Your taking offense is not reasonable. So no one cares about it.