Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 123

Thread: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

  1. #41
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    It's done.
    Thanks for that.

  2. #42

    Thread Starter
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    4,915

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    You certainly think like a right-winger; that's for sure. Everything you said here is utter hogwash.

    Firstly, let's say that you wake up one morning and you don't feel like eating chocolate cake, then in the afternoon you feel like eating chocolate cake and so you then eat some chocolate cake. You made the decision to eat the chocolate cake but you never made a decision to want to eat chocolate cake. That was outside of your control. Your "argument" is just a repurposing of the same failed argument relating to gay people. It's not like everyone is born straight and then some people make an active choice to be attracted to the same sex instead. People choose who to have sex with but they don't choose who they want to have sex with. Being gay is not a choice and neither is being trans. Trans people don't decide that their gender identity doesn't match their sex. They realise it. A trans woman/man doesn't decide that their inner concept of self is that of a woman/man. They realise it.

    Your example demonstrates that you have no real concept of what it is to be trans. A trans man would not be cis until the age of 16 and then start "feeling at odds with their birth-assigned gender identity". A trans person feels at odds with the sex they're assigned at birth as long as they have a gender identity. They don't have the language to describe or understand it at first, which is why they will often not express it for some time, if ever, but it's always there because it's a part of them. It often takes a long time to come to terms with being transgender and then make the decision to actually transition, especially when much of the world is telling you that it's wrong and, quite possibly, so are all the people close to you whom you love and trust. The fact that someone chooses to physically transition at 20 years old doesn't mean that they they were cis at 19 and chose to be trans. It means that they came to terms with the fact that they are trans - have always been trans - and are now ready to take the big step to change their body to match their mind. Wanting others to refer to them the way they see themselves is not some snap decision but an acknowledgement of who they are and have always been and a desire for the world to tell them that they're a valuable person as they are. I'm sure that the turmoil a trans person suffers their entire life is nothing compared to what you would have to endure if you were to use pronouns that matched a person's gender identity rather than their sex. Please, don't do anything to help trans people feel accepted when doing so would be such an ordeal.
    Wow, that was really well said. It took my nephew many years to finally tell his father. Even then his dad tried to explain the hardships this CHOICE would cause, his son had to explain it wasn't a choice and he was well aware of difficulties of being gay. His dad wasn't trying to be mean in any way, he just had that common misconception.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    37,553

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    If you look back over the last fifty years, the religious right in the US has largely been defined by its enemy. For a long time, it was communism. That was a very nice enemy to have. It was safe to be opposed to the communists. Nobody was really defending them, and they were safely 'over there'. The main point about communism was the anti-Christian views of some of the large countries that called themselves communist (they never were truly communist, but that's a different matter, it was just a label).

    Unfortunately, the USSR collapsed, and China was weak, at the time. China wasn't enough to get anyone riled up. So, the religious right needed a new enemy. They couldn't focus on race, as that wasn't really tractable by the time that communism fell, so they focused on homosexuality and abortion rights. They lost on the first, and the second wasn't really moving the needle any. Up until they needed a new enemy, trans wasn't even a thing. Now it's a thing.

    It's not the people that have changed, it's the need to have something to fight about that has changed.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  4. #44
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    37,553

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    decide that you're a ......, a "xi" or whatever else, that's fine
    THAT's the pronoun we should be promoting. After all, we have plenty of marshmallows to roast as the world burns.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  5. #45
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,795

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    I never get why leftists are so exhaustingly pedantic.
    Maybe it's because you're so mealy mouthed and disingenuous in the words you choose to use. E.g. the bit where you tried to pretend that these two sentences were equivalent:-
    Somewhere between the ages of 19 and 20 she decided to do something about those feelings she had since 16. She decided that she was not a she anymore.
    The first of those sentences is correct, the second is not.

    And this really isn't a Left Right thing. It's a compassion or lack thereof thing.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  6. #46

    Thread Starter
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    4,915

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    And this really isn't a Left Right thing. It's a compassion or lack thereof thing.
    Asking for compassion from a group that work so hard at trying to find ways to deny gender identification even exists, seems like an unrealistic ask. But I guess it's better to aim high. lol

  7. #47
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    23,659

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    I think the pendulum is swinging back toward the center again. Even a year ago:

    Why 'wokeness' is the biggest threat to Democrats in the 2022 election

    While Drum has been beating the, um, drum on this issue of late, it's actually James Carville who was the first to warn Democrats that focusing on very liberal policies -- and demanding that the general public pronounce support for those issues or run the risk of being labeled "intolerant" -- is political poison for the party.

    "Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It's hard to talk to anybody today -- and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party -- who doesn't say this. But they don't want to say it out loud," Carville, who made his name helping to elect Bill Clinton president, said in an interview with Vox this spring. Asked why his party won't admit the wokeness problem, Carville responded bluntly: "Because they'll get clobbered or canceled."

    There's data to back up those concerns too.
    You can find others within the DNC afraid of losing power for a generation who use even more colorful language like suggesting it is time to lock the monsters back in the basement. They are becoming less and less reticent about saying it aloud.


    So there is no need to get so excited. Americans are not as nuts as the media have been trying to convince us we are.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    Being gay is not a choice and neither is being trans. Trans people don't decide that their gender identity doesn't match their sex. They realise it. A trans woman/man doesn't decide that their inner concept of self is that of a woman/man. They realise it.

    Your example demonstrates that you have no real concept of what it is to be trans. A trans man would not be cis until the age of 16 and then start "feeling at odds with their birth-assigned gender identity". A trans person feels at odds with the sex they're assigned at birth as long as they have a gender identity. They don't have the language to describe or understand it at first, which is why they will often not express it for some time, if ever, but it's always there because it's a part of them. It often takes a long time to come to terms with being transgender and then make the decision to actually transition, especially when much of the world is telling you that it's wrong and, quite possibly, so are all the people close to you whom you love and trust.
    I don't think you realize what a big ask this is. We are essentially asking people to go on faith here. How would I know about what goes on inside a persons head? People can say anything. How can I truly know the difference between someone deciding that they are a "he" and not a "she" and them not deciding it but instead, always feeling this way? I can't. I can only take what they say on faith.

    Don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying that what you're saying is not true. This could very well be 100% true but we also cannot pretend it is fact either. Until someone invents a way to go into someone's mind, we have to accept a lot of this on faith. To that end, we should not be compelling speech because it is no different to religious intolerance.

    Compelling someone by law or through shaming language to use certain pronouns is the same as compelling say a Christian to accept Allah. I mean think about it. Lets say leftists start pushing an agenda to introduce a new way to greet people and they decide that instead of saying "Hello" people should say "As-salamu alaykum". Christians might feel some kind of way about that and rightly so because you're compelling them through speech to acknowledge a faith that is not their own. This is tyrannical. How can you not see this? Are you going to demonize Christians for refusing to use this phrase the same way you demonize people for using the wrong gendered pronoun?

    There are even bigger problems here too. Think about otherkin. Yes, this is actually a thing. By compelling speech, you open the doors to mainstreaming this kind of insanity. Some mentally ill person named Bob could just decide that he is not human. He might decide he is an elf. He might demand that people refer to him as "High Elven Lord Bob". Are we now going to start classifying people who refuse to acknowledge his "title" as bigots? He could hijack the same the same channels used by the gay and transgender community and say that he didn't "choose" to be an elf but was always so. If we accept these arguments as fact and not faith, then by this we are forced to accept Bob's reasoning as fact. Now High Elevel Lord Bob would go through his life never getting the help that he needs to treat his mental illness because as far as we are concerned he really is an elf. Is this the world you want? I hope when your 16 year old daughter decides that she is a vampire and tries to drink the blood of her new born baby brother that you can be accepting of this because after all, she didn't "choose" it. I hope you stand by your principles and assure her that it's not her fault even as you're burying your son.

    Let me use your own words to show you how this could happen:-
    Being a vampire is not a choice and neither is being an elf. Vampires don't decide that their species based identity doesn't match their species. They realise it. A vampire woman/man doesn't decide that their inner concept of self is that of a vampire. They realise it.

    Your example demonstrates that you have no real concept of what it is to be vampire. A vampire would not be human until the age of 16 and then start "feeling at odds with their birth-assigned species identity". A vampire feels at odds with the species they're assigned at birth as long as they have a species identity. They don't have the language to describe or understand it at first, which is why they will often not express it for some time, if ever, but it's always there because it's a part of them. It often takes a long time to come to terms with being a vampire and then make the decision to actually try and drink someone's blood, especially when much of the world is telling you that it's wrong and, quite possibly, so are all the people close to you whom you love and trust.
    Do you see the problem here? We have to be able to talk about this. I have zero problems with gays and transgender people. My problem is not with them but with the over-zealous behavior of progressives/leftists in America. Their zealotry could lead to some very disastrously consequences for society. If it gets to the point where this kind of thing cannot be challenged because people have become too afraid of being labeled a bigot of some kind then we open to the door to insanity. Again, look at my example of the 16 year old girl that drinks her baby brother's blood because she thinks she is a vampire. I don't want to deny the rights of gays and transgenders. Hell I don't even want to tell otherkin folk that they are not whatever they say they are. What I want is for us to be free to talk openly about these issues without inciting witch-hunts. This would include the freedom for some folk to reject some of these notions. If Bob comes to me telling me to call him High Eleven Lord Bob, I want to be free to either acknowledge his title or tell to him that he is crazy and should seek help. We cannot be so quick to dismiss and demonize people for having a different point of view. As I said at the start of this entire post, a lot of this comes down to faith. No free society compels people to accept any specific faith. We should not compel people on these issues either.

  9. #49
    Super Moderator Shaggy Hiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    37,553

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    In the end, it's mostly the poor that will suffer. The rich have never been unduly inconvenienced, and the middle class will only be marginally so. The poor, as always, take it in the shorts.
    My usual boring signature: Nothing

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    In NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll conducted shortly after the 2018 midterm elections, a clear majority of people (52%) said they were "against the country becoming more politically correct and upset that there are too many things people can't say anymore."
    It seems that 52% of Americans agreed with me in 2018. Perhaps there is hope for America after all.

  11. #51
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    23,659

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Fatigue might bring about some moderation if nothing else does.

  12. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    @dilettante

    I get the feeling you might find this interesting:-


    This is more upstream of the stuff I usually talk about concerning leftists but I can't help but feel the woke insanity gripping the American elite and cultural leaders might somehow be related to this. I can't put my finger on it yet but I have a strong feeling the downstream effects of the strategies employed by democrats to gain power in America is feeding the insane leftist garbage pervading mainstream media today.

  13. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
    Fatigue might bring about some moderation if nothing else does.
    The really question who will be fatigued first.

  14. #54
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    23,659

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    I wonder if this is an example of the kind of thing Dems are funding to drive and drag people away from centrist positions:



    It sure seems to be a popular alternative to corporate network fare, even if it does just follow their own formula with a few content tweaks.

    Note: It is short, just some broad low-brow humor, and doesn't dwell on the topic of its title very much.

  15. #55

    Thread Starter
    PowerPoster
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    4,915

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Alex Jones took another hit today "$45.2 million in punitive damages - on top of $4.1 million in compensatory damages".

    Hope this has some effect as a deterrent to all of the other conspiracy theorist making money spreading lies.

    I knew these people were making a living selling their snake oil but I was shocked at how much they were making. It was reported that "Jones and Infowars are worth between $135 million and $270 million combined"

    https://www.reuters.com/business/med...es-2022-08-05/

    I hope these other law suites against him take everything he has and everything he ever earns.

    It's one thing to have fears and insecurities. To believe in conspiracies as a way to cope with the world. These are not bad people, just damaged, and most of us have some form of damage. But the people that take advantage of them by knowingly telling them lies so they can make money from them, they are truly bad people. FD, will probably be disappoint in me but I have no compassion for these people. To be honest, it makes me happy when I see one of them be held accountable for his lies. Maybe that's part of my damage. lol

  16. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
    I wonder if this is an example of the kind of thing Dems are funding to drive and drag people away from centrist positions:

    I would not be surprised one bit if this were the case. This could almost pass for "leftist sarcasm"....
    Last edited by Niya; Aug 5th, 2022 at 11:06 PM. Reason: Spelling correction: past corrected to pass

  17. #57
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    We have to be able to talk about this.
    We can. The problem is that people won't listen. You ask "how can we tell the difference" but you've already decided that it's a choice. You've done so without any effort to find out whether it is or not, as far as I can tell. In my opinion, the primary difference between left-wing thinking and right-wing thinking is empathy. Those on the right are unable to consider how people different to themselves think and feel and thus they see them as other and inherently bad. Those on the right can't imagine what it would feel like for your gender identity not to match your sex so they assume that it can't and anyone claiming that theirs doesn't is either mentally ill or lying.

  18. #58
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    In NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll conducted shortly after the 2018 midterm elections, a clear majority of people (52%) said they were "against the country becoming more politically correct and upset that there are too many things people can't say anymore."
    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    It seems that 52% of Americans agreed with me in 2018. Perhaps there is hope for America after all.
    I'd be interested to get some sample lists of the things that people think they can't say and why they want to say them. Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything that I want to say that I can't. Given how many white Americans I've heard complaining that they can't say n*****, I think it's safe to say that, in the vast majority of cases, it's words that are explicitly insulting to minority groups. The majority don't experience what it feels like to have such terms used to describe them all the time so, yet again, it comes down to whether you have empathy for those groups or not. Those who do have empathy don't want them subjected to those insults and those who don't have empathy don't care if they are and are more concerned about their own ordeal of thinking about what they say. For those who understand how it makes a black person feel to hear a white person say it, not say n***** is not even an effort. For those who have never experienced what that feels like and thus don't accept that it can and does feel incredibly hurtful, all they care about is that it feel good to them to say it and they don't want to miss out on that.

    As you're here, how about you start the ball rolling? Can you provide a list of things that you think you can't say and why you want to say them? We can skip the gender-specific pronouns because we already know that you can say those and your problem is using the ones that trans people prefer because, despite the fact that every trans person says otherwise, you're concerned that they might all be lying and they really just chose to make their lives significantly more difficult and to be hated by a large chunk of society. What else you got?

  19. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    We can. The problem is that people won't listen. You ask "how can we tell the difference" but you've already decided that it's a choice. You've done so without any effort to find out whether it is or not, as far as I can tell.
    You completely missed the point. We cannot prove it it is a choice, nor can we prove it is not. Therefore this falls in the same realm as religious dogma and not fact. On these grounds it is unjust to compel people in either direction. Just as we are free to choose our own religion, we should also be free to choose whether we accept this or not.

  20. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    I'd be interested to get some sample lists of the things that people think they can't say and why they want to say them.

    As you're here, how about you start the ball rolling? Can you provide a list of things that you think you can't say and why you want to say them?
    I think you're being very disingenuous here. If we take that poll at face value, it indicates that 171.34 million Americans know what those things are. I refuse to believe that you don't know something 171 million people have figured out. Come on man.

  21. #61
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    You completely missed the point. We cannot prove it it is a choice, nor can we prove it is not. Therefore this falls in the same realm as religious dogma and not fact. On these grounds it is unjust to compel people in either direction. Just as we are free to choose our own religion, we should also be free to choose whether we accept this or not.
    Your comparison to religion is utter garbage for several reasons.

    Firstly, religions make claims about something external to all human beings. Religions claim that something exists beyond us and that we can all experience that and, in many cases that we actually do experience it, with no credible evidence to back that up. Religious people talk about their experiences all the time and I accept that in many of those experiences are real and in some cases where they're not, the people making the claims are still convinced they're real. I just don't believe that the source of those experiences is a god because I see no credible evidence that that god exists. Transgender people, on the other hand, are not making any claims about anything external to themselves. They are relaying their own experience too and yet you are suggesting that they might all be lying and many others are asserting outright that they are. NOT THE SAME.

    Religious dogma tells you that you should - possibly must - follow the many rules of that religion. Transgender "dogma" doesn't tell you that you must or should be transgender or even could be transgender. At the absolute most, it tells you to switch your use of gender-specific pronouns for some people. Oh, that that was all religion did.

    I agree that we can't prove whether or not being transgender is a choice but you are simply being irrational in no accepting that it's not. Consider the number of transgender people in the world and consider the hardship those people go through. Consider what they have to endure from many corners society and what many put themselves through to achieve physical change. Considering that, what do you think the chances are that being transgender is not a real thing and all those people just decided to subject themselves to all that for no apparent reason? I honestly can't see how any rational person can conclude that the best explanation for those who say they are transgender subjecting themselves to that is that pretending to be something other than what they feel they are is even worse.

    You say that we can't prove it either way but it seems to me that you have taken the faith-based position that being transgender is a choice. You seem to have chosen to believe that all those who claim to be transgender are lying about their experience, despite any evidence to support that. If you just didn't know either way, it seems to me that the decent thing to do would be to use people's preferred pronouns just in case it wasn't a choice. Instead, you're choosing to risk helping to make life that much worse for those who have already endured a lot in order to save yourself the utter lack of any suffering using preferred pronouns would entail. What a guy. I don't claim to personally understand what it feels like to be trans but but I do listen to what trans people say it feels like. If what they're saying is true - and I have no specific reason to doubt it, given the prevalence and consistency of the accounts - then I can help make their lives better by using their preferred pronouns. If they're lying, I've literally lost nothing. It's like the Pascal's Wager that some religious people like to use except, in this case, it literally does cost you nothing.

    I've listened to various trans people online and I've encountered some trans people in my life and there is one trans person quite close to me (my partner's best friend's sister). I didn't know her before she transitioned so I have only ever known her as a women. If you weren't told she was trans, you'd never even wonder whether she'd been born male. She is a normal woman in every way. I know how much it would hurt her to be referred to as "he". Maybe you think she would be lying about it hurting too.

  22. #62
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    I think you're being very disingenuous here. If we take that poll at face value, it indicates that 171.34 million Americans know what those things are. I refuse to believe that you don't know something 171 million people have figured out. Come on man.
    Nice dodge but no, I'm not being disingenuous. To be frank, I think that "you can't say anything anymore" has become a trope at this stage. I have literally seen numerous people in various comment sections complain that they're not allowed to say what they literally just said. It's simply people wanting to play the victim, making out that they are being hard-done by so that they don't have to consider the actual reasons why they can't say the few things that actually are restricted.

    It's kinda funny that you often find those who complain about their speech being restricted are also the same ones who complain if someone swears in open conversation. I tend to swear plenty in conversation with those close to me but I generally don't swear at all when conversing publicly, in person or online, because I know that many people don't like it and places like this forum don't allow it for that reason.

    As I said earlier, in my experience, the things that you genuinely aren't allowed to say are usually slurs, be they racial or otherwise. If there's anything else, I'm all ears. If you're not willing to provide any at all then I'm going to have to assume that, just like so many others, you just want to claim that you can't say certain things because you want to feel put upon.

    I should also add that I have had various comments moderated or outright rejected when commenting on various news stories. It is often when they contain words that are or could be construed as insulting and I need to be more careful with my wording. It's usually automated systems that are responsible for this and that's often because they have limited intelligence and reject things that a real person would find acceptable but are so often used to attack or insult that the software errs on the side of caution. I'm pretty much always able to get my point across if I avoid ad homs and am a bit careful about my wording. Others could do the same but they don't feel that they should have to take any care. These are generally privileged people who don't know what it's like to be part of a minority group that is the one usually being insulted or attacked.

  23. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    Nice dodge but no, I'm not being disingenuous. To be frank, I think that "you can't say anything anymore" has become a trope at this stage. I have literally seen numerous people in various comment sections complain that they're not allowed to say what they literally just said. It's simply people wanting to play the victim, making out that they are being hard-done by so that they don't have to consider the actual reasons why they can't say the few things that actually are restricted.

    It's kinda funny that you often find those who complain about their speech being restricted are also the same ones who complain if someone swears in open conversation. I tend to swear plenty in conversation with those close to me but I generally don't swear at all when conversing publicly, in person or online, because I know that many people don't like it and places like this forum don't allow it for that reason. I don't see you complaining about not being able to swear here or in other online forums yet people who have no issue with that.

    As I said earlier, in my experience, the things that you genuinely aren't allowed to say are usually slurs, be they racial or otherwise. If there's anything else, I'm all ears. If you're not willing to provide any at all then I'm going to have to assume that, just like so many others, you just want to claim that you can't say certain things because you want to feel put upon.
    Look up "cancel culture". Should tell you everything you need to know.

  24. #64
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    Look up "cancel culture". Should tell you everything you need to know.
    Yeah, no. That's just more playing the victim. Cancelling can be a thing but "cancel culture" has become a blanket term for criticism of right-leaning (or maybe non-left-leaning) people or ideas. People whined about Dave Chapelle being cancelled when all that happened was people commented online that they thought he was wrong and why. Absolutely nothing happened to Dave Chappelle. I saw a video a little while back where Dr Oz appeared on Fox News and claimed that he was being cancelled because, during his political campaign for the US senate, a newspaper referred to him as Mehmet Oz rather than Dr Oz. Absolutely nothing happened to Dr Oz. If that's being cancelled, you can cancel me all you like.

    It's your prerogative to refuse to provide an examples of things you can't say but, given how little effort it would take to do so, I can only assume that you won't because you can't. Then again, given how little effort it takes to use people's preferred pronouns and the fact that you refuse to do that, maybe I'm wrong. I very much doubt it though. You seem to want to put it on me, like I should already know, to provide plausible deniability. Your denial isn't plausible. I've thought about it and the only things I can come up with that you can't say are slurs that I am fine with people not being able to say. If you've got anything else, I'm all ears.

    Going back to the Dave Chappelle example, the crux of that whole situation was him saying "I'm on team TERF". He said it. No one stopped him saying. Many people said that he shouldn't have said it but no one stopped him saying it and he could say it again if he wanted to and probably has. Many people defended Chappelle by claiming that those criticising him can't take a joke but the fact is that it wasn't a joke. It was said during a comedy routine and he said it in such a way as those "on his side" would laugh but he was accurately representing his position. A joke would be if it wasn't really true but it was true. People who disagree with him have every right to disagree and criticise, yet those who complain that you can't say anything anymore want those people to be silent. Nothing actually happened to Dave Chappelle yet so many cried "cancel culture". A bunch of hypocritical cry-babies if you ask me.

  25. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    Religious dogma tells you that you should - possibly must - follow the many rules of that religion.
    Leftist dogma implicitly states that referring not referring to a person by their preferred pronoun makes you bigot or some kind of "phobe" or "misogynist" or "racist" or whatever. All these terms are confusing. Maybe you can clarify what the actual "sin" is here.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    You say that we can't prove it either way but it seems to me that you have taken the faith-based position that being transgender is a choice. You seem to have chosen to believe that all those who claim to be transgender are lying about their experience....
    I don't think they are lying. I believe at least some of them feel what they say they feel. However, it's just that, a belief. I cannot prove this belief to be true. Based on this I do not feel the need to condemn a person if they choose refer to a MTF trans person as "he". I am willing to accept that someone else may not believe that they are being truthful, just as I would be accepting of them believing in Christ even if I believe in Allah.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    I know how much it would hurt her to be referred to as "he"
    It would be impolite and downright disrespectful to refer to her as a "he" in her presence. It would also be disrespectful to those that love and accepted her to refer to her as "he" in their presence, even in her absence. However, if me and a group of people not connected to her in any meaningful way were having a casual conversation, say in a bar somewhere and somebody in this group referred to her as "he", I will not make any attempt whatsoever to "correct" this person. Here is the interesting part, if this person were to do this same thing in her presence, I will feel compelled to correct this person on the grounds of basic human decency and tolerance. It may deeply wound her. Even though he may not see her as a woman, this doesn't mean he can't show her some compassion. But that's where it stops for me. I will not go beyond that and try to convince this person that he is a bigot or whatever because he doesn't believe she is a woman. He should extent her the courtesy of using her preferred pronouns. It's the decent thing to do but he is under no obligation to accept her transition as real.
    Last edited by Niya; Aug 6th, 2022 at 12:41 AM.

  26. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    It's your prerogative to refuse to provide an examples of things you can't say but, given how little effort it would take to do so, I can only assume that you won't because you can't.
    You think this is my first dance? Your goal here is not really to have a serious discussion. Your goal here is to virtue signal so you can score brownie points with leftists. I'm humoring you by even attempting to have a discussion about the issue of pronouns but make no mistake, I know what you're really doing and why you are actually having this back and forth with me. I'm not new to this.

    I could easily provide the list you ask for but the reason I put it on you is to see how serious you are about actually having this discussion in good faith. As expected, you didn't even make the minimum effort to actually try to understand what me and the 52% of people in the poll linked in dilettante's post are actually talking about. What you really want to do is goad me into making more posts so you can quote and point out to everyone what a big bad right-wing nut Niya is because this would score points with your leftist overlords.

    If you really want to talk about it, meet me half way and I'll know you're serious and not just here to make me your punching bag in order to demonstrate to everyone what a "good leftist" you are.

  27. #67
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    Leftist dogma implicitly states that referring not referring to a person by their preferred pronoun makes you bigot or some kind of "phobe" or "misogynist" or "racist" or whatever. All these terms are confusing. Maybe you can clarify what the actual "sin" is here.
    We both know you're not confused. We both know you're just playing confused so you can pretend that the supposedly confusing thing doesn't make sense. If you disagree, by all means disagree, but don't pretend that you don't understand, unless you actually want us to believe that you're not as smart as we give you credit for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    I don't think they are lying. I believe at least some of them feel what they say they feel. However, it's just that, a belief. I cannot prove this belief to be true. Based on this I do not feel the need to condemn a person if they choose refer to a MTF trans person as "he". I am willing to accept that someone else may not believe that they are being truthful, just as I would be accepting of them believing in Christ even if I believe in Allah.
    You hold that belief because it is logical to do so. If your belief is wrong then it follows that every transgender person is lying, which is not a logical conclusion. If someone is going to come to a position for bad reasons, i am going to condemn them. Anti-trans sentiment is largely the result of religion, even from people who aren't especially religious. That and the fact that many people are threatened by something that they don't understand and threatens their simplistic view of the world. I'm willing to condemn those people for choosing to make some people's lives more difficult based on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    It would be impolite and downright disrespectful to refer to her as a "he" in her presence. It would also be disrespectful to those that love and accepted her to refer to her as "he" in their presence, even in her absence. However, if me and a group of people not connected to her in any meaningful way were having a casual conversation, say in a bar somewhere and somebody in this group referred to her as "he", I will not make any attempt whatsoever to "correct" this person. Here is the interesting part, if this person were to do this same thing in her presence, I will feel compelled to correct this person on the grounds of basic human decency and tolerance. It may deeply wound her. Even though he may not see her as a woman, this doesn't mean he can't show her some compassion. But that's where it stops for me. I will not go beyond that and try to convince this person that he is a bigot or whatever because he doesn't believe she is a woman. He should extent her the courtesy of using her preferred pronouns. It's the decent thing to do but he is under no obligation to accept her transition as real.
    For the most part, I agree with that. The one real difference is that I would make an attempt to "correct" the person. If nothing else, using people's preferred pronouns all the time makes it less likely that you will use the wrong ones when you shouldn't. I saw a video recently where a white police officer was caught on her own body cam saying how much she hates "n*****s" after being flipped the bird by a black teenager. She claimed that it just "slipped out" because she was angry and she surprised herself by using the word. Disregarding the fact that she used it at least twice, so she couldn't have been too surprised, no one accidentally uses words like that in situations they know they shouldn't unless they use them regularly. The same goes for pronouns. If you use a person's preferred pronouns all the time, you'll do so without thinking when it matters. You don't even need to accept that being transgender isn't a choice to do that.

  28. #68
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    You think this is my first dance? Your goal here is not really to have a serious discussion. Your goal here is to virtue signal so you can score brownie points with leftists. I'm humoring you by even attempting to have a discussion about the issue of pronouns but make no mistake, I know what you're really doing and why you are actually having this back and forth with me. I'm not new to this.

    I could easily provide the list you ask for but the reason I put it on you is to see how serious you are about actually having this discussion in good faith. As expected, you didn't even make the minimum effort to actually try to understand what me and the 52% of people in the poll linked in dilettante's post are actually talking about. What you really want to do is goad me into making more posts so you can quote and point out to everyone what a big bad right-wing nut Niya is because this would score points with your leftist overlords.

    If you really want to talk about it, meet me half way and I'll know you're serious and not just here to make me your punching bag in order to demonstrate to everyone what a "good leftist" you are.
    You couldn't be more wrong. This isn't my first time either. My beliefs are my beliefs and my positions are my positions and I don't really care all that much whether people think I'm wonderful or terrible as a result. I am making an effort to understand what you're talking about. That's why I'm asking you what you're talking about. As I have already said more than once, I have seen numerous people complain that they can't use common slurs based on race and other minority traits. I'm perfectly fine with those words and expressions being off limits. I have also seen numerous people claim that they are not allowed to say certain things quite literally in the same comment in which they say that thing. Those people are obviously playing the victim so we can disregard their claims. I genuinely want to know what other specific things there are that you can't say because I see this claim a lot but nothing to really back it up.

    With regards to supposed cancel culture, most of the claims I see in that regard are nothing of the sort. Like I said, it's become a blanket term to discount all criticism, whether warranted or otherwise. I will say that I don't necessarily agree with cases where, for instance, someone made some racist tweets years ago when they were in their teens and they lose their job as a result. I've heard about such cases but, to hear some people tell it, there's an epidemic of this sort of thing and it's just not the case. That said, I'm not necessarily against it either, depending on the specifics. If you wouldn't give someone a job in the first place because of a history of being racist then firing someone for being racist may be justified.

    What I'm really doing is trying to get you to back up your claims so that I can refute them, if I disagree with them, or correct my own position otherwise. I don't really care what anyone else thinks either way. You can pretend otherwise to let yourself off the hook if you want. That's your prerogative.

    BTW, what exactly do you think halfway is in this case? I've read and listened to numerous claims about freedom of speech being suppressed and rampant cancel culture that I think are a complete crock and I can tell you why in each case. Why would I need to read or listen to more of the same? If you've got something real, I'd like to read that for a change.

  29. #69
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,795

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Can you provide a list of things that you think you can't say and why you want to say them?
    Can we please not go down that path. I understand why you're asking and I agree that what we do and don't find acceptable is often arbitrary but this ends up being bait that could get some banned.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  30. #70
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,795

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    I can only take what they say on faith.
    Then why don't you? It strikes me that they have considerably more expertise in the field of their own emotions than you do. Why would you not defer to that expertise?

    Based on this I do not feel the need to condemn a person if they choose refer to a MTF trans person as "he".
    Personally, I feel the need to condemn them for referring to another person as something which that person has expressly said they don't want to be referred to as. That's doesn't have to be a trans thing, it's a manners thing.

    To put it another way, if someone wants to be referred to as a vampire or a werewolf, I'm going to refer to them as a vampire or a werewolf. Chances are there'll be enough small minded bullies attacking them already without me adding to their woes.

    Are you against, for example, women keeping their maiden name after marriage?
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Aug 6th, 2022 at 04:55 AM.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  31. #71
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Can we please not go down that path. I understand why you're asking and I agree that what we do and don't find acceptable is often arbitrary but this ends up being bait that could get some banned.
    That's possible but I would think that we probably all agree that the most extreme things on such a list should be banned or, at the very least, understand why they are banned. If I wanted to make Niya's point, I'd provide the most innocuous thing on the list. As I've said though, when people claim that they can't say something, what appears to usually be the case is that people are actually free to say whatever they want but will be criticised for certain things. Supposedly, words have meaning and you can't just apply your own meaning to any word you want but it's OK to use the word "cancelled" instead of "criticised" as much as you like.

  32. #72
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,795

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Yeah, I get that and didn't think you were deliberately baiting him. I was concerned that that could easily be the effect, though, and thought it was worth applying a prevention rather than waiting for the need for an unpleasant cure.


    Aside: Niya, it's interesting that you used the straw man of someone wanting to identify as an elf earlier because I have a friend who did pretty much that when we were in our early twenties. He changed his name from Stewart to Zacnafein after a character from the TSR Dnd novels (Drizzt Do'Urden's father for any fans). I'll admit, we did give him a bit of a ribbing but no worse than we gave my mate ninja for being a red head. Mostly we simply respected it and took to calling him Zach. I mean, why wouldn't want to make our mate happy?

    What I find reprehensible about your position is that you are essentially arguing for the right to make people you don't even know miserable. What does that say about you?



    but it's OK to use the word "cancelled" instead of "criticised" as much as you like.
    I definitely recognise that phenomenon.
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Aug 6th, 2022 at 05:19 AM.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

  33. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Are you against, for example, women keeping their maiden name after marriage?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Then why don't you? It strikes me that they have considerably more expertise in the field of their own emotions than you do. Why would you not defer to that expertise?
    Then explain why we would still lock up murderers that claim they committed the murders because they were possessed a demon? Why not defer to their expertise and set them free?

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    To put it another way, if someone wants to be referred to as a vampire or a werewolf, I'm going to refer to them as a vampire or a werewolf.
    And if this "vampire" wants you cut your wrist to drink your blood, can I assume you will oblige? After all vampires need blood to survive. Would you be the bigot that denies him his right to drink blood?

  34. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    Aside: Niya, it's interesting that you used the straw man of someone wanting to identify as an elf earlier because I have a friend who did pretty much that when we were in our early twenties. He changed his name from Stewart to Zacnafein after a character from the TSR Dnd novels (Drizzt Do'Urden's father for any fans). I'll admit, we did give him a bit of a ribbing but no worse than we gave my mate ninja for being a red head. Mostly we simply respected it and took to calling him Zach. I mean, why wouldn't want to make our mate happy?
    You did this of your own free will. You were not coerced to do it under the threat of cultural ostracization.

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyDexter View Post
    What I find reprehensible about your position is that you are essentially arguing for the right to make people you don't even know miserable.
    Where did I say I want to make people miserable? I thought we already talked about making assumptions in the other thread.

  35. #75
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    Then explain why we would still lock up murderers that claim they committed the murders because they were possessed a demon? Why not defer to their expertise and set them free?
    This is yet another example of how bad the anti-trans arguments are.

    Firstly, we lock up murderers because they're dangerous. Trans people are not dangerous simply by being trans, period.

    Secondly, as I said before about religious people, I'm generally OK with accepting religious people at their word that they had certain experiences. What I'm not Ok with accepting is that those experiences were caused by a god. Religious claims relate to some external to all human beings, while transgender claims relate to something internal to a specific human being. This ridiculous example is the same. If someone claims that they were possessed by a demon then, depending on circumstances, I may well take them at their word. They may feel like they were possessed by a demon and I may well take them at their word. They are the one with the greatest expertise on how they feel, But that doesn't mean that they have any expertise on demons. Again, that is a claim that relates to something external to all human beings. I'm confident in saying that no one has any expertise on demons because they don't exist. I'm open to evidence of the contrary but I'm quite certain that, if such evidence existed, it would already have been presented. Someone who murdered because they thought they were possessed by a demon is absolutely a danger and should be locked up. That these facts are not blatantly obvious to you is of grave concern. If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were virtue signalling to right-wing transphobes because they, unlike us, are quite prepared to accept such ridiculous arguments uncritically.
    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    And if this "vampire" wants you cut your wrist to drink your blood, can I assume you will oblige? After all vampires need blood to survive. Would you be the bigot that denies him his right to drink blood?
    This is just more garbage. Firstly, we could actually test to see whether someone really was a vampire, no faith required. Given that excessive consumption of blood is dangerous, it wouldn't be hard to tell either way. Secondly, the fact that I wouldn't provide my own blood doesn't mean that I would stop someone else from doing so if they wanted, short of endangering their health. Thirdly, all trans people want of others is to use their preferred pronouns so why do you think comparing that to someone sucking blood from your body is reasonable in any way? You really are debasing yourself here.

  36. #76
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    Where did I say I want to make people miserable?
    I don't want to speak for FD but, speaking for myself, it's not necessarily that you want people to be miserable but that you're supporting a system that will undoubtedly produce that result.

  37. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcilhinney View Post
    I saw a video recently where a white police officer was caught on her own body cam saying how much she hates "n*****s" after being flipped the bird by a black teenager. She claimed that it just "slipped out" because she was angry and she surprised herself by using the word. Disregarding the fact that she used it at least twice, so she couldn't have been too surprised, no one accidentally uses words like that in situations they know they shouldn't unless they use them regularly.
    So let me guess, you leftists will pretend to care by rushing to condemn this woman for being such a horrible racist bigot. She said a "bad word" in a moment of frustration so now we burn her at the stake. This is how you do things in a supposedly enlightened country? Do you honestly think this is fooling anyone into believing you actually care?

    You know what I think when I hear this? I think should she not have backtracked. She should have stood her ground on what she said. I don't want this woman silenced or compelled to not say what she feels. I don't want her condemned and her life ruined over this. Were it not for the fact that she is an agent of the state authorized to use deadly force at her discretion, I wouldn't even want her to lose her job. But do you know what I would want? I would want to know why. I would genuinely want to know what happened in this woman's life to make her hate black people so. This is how people who really care would approach this. Leftists don't care. They just want compete with each other over who has the wittiest ways of calling her a bigot and a racist while patting each other on the back about how tolerant and progressive they are. It's utter garbage and I see right through it.

    We make progress, by having tough conversations. This woman could have understandable reasons for why she feels the way she does and we need to hear about them. We need to get to the root of the problem so we can be better equipped to solve it. Dismissing her as nothing more than a mindless racist and burning her at the proverbial stake over her use of the word helps absolutely no one and keeps us stuck indefinitely.
    Last edited by Niya; Aug 6th, 2022 at 06:20 AM.

  38. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,803

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Anyways, I'm going to bed. We can continue this later if you guys want. It's been very interesting.

  39. #79
    .NUT jmcilhinney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    108,822

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Quote Originally Posted by Niya View Post
    So let me guess, you leftists will pretend to care by rushing to condemn this woman for being such a horrible racist bigot. She said a "bad word" in a moment of frustration so now we burn her at the stake. This is how you do things in a supposedly enlightened country? Do you honestly think this is fooling anyone into believing you actually care?

    You know what I think when I hear this? I think should she not have backtracked. She should have stood her ground on what she said. I don't want this woman silenced or compelled to not say what she feels. I don't want her condemned and her life ruined over this. Were it not for the fact that she is an agent of the state authorized to use deadly force at her discretion, I wouldn't even want her to lose her job. But do you know what I would want? I would want to know why. I would genuinely want to know what happened in this woman's life to make her hate black people so. This is how people who really care would approach this. Leftists don't care. They just want compete with each other over who has the wittiest ways of calling her a bigot and a racist while patting each other on the back about how tolerant they are. It's utter garbage and I see right through it.

    We make progress, by having tough conversations. This woman could have understandable reasons for why she feels the way she does and we need to hear about them. We need to get to the root of the problem so we can be better equipped to solve it. Dismissing her as nothing more than a mindless racist and burning her at the proverbial stake over her use of the word helps absolutely no one and keeps us stuck indefinitely.
    And here we go with the ad hominem fallacy again. We just pretend to care and we are just virtue signalling so what we say can be disregarded. Nice

    The problem is not that she said a bad word. Yet again, I can't believe that I need to explain something so simple. The idea that she simply "said a bad word in a moment of frustration" is ridiculous. People who aren't racist generally don't say "I f*****g hate n*****s" no matter how frustrated they get. The issue here is that, at best, there is a problem with racial tension between the public and the police in America and, at worst, there is rampant racism within police departments across the country. How are black people supposed to feel safe when they know that the police are carrying guns and can use them with relative impunity and they hate black people? I don't care what the root of the problem is. I don't care whether she's a racist because a black person murdered her whole family. She's still a racist and shouldn't be a police officer. I'm not "burning her at the stake" over her use of words. I'm doing so over her being a danger to black people due to her attitude.

  40. #80
    Super Moderator FunkyDexter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    An obscure body in the SK system. The inhabitants call it Earth
    Posts
    7,795

    Re: Jan 6th rioter sentenced

    Then explain why we would still lock up murderers that claim they committed the murders because they were possessed a demon?
    Because murder's a crime (and should be) and being trans isn't (and shouldn't be).

    And if this "vampire" wants you cut your wrist to drink your blood, can I assume you will oblige?
    No, I am not obliged to allow someone to harm me. What harm do you feel a trans person being a trans person does to you?

    I don't want to speak for FD
    Go right ahead. I think you summed up my case more eloquently than I was going to.

    I would point out that I never said that you wanted to make people miserable. I said you were arguing for the right to make people miserable. For the record I actually believe you should have that right, it's fundamental to our ability to call out and criticise harmful behaviours. However, that right is only usefully exercised when it done so to call out harmful behaviours. Exercised in any other fashion it is simply bullying. Therefore, unless you are going to consider being trans as a harmful behaviour, you are arguing for the right not just to criticise but to be a bully.

    Of course, legally, you do have the right to be a bully. What you do not have is the right to expect society not to pillory you for exercising it.
    Last edited by FunkyDexter; Aug 6th, 2022 at 10:51 AM.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill

    Hadoop actually sounds more like the way they greet each other in Yorkshire - Inferrd

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width