(01-28-2019 10:52 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I repeat my assertion that the AIDS crisis was a Holocaust.

It appears as if some have forgotten what happens when you allow people to so dehumanize a minority that society just sits back and laughs at them as they die like flies.

And the numbers were just immense. The 10 year survival rate for a Gay man in 1980 in the USA was about the same as for a Jewish person living in Germany in 1933 when Hitler took over... 50% (although the death rates for Jews living elsewhere in Europe fared much worse - the Jews in Germany had some time to escape). 50% dead, most in their twenties and thirties. While the Christians either laughed and reveled at it or simply ignored it and left us to our fate.

And since you brought up the holocaust in Europe, are you aware that Gay people were rounded up and gassed too? And there was no respite for the survivors either. They were sent back to their home countries and thousands of survivors were thrown back into prison for being gay. War Heros like Alan Turing were tortured simply because they were Gay.

Today is actually Holocaust Remembrance Day. I haven't forgotten. I think some people forget what happens why a majority so dehumanizes a minority by calling them filthy and a threat that they can do justify just about any outrage.

And today, there are round ups and death camps for Gay men. Today.

And the AIDS crisis was something they spread among themselves. Those who weren't promiscuous weren't at big risk. People who didn't share needles weren't at risk. It was a disease that their lifestyle spread among themselves. And research started immediately. The disease is not eliminated or solved. Its just understood. Nothing would have made a significant difference.

Comparing what the Nazis did to the Jews to AIDS is sick and insulting to all Jews. But then Democrats don't mind demonizing Jews either.

AIDS funding was incredibly underfunded and deliberately so until it started to impact people that society felt were human...straight people.

And I strongly suspect that some of the anger in here by me using the term we use for the AIDS era is motivated partly by the reinforcement that somehow bad things happening to Gay people is somehow 'less of an outrage' than as if it happens to people who matter. Or that being associated with Gay people is filthy or disgusting.

Why not read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts, or "How to Survive a Plague" if you'd like to know what happened. Or just watch "Dallas Buyers Club" to get a flavor of the time.

As far as demonizing Jews, I think that you might want to see what's going on Orban's Hungary or right wing Poland right now. I went to Auschwitz last year. The right wing PiS government tour guide didn't mention Jews during the entire tour (no joke). It was appalling. Or go to Russia (Christian Areas) and tell people that you're Jewish. Or simply go to Brighton Beach in Brooklyn and talk to some of the Jews that came over in the 1980s.

Where there is anti-Semitism, homophobia is rarely far behind. And the converse is also true.

So you should be really careful hanging out with Democrats. Anti-semitism is preached by people high up in the Democratic Party and never challenged.

"Underfunded" is simply an opinion.

The government spend more on the Tylenol scare than it did in the first several years of the AIDS crisis.

Here's a snippet from the 1980's (Chicago Tribune). WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 4, 1985-Even the most cynical critics of the Reagan administration were staggered when the Office of Management and Budget released its proposed AIDS budget for the 1986 fiscal year.

Not only had the administration not increased AIDS funding, but the budget called for reducing AIDS spending from the current level of $96 million to $85.5 million in the next fiscal year. The 10 percent reduction would be felt across the board in AIDS research but most heavily at the Centers for Disease Control, where funds would be cut back 20 percent, to $18.7 million.

I don't know why the government should have been reducing AIDS spending in 1985, unless it was to underfund it. Perhaps you can explain it.

----

Anti Semitism? I didn't realize the anti-Soros stuff was coming from the Democrats.

Sure, to be clear, Louis Farrakhan, who isn't really active in Democratic politics is an anti-Semite.

But simply opposing Isreali settlements in the West Bank is not anti-Semitism. Neither is opposing Netanyahu's government. Plenty of Jews in Israel and the USA don't want more settlements and don't like Netanyahu.

To be fair, at first they didnt even know what the heck AIDS was in 1981. They went from having no idea why the victims were suffering from compromised immune systems in 1981---to identifying the virus---to finding a treatment for AIDS--to approving the drug AZT through the bloated FDA approval process in 1987. There was 25 months from the time the AZT proved it worked in the lab (1985) to the time it was approved by the FDA (1987). That was fastest that any drug had ever been approved by the FDA---but it was still slow enough to cost a lot of lives. That said, if you look at the history of infectious diseases---the reaction to AIDS from discovery to effective treatment was pretty darn fast. The idea that Reagan killed anyone via inaction is silly. By 1985 they had identified the HIV virus as the culprit and knew they had a treatment---so I suspect thats why there was a decrease in funding. In 1985-1987 they were using a newly approved protocols to streamline the FDA approval process---but 25 months is still pretty slow. That said, Thalidomide (which the FDA never approved in the US) is a good example of why the FDA has such a long, slow, and deliberative approval process. Sometimes that process saves lives---sometimes it costs lives. That careful process is not entirely bad or good.

I'm sorry, I can't move past comparing inaction towards AIDS to the Holocaust. Disgusting and offensive.

(01-28-2019 01:06 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 12:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And the original Koran's wording on homosexuality is based almost exclusively off of the Story of Lot from the Bible.

The 'kill the Gays' stuff comes from Hadith, which is non-Koranic interpretations of the Koran. Just like there are different interpretations of the Bible. Doesn't make Islam Gay friendly or even neutral. But know that Islam, just like Christianity has differences of opinion. Its not a monolith.

Also, the hatred of Gays by many Islamic scholars is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. Doesn't make it right.

You're comments clearly show your ignorance on the subject.


While it is true that the Abrahamic books of the old Testament are referred to by the Quran, that's about as far as it goes.

From there the religions diverge.
In Christianity, Christ came to fulfill the 'law', and as a result he gave new commandments. Jesus NEVER preached for murder or hatred of Homosexuality. In fact he was the one who said regarding a matter of 'sexual sin' "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

Mohammad on the other hand, DID preach for the murder of homosexuals.

'non-Koranic interpretations of the Koran' <- Where the hell did you come up with that?
That's not what the Hadith is at all. Once again... you are lying.

The Hadith which you refer to is the record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. It is the one of the three major sources of religious law and moral guidance, second only to the authority of the Quran, the holy book of Islam.

The Hadith includes all of the orders that Mohammad gave his followers. It literally is Mohammads direct orders to his followers. Mohammad is quoted in the Hadith as saying ""I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of God (The Quran) and my Sunna."

It's nice that you admit that the Hadith includes the calls to death of Homosexuals. I guess you didn't realize that the Hadith was Mohammad's orders.
So by your own admission... Mohammad ordered his followers to murder homosexuals.
For once... you've been truthful.

Hatred of Gays is a historical element of Islam, and if you knew ANYTHING about Islam you'd know that. There's a reason that homosexuals have been persecuted and murdered in the region for the last 1400 years. The fall of the Caliphate is actually the only reason that there has been a lessening of hostilities in the Islamic world, as many people are not living according to the teachings of Mohammad. This is also why you see a rapid uptick in violence against Homosexuality in areas held by ISIL (the civil implementation of the Islamic Law) as well as areas held by the Wahabi, and generally anywhere that Sunni Muslims are the majority.

Your comments clearly show that you don't know what you are talking about. Once again you are lying about facts.

Together the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah form the Islamic faith.

Once again... Tom runs away from the truth to mince words about another issue instead of addressing what he's been called out on.

It's a pattern... he gets back into a corner and his lies are exposed... and he quickly makes up a lie about something else so people to jump on that, and allow him to avoid that he's been called out for lying and been shown that he knows nothing about what he's talking about.

(01-27-2019 02:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Then educate your kids in taxpayer non-supported schools that pay property taxes.

Why is that good advice for 'them', but not for 'you'?

Hypocrisy?

I'm not suggesting it... I'm merely suggesting that it is as good a bit of advice for you as them.... and arguably better from a purely fiscal perspective as there are vastly fewer of 'you'.

Quote:If you demand that LGBT teachers be shut out, or have less free speech rights than straight ones (to discuss their personal family life), or that LGBT kids be erased and effectively demeaned with taxpayer dollars, then I'm calling that out as homophobia and discrimination.

I didn't want my young kids learning about their teacher's home and family life either.... and certainly not their sexual orientation. Middle school or high school, its an academic discussion like sex ed and not 'show and tell'.... certainly not a 'coming out' party for teachers.

School and being a teacher is not a forum for your free speech during school hours. You have a captive and impressionable audience.

If you're using taxpayer funding to teach students something that the taxpayers of that jurisdiction don't want them learning, then I'm calling you out for stealing taxpayer funds for your own purposes. Both elections and free speech have consequences.

Quote:And I fail to see any difference between American evangelicals and the Muslim group in the UK on this issue. Actually the American evangelicals are the more pressing threat.[quote]

Yep... so many thousands killed in the past few decades by intolerant Christians.

----
[quote]
Implied in your argument is that Gay people are somehow bad or a threat to kids. Or that teaching kids, explicitly or implicitly that being LGBT is 'bad' or something 'dangerous' .

No, merely inappropriate. As would a teacher teaching children that hunting was murder or that Trump was the anti-Christ or that Democrats were evil.

(01-27-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 07:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 05:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 01:01 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  That crap doesn't belong in schools, get it out.

Yeah, gotta agree with the muslim moms on this one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Basically you have two protected groups doing what they do. The typical call is your rights end when they begin infringing on my rights. In this case---with two constitutionally protected groups---your going to have a winner and a loser. That said, Ive always thought the Muslim religion simply doesnt mesh very well with a Western culture that openly flaunts sex appeal and uses it to sell everything from automobiles to razor blades. There is always going to be conflict there. I cant imagine trying to raise children in a strict Muslim religious manner in the US. It would be like running a bar/strip joint in Iran.

1. You can't be a republic or democracy if some groups have more rights than others. So on the flip side to protect any single group is to rob the rest. Therefore we should abolish "special protection" altogether. The laws on assault, murder, trespass, criminal trespass, and equal access are all that's needed. When you have "hate" laws you force routine criminals into hate categories that may or may not have been their intent. Guilty is guilty, but lets make sure they aren't lumped into some category so the statistics become a self fulfilling prophecy for the need of the discriminatory law.

2. The Muslim moms do have an excellent point. Why are we forcing sex educations on 2nd graders? I had families in one of my social groups who had their high school kids being encouraged by a high school biology teacher to experiment sexually with both sexes. The school board waffled when complaints were lodged. The issue wasn't that they were encouraged to have sex with two different genders, the issue was they were encouraged to have sex period. 10th graders were involved in the Biology class and the teacher was reprimanded but not fired, and this was in Georgia. Fourteen and fifteen year olds don't need a teacher encouraging them to have sex, let alone sex with both genders. They should be educating them on safe sex, and std prevention if they are going to broach the subject at all. I'm fine with sex education classes for the appropriate age groups but I believe they should be optional and decided by the parent.

3. Muslims who want to be practicing, rather than secular, need isolated areas much like the Amish have if they are to be successful in adherence to their beliefs. The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that they believe in being neighborly while in the minority, but by practice feel the need to proselytize as commanded in the Koran if they become a majority even within a city or county. That's where the intolerance of the customs and laws of the host nation come into question. So they are tolerant until they feel they have a majority and then the intolerance is manifested in fundamentalist expectations. There are communities and cities in England that are now experiencing this as has been documented on this board.

So while I'm in agreement with them about the Sex Education, the larger their population grows in concentrated areas of the this nation the more difficult they will be to assimilate. All U.S. immigration centers on the assimilation of the immigrant family into American life. And it assumes tolerance on the part of the immigrant and the citizens. When a group cannot be tolerant of the laws and customs of the U.S. then immigration needs to be denied. This goes for their fundamentalism, for drug traffickers, and for those who break the law to get here.

Yup---which is why I wouldnt be too crazy about seeing a whole lot of what you mention in point #1 (areas of where only Muslims live). Obviously, one can practice Islam in a relatively reasonable way in America (many many do). However, if one wishes to practice a very fundamentalist type of strict Muslim faith and further demands that the general population produce an environment in which such a faith can be properly practiced---there's going to be a problem. Thats where Europe is now and I hope we understand thats where we will be if we are not careful.

The US has been very successful in creating a secular society that operates independently of everyone's religion. For the most part---the vast majority of the major religions that are followed in the US basically are similar enough that nobody is tossing bombs at one another. Those that are extremely different are mostly small sects and these sects largely practice very peaceful teachings. That "peaceful" part is where some fundamentalist practitioners of Islam are quite different from what we are used to dealing with. Like I said, I just think some of the things these hard core fundamentalist believe (women should not be educated, women shouldn't drive, gay folks should be thrown off roofs, stoning for adultery, etc) just isn't compatible with basic Western society. I just dont know how well the melting pot concept is going to work in that particular case.

If you read that post thoroughly then you would see that I illustrated the fundamentalists needing areas like the Amish to say that we can't afford as a country to let people in who by their beliefs could not be tolerant of our cultural diversity. What you are saying is precisely the conclusions I wanted to reader to grasp.

The other thing about fundamental Islamist beliefs is that when they are in the majority they not only proselytize, but the Koran says if the infidel will not convert put them to the sword. That's the same Koran for non fundamentalist Muslims as well and an aspect that most Americans are ignorant of.

The Bible says if they don't receive you shake the dust off your feet and move on. That's tolerance. The Koran is not tolerant at all about conversion.

(01-28-2019 12:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 07:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 05:55 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Yeah, gotta agree with the muslim moms on this one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Basically you have two protected groups doing what they do. The typical call is your rights end when they begin infringing on my rights. In this case---with two constitutionally protected groups---your going to have a winner and a loser. That said, Ive always thought the Muslim religion simply doesnt mesh very well with a Western culture that openly flaunts sex appeal and uses it to sell everything from automobiles to razor blades. There is always going to be conflict there. I cant imagine trying to raise children in a strict Muslim religious manner in the US. It would be like running a bar/strip joint in Iran.

1. You can't be a republic or democracy if some groups have more rights than others. So on the flip side to protect any single group is to rob the rest. Therefore we should abolish "special protection" altogether. The laws on assault, murder, trespass, criminal trespass, and equal access are all that's needed. When you have "hate" laws you force routine criminals into hate categories that may or may not have been their intent. Guilty is guilty, but lets make sure they aren't lumped into some category so the statistics become a self fulfilling prophecy for the need of the discriminatory law.

2. The Muslim moms do have an excellent point. Why are we forcing sex educations on 2nd graders? I had families in one of my social groups who had their high school kids being encouraged by a high school biology teacher to experiment sexually with both sexes. The school board waffled when complaints were lodged. The issue wasn't that they were encouraged to have sex with two different genders, the issue was they were encouraged to have sex period. 10th graders were involved in the Biology class and the teacher was reprimanded but not fired, and this was in Georgia. Fourteen and fifteen year olds don't need a teacher encouraging them to have sex, let alone sex with both genders. They should be educating them on safe sex, and std prevention if they are going to broach the subject at all. I'm fine with sex education classes for the appropriate age groups but I believe they should be optional and decided by the parent.

3. Muslims who want to be practicing, rather than secular, need isolated areas much like the Amish have if they are to be successful in adherence to their beliefs. The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that they believe in being neighborly while in the minority, but by practice feel the need to proselytize as commanded in the Koran if they become a majority even within a city or county. That's where the intolerance of the customs and laws of the host nation come into question. So they are tolerant until they feel they have a majority and then the intolerance is manifested in fundamentalist expectations. There are communities and cities in England that are now experiencing this as has been documented on this board.

So while I'm in agreement with them about the Sex Education, the larger their population grows in concentrated areas of the this nation the more difficult they will be to assimilate. All U.S. immigration centers on the assimilation of the immigrant family into American life. And it assumes tolerance on the part of the immigrant and the citizens. When a group cannot be tolerant of the laws and customs of the U.S. then immigration needs to be denied. This goes for their fundamentalism, for drug traffickers, and for those who break the law to get here.

Yup---which is why I wouldnt be too crazy about seeing a whole lot of what you mention in point #1 (areas of where only Muslims live). Obviously, one can practice Islam in a relatively reasonable way in America (many many do). However, if one wishes to practice a very fundamentalist type of strict Muslim faith and further demands that the general population produce an environment in which such a faith can be properly practiced---there's going to be a problem. Thats where Europe is now and I hope we understand thats where we will be if we are not careful.

The US has been very successful in creating a secular society that operates independently of everyone's religion. For the most part---the vast majority of the major religions that are followed in the US basically are similar enough that nobody is tossing bombs at one another. Those that are extremely different are mostly small sects and these sects largely practice very peaceful teachings. That "peaceful" part is where some fundamentalist practitioners of Islam are quite different from what we are used to dealing with. Like I said, I just think some of the things these hard core fundamentalist believe (women should not be educated, women shouldn't drive, gay folks should be thrown off roofs, stoning for adultery, etc) just isn't compatible with basic Western society. I just dont know how well the melting pot concept is going to work in that particular case.

If you read that post thoroughly then you would see that I illustrated the fundamentalists needing areas like the Amish to say that we can't afford as a country to let people in who by their beliefs could not be tolerant of our cultural diversity. What you are saying is precisely the conclusions I wanted to reader to grasp.

The other thing about fundamental Islamist beliefs is that when they are in the majority they not only proselytize, but the Koran says if the infidel will not convert put them to the sword. That's the same Koran for non fundamentalist Muslims as well and an aspect that most Americans are ignorant of.

The Bible says if they don't receive you shake the dust off your feet and move on. That's tolerance. The Koran is not tolerant at all about conversion.

Correct. I was agreeing with your post. My feeling is the religion---especially the fundementalist variety--is not a great fit for an open and tolerant society which (whether we wish admit it or not) largely is fashioned on a Judeo-Christian value system. Like you said---as that portion of the population grows--the incompatibility with our current society will become more apparent. We are pretty much on the same page. That said---while I can see the potential of a bad situation coming a mile away----I have no idea how you head off such a bad outcome legally under the Constitution.