Nola_Lifer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Nola_Lifer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Lootifer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:He made some political comments before he pulled the trigger (already stated n confirmed). He is a liberal activist (already stated and confirmed). He is a member of the LGBT community (already stated and confirmed). He made it a point to have a chik-fil-a bag with him (already stated and confirmed)
He said a few other things too. But I'm not here to retype all the information. If you want to participate in the topic matter, it would help if you get familiar with the topic matter, especially before you start calling people an idiot. (hint, that's exactly what idiots do)
Very phattist post here.
Yes we all agree the guy is an idiot.
However it in no way relates to the wider debate. Every side has its bad apples.
I can't apologize for sharing the facts, but I will for allowing Woodruff to troll me and make me talk that way. The source of most Phatism is Woodruffism
Once again you don't answer my question, who said what he did was good bigotry. Looks like we are back to square one with the phatism. Look who is trying to redirect it.
Sorry, I did not see it. Stop over-reacting.
Nobody said "what he did" was good bigotry. People who in the recent past, right here, said that it's acceptable bigotry for homosexuals to be bigoted against and hate against religion, or anyone who does not agree with them about gay marriage. The shooter was a gay person, who obviously, through his actions, believed it was okay to start shooting up a religious organization, because they disagree with him.
His "bigotry" has been called "good bigotry" and "acceptable bigotry". Did you happen to see Grcepwns Sig before he took it down recently?
Phatism claim rejected

Let us go over thing here. First off, you said he was committing good bigotry. I think everyone here would condone this man's actions. Second homosexuals aren't bigoted against and hate against religion or other who oppose their view. They just want their rights as should any other human beings. I don't see how you don't get this. Some times you have to be extreme to get change. Third, that is nice what greecie pawns said but I never agreed to good or bad bigotry. You are either a bigot or not. Last point here, why would you tolerate gay marriage if it was changed but you can't tolerate it now. I thought you didn't take a stance on things like gay marriage? Or is that just typical Phatism? "Hey, I don't take a stance so I have no real opinion, but hey your wrong."
Okay, I better double check, because I am pretty darn sure that you are the one who said anyone that was against gay marriage was a bigot, and then I asked you if that meant that every religious person who tries to adhere to their holy book in every major religion in the world was a bigot, and you said yes. That was later on justified as "good bigotry" at least in the sense that the gay agenda says it is justified in hating religion, because they are judged as bigots. I repeat, the prevailing attiude is "It's okay to hate religion, because they are bigots" Look no further than right here, where it's perfectly okay to bash religion, but it's not okay to even make the slightest insult on homosexuality. bashing religion has become acceptable, and now the results are starting to get real. I would bet a large sum of money that this is exactly what was going through the shooters mind. "I am justified in shooting, because these people are bigots" But I would also bet that the shooter did not have anybody challenge his views concerning "what about freedom of religion? freedom of speech? freedom of association" I think there is a good chance the shooter may have said "ya know, I never thought about that. I'm still angry, but...maybe you are right. Maybe the Family relations council and chik-fil-a have the exact same freedoms to support their views of traditional marriage that I have when I speak out for and lobby for and give money to the gay marriage agenda" Maybe not, but maybe
I have explained a hundred times why I don't think it's a right. It's okay that we disagree too.....or...is it? Because what you said a few days ago was basically calling me a bigot for my views. It's okay I'm not trippin I know why you think that.
My stance is states rights. But by all means, get your phatty accusations on just because I have an opinion. Rights need to be fought for. They are not granted by government. That's why what you seek is not rights, it's privileges and benefits. The government can grant those.
If you keep trying to redefine marriage, especially when the majority of people do not recognize what you are talking about and you instead try to force it on society then I think you guys are doing it wrong. But hey, that's just my opinion.
After all this sets in and all the results are counted, I think the debate about gay marriage is over. It's been decided, and it was not close.