Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Ann, it's an interesting topic: what constitutes initiating violence against another? With this wording I'm excluding violence that a person uses to defend themselves or their loved ones. So again, what constitutes initiating violence or harm against another? Does it encompass only physical harm? Can psychological harm be included? I think as people deal with cyberbullying, these kind of issues will receive more attention. Absolutely violence includes non physical violence. To inhibit, limit or outright deny certain "rights" to a percentage of the population based on gender is to imprison them in some way. It is to curtail the freedom of them to enjoy the same things that others get to embrace, whether we are talking about same sex marriage or about some other group or ethnicity denied something else. I believe it to be a form of violence because this "denial" of freedoms is based on the idea that those who should be denied are somehow lesser or more sinful or less worthy or downright inferior and when that happens it is accompanied by negativity and often hate. Negativity and hate are violent things and only action that is violating in some way can result from such feelings. I have taken this subject away from the original discussion and question of hunger strikers and the sacredness of life, however. To return to that briefly, I find it interesting that the term "sacred" is actually related to religion, at least in the definitions I looked up when thinking about this. I am not religious and so I can not say that I believe life to be sacred in that way. However, life is an opportunity and if you believe in God, as I do, then I also believe that life is a means to experience, grow, evolve, come to know God more fully. So, in that way it is a treasure, a gift, a thing beyond price and certainly not something to be squandered or abused. Hunger strikes? I still say they are a sort of blackmail but at the same time they are an indication of how strongly someone feels about something but ultimately they are also a sort of publicity stunt. What also comes to mind is the whole issue of secondary cigarette smoke. Many places outlaw that now. Maybe because there's proof that it harms others physically. Same with loud noises, for example, around hospitals often there's a law against loud noises. Ann, I think your ideas about this are very compassionate and evolved. I also think it opens up the possibility of abuse and censorship. I doubt that everyone will agree on what constitutes initiating violence against another that does not include actual physical harm. But I think as humans evolve, we'll find some way to treat people compassionately and deal with their wrong doing in a way that protects society while treating the wrong doer justly but humanely. On Monday, January 6, 2014 8:19 PM, "awoelflebater@..." wrote: But, the thing is, in his "fight" to protest and in turn his hope to have gay marriages banned or made unlawful he is doing a kind of violence. The form his violence is taking is to judge and ultimately condemn the validity and the power of love and the desire to commit, in the form of marriage, between two human beings of the same gender. The nature of his protest is not killing or maiming people but the end result would be to deny a percentage of the adult population the opportunity to show and enact their devotion to one another in the form of marriage, something heterosexuals get to do all the time. This is, in my view, a twisted sort of injustice and therefore as bad as physical violence or terrorism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/6/2014 9:20 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: > > When most people "fight" for a cause, they harm other people. > > > Simply not true that when most people "fight" for a cause, they > harm other people. > The U.S. invaded Afghanistan based on the opinion of our congressional leaders. For the past ten years the U.S., under the direction of the President, has been administered based on his opinion. There's probably not a day that goes by that the U.S. does not kill someone based on the opinions of our President and our leaders. > Most people in this country, at least, don't believe their > strong opinions give them the right to do violence to others. > We have targeted assassinations and drone strikes everywhere in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and we are fighting for a cause. Thousands of people on both sides get harmed everyday when people fight for their opinions.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Ann, it's an interesting topic: what constitutes initiating violence against another? With this wording I'm excluding violence that a person uses to defend themselves or their loved ones. So again, what constitutes initiating violence or harm against another? Does it encompass only physical harm? Can psychological harm be included? I think as people deal with cyberbullying, these kind of issues will receive more attention. What also comes to mind is the whole issue of secondary cigarette smoke. Many places outlaw that now. Maybe because there's proof that it harms others physically. Same with loud noises, for example, around hospitals often there's a law against loud noises. Ann, I think your ideas about this are very compassionate and evolved. I also think it opens up the possibility of abuse and censorship. I doubt that everyone will agree on what constitutes initiating violence against another that does not include actual physical harm. But I think as humans evolve, we'll find some way to treat people compassionately and deal with their wrong doing in a way that protects society while treating the wrong doer justly but humanely. On Monday, January 6, 2014 8:19 PM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" wrote: But, the thing is, in his "fight" to protest and in turn his hope to have gay marriages banned or made unlawful heis doing a kind of violence. The form his violence is taking is to judge and ultimately condemn the validity and the power of love and the desire to commit, in the form of marriage, between two human beings of the same gender. The nature of his protest is not killing or maiming people but the end result would be to deny a percentage of the adult population the opportunity to show and enact their devotion to one another in the form of marriage, something heterosexuals get to do all the time. This is, in my view, a twisted sort of injustice and therefore as bad as physical violence or terrorism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
First time I fasted was when working in Spruce Pines, NC, working for the team of TM governors who were teaching sidhi prep courses - did a five day fast while working in the kitchen (like a fool) - I got so goddamn hungry I finally broke the fast by eating half a pint of goat milk ice cream. On Tue, 1/7/14, Duveyoung wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2014, 6:03 AM The guy quit on day 16...eating pizza tonight on TV.miffed that he only got one pizza sent to him -- asks for more to be sent. On day 16 of a fast, an inexperienced person might be hallucinating to some degree -- maybe God came to him and said, "Oy! Could you lay off with the hating? What do your parents think of this? Have some pizza, and here wash it down with some bread sticks, extra sauce and some potato knishesI put a bit of cheese in each one...you'll likesitlet me get you some soda.".
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Simply not true that when most people "fight" for a cause, they harm other people. When it does happen, it's the exception, not the rule, not by a very long shot indeed. Most people in this country, at least, don't believe their strong opinions give them the right to do violence to others. It's not a whole lot to ask that a person not bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings to advance their cause, so the fact that he's not doing that doesn't do him a great deal of credit and hardly provides a reason to admire him. << Steve, what I had been admiring about the guy was his lack of violence against others in the presence of his own strong opinions. Meaning, he isn't bombing abortion clinics or flying airplanes into buildings or bullying gays online. When most people "fight" for a cause, they harm other people. This guy is not doing that. That's what I admired about him before Judy shared what was on his web page. >> On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:20 PM, "steve.sundur@..." wrote: I guess you could look at it both ways. But it would seem to me that he is putting the onus on someone in this case. I think it is a nice distinction Ann is making in either fighting for a cause, or being willing to die, if something isn't changed in a manner you want to see it changed. For my money, if someone wants to die for a cause, as in starving them self, then more power to them. But more often than not, it never seems to go the distance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, "awoelflebater@..." wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is the threat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, "s3raphita@..." wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Now wait a second. What you are saying has nothing to do with whether he is fasting or not, at least as I understand it. And forget for a moment his other comments, as they seem to have no bearing on what you are saying above. It seems that you are rendering a pretty harsh judgement simply because he happens to be against gay marriage. I mean, there are probably a lot of good people who are against gay marriage, and I am not sure I would lay that kind of trip on them. On the other hand, maybe this issue just carries that much weight for you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
But, the thing is, in his "fight" to protest and in turn his hope to have gay marriages banned or made unlawful he is doing a kind of violence. The form his violence is taking is to judge and ultimately condemn the validity and the power of love and the desire to commit, in the form of marriage, between two human beings of the same gender. The nature of his protest is not killing or maiming people but the end result would be to deny a percentage of the adult population the opportunity to show and enact their devotion to one another in the form of marriage, something heterosexuals get to do all the time. This is, in my view, a twisted sort of injustice and therefore as bad as physical violence or terrorism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Steve, what I had been admiring about the guy was his lack of violence against others in the presence of his own strong opinions. Meaning, he isn't bombing abortion clinics or flying airplanes into buildings or bullying gays online. When most people "fight" for a cause, they harm other people. This guy is not doing that. That's what I admired about him before Judy shared what was on his web page. On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:20 PM, "steve.sun...@yahoo.com" wrote: I guess you could look at it both ways. But it would seem to me that heis putting the onus on someone in this case. I think it is a nice distinction Ann is making in either fighting for a cause, or being willing to die, if something isn't changed in a manner you want to see it changed. For my money, if someone wants to die for a cause, as in starving them self, then more power to them. But more often than not, it never seems to go the distance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, "awoelflebater@..." wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is thethreat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, "s3raphita@..." wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Seraph, I don't think opinions themselves can be true or false though they can be based on true or false conclusions. And I still think emotional blackmail is an interaction that occurs on the personal rather than societal level. On Monday, January 6, 2014 5:30 PM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" wrote: Re "IMO emotional blackmail occurs only when there is a personal relationship between the people involved.": You opinion is false. Hunger strikes whip up a lot of emotion! Re "In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action?": That's an interesting case. In the UK it is recognised that women were given the vote in recognition of their essential war work in WWI which changed public opinion in their favour (which had been less-impressed by hunger strikes). (The US case is a more complex and drawn-out business.) I did say hunger strikes may be justified in cases were free speech is outlawed. It's arguable that not having voting rights is a comparable situation. This anti-gay marriage protest doesn't qualify.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I guess you could look at it both ways. But it would seem to me that he is putting the onus on someone in this case. I think it is a nice distinction Ann is making in either fighting for a cause, or being willing to die, if something isn't changed in a manner you want to see it changed. For my money, if someone wants to die for a cause, as in starving them self, then more power to them. But more often than not, it never seems to go the distance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, "awoelflebater@..." wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is the threat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, "s3raphita@..." wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I think he probably knew he had an out. And looks like he just got it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Thanks for passing it along, Judy. This makes me think way less of him. On Monday, January 6, 2014 1:22 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" wrote: You don't need to know someone's "complete self" to draw certain conclusions about them, Share, and it's idiotic to think you do. BTW, here's what this "very courageous" person has said about gay people on his Facebook page: “The homosexual movement is less tolerant than the Nazis and if they had the power of the Nazis, I have no doubt they would not hesitate to march people of faith into ovens." Nice, huh? He's a hater and a crackpot. We don't need to know his "complete self" to realize that. << turq, as I said to Ann, I've found it difficult to really know someone's complete self without knowing them in person. I don't think that's an idiotic realization. >> On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a > very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as > wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's > difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in > person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
You don't need to know someone's "complete self" to draw certain conclusions about them, Share, and it's idiotic to think you do. BTW, here's what this "very courageous" person has said about gay people on his Facebook page: “The homosexual movement is less tolerant than the Nazis and if they had the power of the Nazis, I have no doubt they would not hesitate to march people of faith into ovens." Nice, huh? He's a hater and a crackpot. We don't need to know his "complete self" to realize that. << turq, as I said to Ann, I've found it difficult to really know someone's complete self without knowing them in person. I don't think that's an idiotic realization. >> On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a > very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as > wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's > difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in > person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
turq, as I said to Ann, I've found it difficult to really know someone's complete self without knowing them in person. I don't think that's an idiotic realization. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a > very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as > wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's > difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in > person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is thethreat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, "s3raphita@..." wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is the threat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, "s3raphita@..." wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
turq, I don't agree with you that I'm dragging the forum down because I have mostly ignored the taunts. I've been engaging in what for me was an interesting discussion about several topics. I was surprised by my initial reaction to what you posted and for the most part I've been enjoying unpacking that reaction. On Monday, January 6, 2014 8:08 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've "won." It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a "Block" mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: > > Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails > around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth > hates losing. > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: > > Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we > haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I > do. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
