[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think some of the extreme liberals have been working overtime on this thread.
[/quote]
Excellent points Zeb!
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
Anybody up for a workout?
[/quote]
Heading out the door now. Surge, the car keys, and my gym bag are in the kitchen waiting to be grabbed. Have a good lift yourself dude.
Peace be with you!
[quote]Do I have to ask for your permission to comment on it vroom? I know you’re secretly employed by the thought police, so I know now that I require clearance from you to share my thoughts on a wide array of topics.
Intolerance of the intolerant masked to appear completely tolerant. Employing your own propaganda tactics vroom? [/quote]
Stellar,
Show me where I said you were not allowed to have and voice an opinion? My opinion is that your opinion is garbage.
There is no concept of thought police in my ability to share my negative opinion of your opinion, or your negative view of mine.
Funny how that works, isn’t it? Any other ways in which you would like to impose your morality on my actions?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,
Perhaps after you go see the movie with your boyfriend you can tell us what those qualities are.
[/quote]
Ok, what time should I pick you up?
I guess for the same reason you are sure it isn’t as you haven’t seen it either.
[quote]
By the way, have any movies about racism ever won any awards? If so, were they merely propaganda?[/quote]
Yes, I think there has been some, but I would also label that propaganda. Apparently in Canada they don’t teach you the meaning of big words like “propaganda”. So here, let me help you out:
Propaganda: “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause”
Advancing the cause of racial equality is propaganda by definition, but that doesn’t make it bad or the wrong thing to do. So it’s not that brokeback is using propaganda as a means of getting their message across. It’s the message itself.
Do you get it now or should I get out the crayons?
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
warlock wrote:
Do you have friends?
Do you want a hug?
Why do you need so much attention?
w
Lorisco should be asking you these questions. You have nothing insightful to provide to this thread and despite the fact that you appear to be liberated from religious ethics and testify of a black heritage, your comments are offending to homosexuals and African Americans alike. [/quote]
Amen brother!
[quote]harris447 wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
warlock wrote:
Do you have friends?
Do you want a hug?
Why do you need so much attention?
w
Lorisco should be asking you these questions. You have nothing insightful to provide to this thread and despite the fact that you appear to be liberated from religious ethics and testify of a black heritage, your comments are offending to homosexuals and African Americans alike.
Are you black? If not, how can you claim to speak as to whether or not African-Americans are offended.
There are quite a few black guys on this forum and none of them have taken offense.
I would be far more interested to hear what they have to say than what you do.
[/quote]
Excellent point! So are they silent because it really isn’t offense to them or because their PC or political bias is more important than their racial perspective?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Excellent point vroom. And if this movie is not the best movie quality wise, and is not really popular with the public, what “value” is there to it that is making Hollywood give itself an award for it? And is it quality value of the picture or is it the message value that they are trying to acknowledge?
Lorisco,
Perhaps after you go see the movie with your boyfriend you can tell us what those qualities are.
Until then, why are you so sure it is something it shouldn’t be?
There are in fact good reasons to vote for such a movie… and if the acting was good, or the cinematography was good, then those are good reasons. Go see it and let us know.
By the way, have any movies about racism ever won any awards? If so, were they merely propaganda?
I can’t believe you guys haven’t figured out that arguing with Lorisco is an exercise in futility. Its completely pointless.[/quote]
That’s right! If you have no logical argument it is pointless to as that will be quickly revealed.
So, yes, don’t bother discussing issues with me unless you have a brain and know how to use it!
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
Why begin throwing insults vroom? Can’t you maintain a sense of dignity and class without offending him? Is that the way you talk to people who don’t share your values? For a person who preaches against intolerance, you sure prove to be a hypocrite!
vroom wrote:
Oh bullshit. First, it was funny. Second, Lorisco and I get a bit heated in our conversations. Don’t like it, don’t read it.
Do I have to ask for your permission to comment on it vroom? I know you’re secretly employed by the thought police, so I know now that I require clearance from you to share my thoughts on a wide array of topics.
Intolerance of the intolerant masked to appear completely tolerant. Employing your own propaganda tactics vroom?
[/quote]
Vroom, you have been served!
Lorisco,
Here is the definition of propaganda from Wikipedia…
Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, “propaganda” was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading.
So, you think the movie is intended to influence peoples opinions? You really think there is any chance Stellar would suddenly support the gay lifestyle if he went to see the movie?
You think that there is some ulterior motive supported by false or misleading information, which is what propaganda implies in this day and age?
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
vroom wrote wrote:
Who’s touting them as heros? It’s a freaking movie.
Oh, you mean the actors personally or something? That’s real life, which is not the same thing as the movie.
Get with it man.
vroom, I went to one of the best universities in the nation but I don’t need a degree to help me realize that the film wasn’t a documentary. You ask who’s touting the characters as heroes? Society. The media. The critics. There’s no need for you to play stupid.
http://www.film-forward.com/brokebac.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wittig200512210837.asp
The glamour endowed upon these characters is unbelievable - and all because of their sexual preference. Google “heroes” with the name of the film and you’ll see what I mean.
Professor X wrote:
Ever seen the movie Heat? They held double lives. They destroyed their families and abandoned their children. They even…GASP…lied. It was one really great movie. Every actor in it is considered a “decent” actor. I am not sure if it won awards or not, but it should have. You don’t have a point.
MANY movies are based on people of questionable backgrounds and many movies include characters that have many of the attributes you just listed. That is what makes the story intriguing because the characters are abnormal. Who would really find a movie interesting if there was no conflict? How retarded would it be if every movie released from now on needed to pass the approval of people like you?
No more bank robberies, sex out of wed lock…hell, sex period. No more people who cheat on their wives, no more grand thefts. No more bad guys who turn out to be the hero, no more Chronicles of Riddick. I am glad you are not in charge of this and I hope your crusade against liars in movies turns to shit. Some of the greatest movie characters have been those that weren’t the greatest people. It is just a movie…and everyone else realizes this, except you.
Professor X, you’re completely misunderstanding the core essence of my posts, hence your confusion. Heat didn’t receive any discussion or publicity on a moral or ethical basis. The characters therein lied, stole, fornicated, and killed. I didn’t see the New York Times, major magazines, or movie critics reviewing and applauding the philosophical undertones of the film’s characters though.
Why? Because it was a film that revolved around a handful of popular actors engaging in supercharged gun battles, sex, scandal, and interpersonal conflicts (similar in some elements to Brokeback Mountain)… But did you come across even one commentary by a news publication rationally analyzing and defending Val Kilmer or Robert Deniro’s delinquent roles in the film?
I found this movie enjoyable, but to classify characters like Wayne Growle as heroes is preposterous. The guy solicits the services of a whore and then butchers her. It takes very little discernment to label his actions grotesque and irreputable. That’s essentially my point - that the characters in Brokeback Mountain are hailed as heroes despite the fact that they partook in a host of unwholesome and shameful deeds; while society, the media, and the critics glamourize them - on what grounds, sexual preference? That is what amazes me the most.
It’s one thing for a newspaper column to cite an actor’s performance, or the ability for a film to have braced fans on the edge of their seats, but the verbal stir surrounding the two gay characters in Brokeback Mountain dabbles beyond such superficial comparison.
Heat didn’t evoke magnificent reactions from society, it didn’t ignite complex, thought-provoking discussion beyond the doors of the theater; hence it was anything BUT controversial. Your comparison is weak at best.
Ok, so Hollywood put out a film about homosexual romance - not that I approve, but this was bound to happen sooner or later given the recent decline of religious values in this country. What surprises me is our society’s reaction - the evident creation of a double standard and the deep penetrating psychological implications. I hope you see by now my qualms are not with the movie but with society’s dumbfounded trance-like state. To be fair though, it needs to be emphasized that propaganda has precisely this numbing effect.
And Professor X, on another note, I noticed you seem to be quite radical in your notions against me. I never claimed that all movies should be kosher and saintly, drab, or unintriguing. The world doesn’t rotate around stellar_horizon (and I’m perfectly cool with that) nor am I involved in a “crusade against liars” - that’s strictly for God’s wrath to resolve. We can debate like civilized individuals or we can get personal and sling inaccurate, off-base extrapolations about each other. You write decently so I would think there’d be no need for you to resort to condescending remarks.[/quote]
Hi Stellar
Is there really a decline in so called religious moral values. the US is percieved to be a bastion of Christian Evangelism by the outside world, and in fact being influenced heavily by the “conservative right”.
In this statement, are you making an inference that countries with “lower religious morals” i.e. the UK for this instance, have higher levels of immoral acts?
I for 1 haven’t seen Brokeback, but i intend to. Films such as this will seem extraordinary as they may challange or cause controversy (obviously), or deal with common issues with a different device, such as love between 2 people being replaced by 2 men.
The advent of such media should be heralded as a great step for socioty, as it has been made. Now, whether people agree or disagree (i as an atheist could consider Passion of Christ or the like to be subversive. In fact, i do, but they can be made, and commented upon, or accepted, debated, concluded, like all issues.
Social engineering is leaving the likes of the conservative right behind. 50 years ago a black man would be beaten in any instance, now less so (one would hope, at least). This and numerous changes administer themselves on us in such weight that the issue is to adapt or die.
Religious ideals have been shown in their weakness and ridgidity in the face of better communication, longer lives and improved knowledge. this is reflected in our arts, of which the greatest medium is film. that, in itself will change to the internet and beyond.
just consider this. If everything was done to any religious rules we would not be having this discussion, there would only be the certainty of what had been written and very likely, no films would ever get made.
How truly dull would life be…no wonder we would have to hope for the afterlife.
With films is it a case of life imitating art, or the other way around? I am not sure. What is sure is that homophobia is not suddenly going to stop, as gay will not spread among decent young white fellas like influenza, or maybe there should be an Oscar Wilde type trial, where jake, heath and ang are proescuted.
An individual has degrees of choice. sexuality may be one (i doubt it) but whether or not to go and see a film may just be one of the last ones we have.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think some of the extreme liberals have been working overtime on this thread. It’s time to shine some light on their politically correct faulty thinking:
First- of all, why would anyone equate “Racism” with being homosexual?
How many times does it have to be shown that there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic?
Therefore, if you are attempting to bestow special status on homosexuals there are many other groups which should be given this status too (dajavue all over again). If we are giving out special rights for a personal choice It could easily become comical.
Shall I throw some examples out? No, I’ll save that for later when my premise is questioned-more fun that way.
Second- I think many of the politically correct who are basically out to bash others for their views are missing the entire point (which is not unusual on this subject).
Those who don’t like Brokeback because it is about two gay men have a right not to like it!
They don’t have to make up excuses as to why. They can simply say that they don’t like movies with a homosexual theme.
That does not mean that they are homophobic. Nor does it mean that they “hate” anyone. And what is “homophobic” anyway? Are those who speak out against homosexuality actually afraid of homosexuals? Or do they feel that it is not a “natural” lifestyle? And are they perhaps repulsed by the act of two men having sex?
Here is a news flash for you: Men are allowed to feel repulsed by two men having sex! It’s more “homorepugnance” than homophobic. Some men cannot help but feel sickened by certain acts. The fact that this does not fit your politically correct agenda matters not.
I know that those who want to push the homosexual agenda don’t want to read this, but it’s the truth. And I have also seen the great defenders of all things homosexual make fun of those who are obese.
Why is it okay in their politically correct play book to make fun of the obese? What if they were born fat?
Third- No one is claiming that the movie industry is “trying to make us all gay.” that is one very silly comment on this thread.
However, it is merely one more step in attempting to push the gay agenda onto America. “See these two poor guys…they had to…GASP get married and have children…of all the rotten things…”
Hollywood is liberal! PERIOD If you don’t know that by now you are either a liberal yourself, or you are simply not capable of paying attention.
Fourth- People who speak out against the acclaim given the movie are not attempting in any way to take away the right of two men to have sex (that might have been the silliest comment. Difficult to judge there are so many coming from the left). Who cares what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? Certainly not me.
However, speaking out against a movement is another matter. It is everyone’s right, and some would say duty to speak out against things that they feel are being politicized, gay marriage not being the least of these national issues. “Gay” Hollywood continuing to push their liberal agenda is another.
Fifth- Tolerance is all the rage when it comes to accepting two men having sex. And to this I agree. We live in a free society and everyone has the right to pursue happiness as they see it. However, where is the tolerance in reverse when someone on this thread speaks out against something like gay marriage, or even a gay film?
the haters from the left come out in droves.
It seems that no one is allowed to question anything gay without the tired old homophobic comments flying.
And no one…and I mean NO ONE is more intolerant than an extreme liberal.
And, before any of you extreme liberals go there: I am not asking others to be tolerant of intolerance. What I am asking is that those who want to either embrace this lifestyle, or defend those who do to be more tolerant of someone’s free speech right to question it’s place in society.
Those of us who are pro traditional values have no right to name call. But on the other hand neither do the extreme liberals who push the homosexual agenda (and there is an agenda make no mistake about it). It seems that almost every thread I have been involved in the name calling is done by those who want to silence anyone who has the audacity (in their eyes) to question the place that homosexuality fits into today’s society.
Let the debate about Brokeback continue. But keep in mind there are always at least two sides to every issue. And simply because you are on one side and I am on the other does not make either of us evil.
[/quote]
Hi Zeb
Good post.
I am in agreemnet with you here.
My only issue is from where people gain their standpoint, i.e. from the bible…coz it says so.
It is impossible to discuss with that. Maybe, over time there will be a “softening” so to speak, of the “rules”. Christianity has alway been effective at remodelling itself, amalgamating ideas and customs, which is probably why it is so succesful.
I wonder if this discussion will be continued in 150 years time?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
warlock wrote:
Do you have friends?
Do you want a hug?
Why do you need so much attention?
w
Lorisco should be asking you these questions. You have nothing insightful to provide to this thread and despite the fact that you appear to be liberated from religious ethics and testify of a black heritage, your comments are offending to homosexuals and African Americans alike.
Are you black? If not, how can you claim to speak as to whether or not African-Americans are offended.
There are quite a few black guys on this forum and none of them have taken offense.
I would be far more interested to hear what they have to say than what you do.
Excellent point! So are they silent because it really isn’t offense to them or because their PC or political bias is more important than their racial perspective?
[/quote]
There is nothing more offensive to me then YOU or anyone else acting as if you know what I should be getting offended about and when I should show it. That act alone shows you think you are superior to me and need to inform me when I should be upset about something. You are the last person who needs to be speaking about what offends black people.
[quote]miniross wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I think some of the extreme liberals have been working overtime on this thread. It’s time to shine some light on their politically correct faulty thinking:
First- of all, why would anyone equate “Racism” with being homosexual?
How many times does it have to be shown that there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic?
Therefore, if you are attempting to bestow special status on homosexuals there are many other groups which should be given this status too (dajavue all over again). If we are giving out special rights for a personal choice It could easily become comical.
Shall I throw some examples out? No, I’ll save that for later when my premise is questioned-more fun that way.
Second- I think many of the politically correct who are basically out to bash others for their views are missing the entire point (which is not unusual on this subject).
Those who don’t like Brokeback because it is about two gay men have a right not to like it!
They don’t have to make up excuses as to why. They can simply say that they don’t like movies with a homosexual theme.
That does not mean that they are homophobic. Nor does it mean that they “hate” anyone. And what is “homophobic” anyway? Are those who speak out against homosexuality actually afraid of homosexuals? Or do they feel that it is not a “natural” lifestyle? And are they perhaps repulsed by the act of two men having sex?
Here is a news flash for you: Men are allowed to feel repulsed by two men having sex! It’s more “homorepugnance” than homophobic. Some men cannot help but feel sickened by certain acts. The fact that this does not fit your politically correct agenda matters not.
I know that those who want to push the homosexual agenda don’t want to read this, but it’s the truth. And I have also seen the great defenders of all things homosexual make fun of those who are obese.
Why is it okay in their politically correct play book to make fun of the obese? What if they were born fat?
Third- No one is claiming that the movie industry is “trying to make us all gay.” that is one very silly comment on this thread.
However, it is merely one more step in attempting to push the gay agenda onto America. “See these two poor guys…they had to…GASP get married and have children…of all the rotten things…”
Hollywood is liberal! PERIOD If you don’t know that by now you are either a liberal yourself, or you are simply not capable of paying attention.
Fourth- People who speak out against the acclaim given the movie are not attempting in any way to take away the right of two men to have sex (that might have been the silliest comment. Difficult to judge there are so many coming from the left). Who cares what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? Certainly not me.
However, speaking out against a movement is another matter. It is everyone’s right, and some would say duty to speak out against things that they feel are being politicized, gay marriage not being the least of these national issues. “Gay” Hollywood continuing to push their liberal agenda is another.
Fifth- Tolerance is all the rage when it comes to accepting two men having sex. And to this I agree. We live in a free society and everyone has the right to pursue happiness as they see it. However, where is the tolerance in reverse when someone on this thread speaks out against something like gay marriage, or even a gay film?
the haters from the left come out in droves.
It seems that no one is allowed to question anything gay without the tired old homophobic comments flying.
And no one…and I mean NO ONE is more intolerant than an extreme liberal.
And, before any of you extreme liberals go there: I am not asking others to be tolerant of intolerance. What I am asking is that those who want to either embrace this lifestyle, or defend those who do to be more tolerant of someone’s free speech right to question it’s place in society.
Those of us who are pro traditional values have no right to name call. But on the other hand neither do the extreme liberals who push the homosexual agenda (and there is an agenda make no mistake about it). It seems that almost every thread I have been involved in the name calling is done by those who want to silence anyone who has the audacity (in their eyes) to question the place that homosexuality fits into today’s society.
Let the debate about Brokeback continue. But keep in mind there are always at least two sides to every issue. And simply because you are on one side and I am on the other does not make either of us evil.
Hi Zeb
Good post.
I am in agreemnet with you here.
My only issue is from where people gain their standpoint, i.e. from the bible…coz it says so.
It is impossible to discuss with that. Maybe, over time there will be a “softening” so to speak, of the “rules”. Christianity has alway been effective at remodelling itself, amalgamating ideas and customs, which is probably why it is so succesful.
I wonder if this discussion will be continued in 150 years time?[/quote]
Very good insight! But then again I have come to expect that from you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,
Here is the definition of propaganda from Wikipedia…
Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, “propaganda” was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading.
So, you think the movie is intended to influence peoples opinions? You really think there is any chance Stellar would suddenly support the gay lifestyle if he went to see the movie?
[/quote]
Do you think that advertisers spend millions of dollars every year to have their products advertised on TV or movies because it doesn’t influence peoples opinions to buy their products?
Did you see the movie “The Italian Job”? Remember the Cooper Mini cars? Those cars were relatively unknown before that movie. Sales of those cars went up dramatically after that movie and now we see them all over the place.
So yes, I think that and the producers of the movie think that as well, because it has been proven time after time that it does changes peoples opinions.
[quote]
You think that there is some ulterior motive supported by false or misleading information, which is what propaganda implies in this day and age?[/quote]
If by false or misleading you mean a bias, then yes. I think the movie is pushing a biased point of view in order to change perceptions of the people watching the movie.
[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
It’s a sad day on T-Nation when the most popular threads are about gays…quote]
It is a bodybuilding website.
Any activity that involves shaving mens chests, oiling up and parading around on stage with other nearly nude men does have a slightly gay edge to it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
warlock wrote:
Do you have friends?
Do you want a hug?
Why do you need so much attention?
w
Lorisco should be asking you these questions. You have nothing insightful to provide to this thread and despite the fact that you appear to be liberated from religious ethics and testify of a black heritage, your comments are offending to homosexuals and African Americans alike.
Are you black? If not, how can you claim to speak as to whether or not African-Americans are offended.
There are quite a few black guys on this forum and none of them have taken offense.
I would be far more interested to hear what they have to say than what you do.
Excellent point! So are they silent because it really isn’t offense to them or because their PC or political bias is more important than their racial perspective?
There is nothing more offensive to me then YOU or anyone else acting as if you know what I should be getting offended about and when I should show it. That act alone shows you think you are superior to me and need to inform me when I should be upset about something. You are the last person who needs to be speaking about what offends black people. [/quote]
You don’t want us non-blacks to answer for you, great. I can totally respect that.
Now cut the shit and answer the question for yourself. As a black person, does it offend you or not and why?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
warlock wrote:
Do you have friends?
Do you want a hug?
Why do you need so much attention?
w
Lorisco should be asking you these questions. You have nothing insightful to provide to this thread and despite the fact that you appear to be liberated from religious ethics and testify of a black heritage, your comments are offending to homosexuals and African Americans alike.
Are you black? If not, how can you claim to speak as to whether or not African-Americans are offended.
There are quite a few black guys on this forum and none of them have taken offense.
I would be far more interested to hear what they have to say than what you do.
Excellent point! So are they silent because it really isn’t offense to them or because their PC or political bias is more important than their racial perspective?
There is nothing more offensive to me then YOU or anyone else acting as if you know what I should be getting offended about and when I should show it. That act alone shows you think you are superior to me and need to inform me when I should be upset about something. You are the last person who needs to be speaking about what offends black people.
You don’t want us non-blacks to answer for you, great. I can totally respect that.
Now cut the shit and answer the question for yourself. As a black person, does it offend you or not and why?
[/quote]
It is none of your concern either way. It will forever be a huge mystery to you as to why not one other black person on this board (of which there are at least three who are regular responders and even more of mixed heritage) has responded.
Lorisco,
Another honest question for you.
Do you think the movie would be biased if it was showing things from the honest point of view of gay men conforming to straight society?
Seriously. The use of bias is pretty interesting here. Is it biased to show how societies views force some to make choices that make them unhappy?
The bias I see around here is that people are biased against the movie because it happens to discuss a facet of society or lifestyle that they don’t believe is appropriate.
The fact that it exists and the fact that those that are gay have to deal with these issues does not make it biased to show things from their point of view.
Is everything you personally don’t agree with biased if it represents something other than your own opinion?
It is also tricky to look at advertising in this regard. The purpose of advertising is purportedly inform the public about the availability of products. Based on this, people make purchasing decisions. False advertising is however something that generally is not tolerated well…
If people learn the honest truth about how some gay people lead unhappy lives due to their need to conform to society is there anything wrong with that? Why should people not consider the point of view of this minority? Aren’t they people too? Should they not have a way to voice their concerns with respect to how society should conduct itself?
Everyone has that right. It doesn’t make it bias or propaganda to represent those ideas, just because you don’t like or don’t agree with those ideas.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is none of your concern either way. It will forever be a huge mystery to you as to why not one other black person on this board (of which there are at least three who are regular responders and even more of mixed heritage) has responded.
[/quote]
Boo-hoo. I’m crying because Professor X didn’t respond to being asked if the word “nigger” and warlock’s statements were offensive to black people. As if he’s the only black person whose opinion counts so he’s going to conceal it like he has some special authority on the matter.
Professor X, I never claimed I completely understood the psychological mindframe of black folks, but I have black friends (and I don’t mean over the computer) who I know would find warlock’s statements offensive. If you feel threatened or inferior by my assessment, then you’re either a mentally insecure person or suffer from some other psychological deficiency. My advice? Get diagnosed and treated as quickly as possible.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The bias I see around here is that people are biased against the movie because it happens to discuss a facet of society or lifestyle that they don’t believe is appropriate.
The fact that it exists and the fact that those that are gay have to deal with these issues does not make it biased to show things from their point of view.
[/quote]
vroom, do you agree with pedophilia? If a movie came out that glorified pedophilia between a 30 year old man and a 12 year old girl, and people hailed it as a true love story, and society described the characters in the film as being heroic, would you be as generous in your attitude or would you say, “what the hell is wrong with our society these days?!?!”