[EyeBrock]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed Riden. I always like a bit of a debate but the tirade everybody gets subjected to when mustang foists himself off his lofty perch to 'school' us mere mortals, well it's really counter productive to any discussion.

He's just another forum bully. It's a pity really, it could be so much more fun if he stopped his tiresome ways. His message is getting lost in his arrogant approach and the barrage of insults.

I leave it at that and he can rebutt with his usual caustic diatribe. I'm sure it'll make him feel most superior.

Classic inferiority complex coupled with projection and hypocrisies. If cheer-leading is all you've got left...you're done.

You forgot 'shuffle on'.

[ridenrain]

westmanguy westmanguy:

Let me weigh in as a Gay Tory...

Brad Wall: non-issue with him, he was drunk young, and making some Ukrainian jokes. Although inappropriate no big deal.

Tory MP: He has apologized and I accept his apology, and I don't believe he should have to resign over something he said 17 years ago.

ALTHOUGH, I do think those comments reflect his character and views on gays and lesbians.

I've been waiting for you to chime in on this one. You're comments are very similar to one of the sites I like to monitor: Gay & Right.
All we've heard from are the ranting left who are simply using this for political ends yet here are 2 gay tories who do put this in the correct perspective.

[sasquatch2]

What most here do not grasp is the certain individuals vent here because the attitudes and notions they express here makes them social pariahs in the real world.

It is necessary to allow these damaged individuals an oportunity to vent, they have the profile of the mass murderers.

[Benoit]

If not resigning, at least Lukiwski should recycle himself. I doubt that the Manning Center for practical politics would be the right place though.

http://www.manningcentre.ca/en

[mtbr]

Maybe he would enjoy the company of the Pembina Institute.

[Benoit]

mtbr mtbr:

Maybe he would enjoy the company of the Pembina Institute.

of Anthony Salloum of the Rideau Institute rather.

[Dayseed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed Riden. I always like a bit of a debate but the tirade everybody gets subjected to when mustang foists himself off his lofty perch to 'school' us mere mortals, well it's really counter productive to any discussion.

He's just another forum bully. It's a pity really, it could be so much more fun if he stopped his tiresome ways. His message is getting lost in his arrogant approach and the barrage of insults.

I leave it at that and he can rebutt with his usual caustic diatribe. I'm sure it'll make him feel most superior.

Sorry Eyebrock, but on this one, you appear to be wrong. If you want examples, I'll go back and quote them, but for the most part, you're guilty of hypocritically proceeding here. You want Mustang to refrain from personal insults while you casually toss them all over the place, you want him to cease with "dictionary" words but you don't mind peppering all of your posts with British ideoms and lastly, he's remained on point regarding 1991 as not being too historically removed from 2008 to allow for past prejudices to be forgiven whereas you dropped that before he did.

You're a bright guy, so I don't know why you so easily run away from the argument to derail it yourself by steering the whole shebang into what essentially amounts to a whine-fest. If you don't like Mustang talking smack then A) don't do it yourself and B) stick to the salient points.

From reading over the thread, it looks like the main disagreement is one you've personalized; that is, is somebody a bad person for having been bigoted in the past? I think that's the root difference between apologizing and not apologizing for the remarks the MP made. The answer is yes. Apologizing shows us that despite having been bigoted, a person is able to separate present-self from his past-self and acknowledge that past views were wrong. If there's no apology, there's no recognition that those views were wrong, just contemporary to other bigots of the time. If you've turned over a new leaf regarding gays, then what's the big deal about saying when you hated them, you were wrong to do so? It's just confirmation of the views that you now hold.

This one seems so easy to me.

[Benoit]

Dayseed Dayseed:

From reading over the thread, it looks like the main disagreement is one you've personalized; that is, is somebody a bad person for having been bigoted in the past? I think that's the root difference between apologizing and not apologizing for the remarks the MP made. The answer is yes. Apologizing shows us that despite having been bigoted, a person is able to separate present-self from his past-self and acknowledge that past views were wrong. If there's no apology, there's no recognition that those views were wrong, just contemporary to other bigots of the time. If you've turned over a new leaf regarding gays, then what's the big deal about saying when you hated them, you were wrong to do so? It's just confirmation of the views that you now hold.

This one seems so easy to me.

Politicians have to do more than apologizing for wrong past views, they have to redress them, even though they have not participated directly and personally to those views. That's what Harper did with Indian Residential Schools.

[Dayseed]

Benoit Benoit:

Dayseed Dayseed:

From reading over the thread, it looks like the main disagreement is one you've personalized; that is, is somebody a bad person for having been bigoted in the past? I think that's the root difference between apologizing and not apologizing for the remarks the MP made. The answer is yes. Apologizing shows us that despite having been bigoted, a person is able to separate present-self from his past-self and acknowledge that past views were wrong. If there's no apology, there's no recognition that those views were wrong, just contemporary to other bigots of the time. If you've turned over a new leaf regarding gays, then what's the big deal about saying when you hated them, you were wrong to do so? It's just confirmation of the views that you now hold.

This one seems so easy to me.

Politicians have to do more than apologizing for wrong past views, they have to redress them, even though they have not participated directly and personally to those views. That is what Harper did with Indian Residential Schools.

Piss off dink.

[Benoit]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Benoit Benoit:

Dayseed Dayseed:

From reading over the thread, it looks like the main disagreement is one you've personalized; that is, is somebody a bad person for having been bigoted in the past? I think that's the root difference between apologizing and not apologizing for the remarks the MP made. The answer is yes. Apologizing shows us that despite having been bigoted, a person is able to separate present-self from his past-self and acknowledge that past views were wrong. If there's no apology, there's no recognition that those views were wrong, just contemporary to other bigots of the time. If you've turned over a new leaf regarding gays, then what's the big deal about saying when you hated them, you were wrong to do so? It's just confirmation of the views that you now hold.

This one seems so easy to me.

Politicians have to do more than apologizing for wrong past views, they have to redress them, even though they have not participated directly and personally to those views. That is what Harper did with Indian Residential Schools.

Piss off dink.

Rejoining Eyebrock and Mustang!?

[EyeBrock]

Dayseed Dayseed:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed Riden. I always like a bit of a debate but the tirade everybody gets subjected to when mustang foists himself off his lofty perch to 'school' us mere mortals, well it's really counter productive to any discussion.

He's just another forum bully. It's a pity really, it could be so much more fun if he stopped his tiresome ways. His message is getting lost in his arrogant approach and the barrage of insults.

I leave it at that and he can rebutt with his usual caustic diatribe. I'm sure it'll make him feel most superior.

Sorry Eyebrock, but on this one, you appear to be wrong. If you want examples, I'll go back and quote them, but for the most part, you're guilty of hypocritically proceeding here. You want Mustang to refrain from personal insults while you casually toss them all over the place, you want him to cease with "dictionary" words but you don't mind peppering all of your posts with British ideoms and lastly, he's remained on point regarding 1991 as not being too historically removed from 2008 to allow for past prejudices to be forgiven whereas you dropped that before he did.

You're a bright guy, so I don't know why you so easily run away from the argument to derail it yourself by steering the whole shebang into what essentially amounts to a whine-fest. If you don't like Mustang talking smack then A) don't do it yourself and B) stick to the salient points.

From reading over the thread, it looks like the main disagreement is one you've personalized; that is, is somebody a bad person for having been bigoted in the past? I think that's the root difference between apologizing and not apologizing for the remarks the MP made. The answer is yes. Apologizing shows us that despite having been bigoted, a person is able to separate present-self from his past-self and acknowledge that past views were wrong. If there's no apology, there's no recognition that those views were wrong, just contemporary to other bigots of the time. If you've turned over a new leaf regarding gays, then what's the big deal about saying when you hated them, you were wrong to do so? It's just confirmation of the views that you now hold.

This one seems so easy to me.

How you doing Dayseed? Nice to hear from you mate.

I actually kind of agree on some points, I did personalise those posts a bit but sometimes trying to get a point across to mustang just draws attacks that end up into insults and I do believe he's turned into a bully on this forum.

On the British idioms, well I am English, I speak this way as I was brought up in Manchester.



As for hating gays in 1991, where did I say that? I may have taken the piss out of mates who were being less than manly or macho (military environment's can be harsh places) by calling them 'puffs' etc but I didn’t hate gays, I just didn't think they were 'normal' and just too different. It wasn't until I met gays in a social environment that I began to their sexuality and lifestyle as equal and I just tossed my preconceived notions aside. Those were different days for the gay community and I remember seeing the gathering momentum of true acceptance into mainstream society and I really believe that society is for the better. I'm remember seeing a documentary about a gay Royal Navy sailor who was 'outed' and dismissed. (Prior to a change in Queens Regulations) All this guy wanted to do was serve his country in the Navy, but they kicked him out for being gay. It was just wrong on every level. That was 1995.

Bringing all this nonsense about Nazis etc was just another typical excocet like rebuttal, which really does not endear mustang to many people.
I don't see anything wrong with a bit of civility. You and I have had some clashes in the past but there is a level of mutual respect for each others views. This is not the case with mustang. Further discussions with him while he is so abrasive just isn't my idea of fun.


But appreciate the input mate, I know you mean well.

[Dayseed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Dayseed Dayseed:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed Riden. I always like a bit of a debate but the tirade everybody gets subjected to when mustang foists himself off his lofty perch to 'school' us mere mortals, well it's really counter productive to any discussion.

He's just another forum bully. It's a pity really, it could be so much more fun if he stopped his tiresome ways. His message is getting lost in his arrogant approach and the barrage of insults.

I leave it at that and he can rebutt with his usual caustic diatribe. I'm sure it'll make him feel most superior.

Sorry Eyebrock, but on this one, you appear to be wrong. If you want examples, I'll go back and quote them, but for the most part, you're guilty of hypocritically proceeding here. You want Mustang to refrain from personal insults while you casually toss them all over the place, you want him to cease with "dictionary" words but you don't mind peppering all of your posts with British ideoms and lastly, he's remained on point regarding 1991 as not being too historically removed from 2008 to allow for past prejudices to be forgiven whereas you dropped that before he did.

You're a bright guy, so I don't know why you so easily run away from the argument to derail it yourself by steering the whole shebang into what essentially amounts to a whine-fest. If you don't like Mustang talking smack then A) don't do it yourself and B) stick to the salient points.

From reading over the thread, it looks like the main disagreement is one you've personalized; that is, is somebody a bad person for having been bigoted in the past? I think that's the root difference between apologizing and not apologizing for the remarks the MP made. The answer is yes. Apologizing shows us that despite having been bigoted, a person is able to separate present-self from his past-self and acknowledge that past views were wrong. If there's no apology, there's no recognition that those views were wrong, just contemporary to other bigots of the time. If you've turned over a new leaf regarding gays, then what's the big deal about saying when you hated them, you were wrong to do so? It's just confirmation of the views that you now hold.

This one seems so easy to me.

How you doing Dayseed? Nice to hear from you mate.

I actually kind of agree on some points, I did personalise those posts a bit but sometimes trying to get a point across to mustang just draws attacks that end up into insults and I do believe he's turned into a bully on this forum.

On the British idioms, well I am English, I speak this way as I was brought up in Manchester.



As for hating gays in 1991, where did I say that? I may have taken the piss out of mates who were being less than manly or macho (military environment's can be harsh places) by calling them 'puffs' etc but I didn’t hate gays, I just didn't think they were 'normal' and just too different. It wasn't until I met gays in a social environment that I began to their sexuality and lifestyle as equal and I just tossed my preconceived notions aside. Those were different days for the gay community and I remember seeing the gathering momentum of true acceptance into mainstream society and I really believe that society is for the better. I'm remember seeing a documentary about a gay Royal Navy sailor who was 'outed' and dismissed. (Prior to a change in Queens Regulations) All this guy wanted to do was serve his country in the Navy, but they kicked him out for being gay. It was just wrong on every level. That was 1995.

Bringing all this nonsense about Nazis etc was just another typical excocet like rebuttal, which really does not endear mustang to many people.
I don't see anything wrong with a bit of civility. You and I have had some clashes in the past but there is a level of mutual respect for each others views. This is not the case with mustang. Further discussions with him while he is so abrasive just isn't my idea of fun.


But appreciate the input mate, I know you mean well.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that YOU hated gays, but I was referring to the anti-gay bigotry that pervaded some people.

I understand the point with the Nazis. Mackenzie King certainly didn't accept the boatloads of Jewish people escaping Hitler's tyranny in the 30's; he was wrong to that DESPITE there being a lot of anti-sematism in the 30's including the Nazi rallies in Montreal. The parallel being that Hitler wouldn't have been redeemed if people were examining his attitudes in 1945 (even without the horror of the holocaust being considered) and excused HIS anti-sematism because others were too. He was a monster in 1930, 1940 and 2008. So, people who made anti-gay remarks (which I don't believe includes joking about gays like they did on Seinfeld, but rather the "Gays are satanic abominations" type bigotry) in 1991 aren't redeemed now because more people held those attitudes then than now.

The bottom line is that people have to be allowed to change their views, otherwise, all of the social progress gays have fought for is for naught.

[EyeBrock]

I couldn't agree more with all of your post.

[Mustang1]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Agreed Riden. I always like a bit of a debate but the tirade everybody gets subjected to when mustang foists himself off his lofty perch to 'school' us mere mortals, well it's really counter productive to any discussion.

He's just another forum bully. It's a pity really, it could be so much more fun if he stopped his tiresome ways. His message is getting lost in his arrogant approach and the barrage of insults.

I leave it at that and he can rebutt with his usual caustic diatribe. I'm sure it'll make him feel most superior.

Classic inferiority complex coupled with projection and hypocrisies. If cheer-leading is all you've got left...you're done.

You forgot 'shuffle on'.

But you didn't forget to not make a point.

[Mustang1]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I actually kind of agree on some points, I did personalise those posts a bit but sometimes trying to get a point across to mustang just draws attacks that end up into insults and I do believe he's turned into a bully on this forum.

You started with the condescending tone and insults not me. Secondly, you're the one that is still incorrect - you'll notice Dayseed and Zipperfish concur with my assertion that homophobia was NOT socially permissible in 1991. Thirdly, i'm hardly a bully - I just stand up to anti-intellectuals, hypocrites and bigots. Sorry, you've been a first rate ass on this thread.