[ShepherdsDog]

If you can't substantiate it, don't present it as such, otherwise you'll end up with as much credibility as the dumb ass(who shall remained unnamed and forever a mystery) who posts pictures he claims were from the G20 meeting in TO, but were in fact from the UK and claims his 'friends'(aka the voices) tell him 'things'. You don't want to be grouped with him because he has cooties.

[SprCForr]

Refreshed Refreshed:

I think I fixed the links but don't ban me!

I'm just disagreeing here... I'm not trying to get myself banned.

Those were real quotes. It's like North Korea all of a sudden. Ironic.

Click the link in the PM I sent you.

It will take you to the post in question.

Make the appropriate edit where you attributed comments to me that I did not make.

[Refreshed]

Calm down.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

If you can't substantiate it, don't present it as such, otherwise you'll end up with as much credibility as the dumb ass(who shall remained unnamed and forever a mystery) who posts pictures he claims were from the G20 meeting in TO, but were in fact from the UK and claims his 'friends'(aka the voices) tell him 'things'. You don't want to be grouped with him because he has cooties.

Is that cooties as in the "childhood ailment" or cooties as in tiny livestock?

[Refreshed]

SprCForr SprCForr:

Click the link in the PM I sent you.

It will take you to the post in question.

Make the appropriate edit where you attributed comments to me that I did not make.

OK I did, but it's a long post. Please point out exactly what you're talking about.

[Canadian_Mind]

Refreshed Refreshed:

Calm down.

[Khar]

It is like North Korea. Someone trying to pass off a sample group of less than a dozen people as representative of the millions of members of the entire LGBT community smacks of propaganda.

Needless equivalencies only cause hard words and feelings between people. Others on this site have been called out on saying "well I talked to people and they said this" or "this small group of people agree with me so obviously they are representatives of a bigger group." It's not something we can access, it's not something we can verify, and hence you should accept that people here are going to question the validity of what you are saying.

People do what you did all the time, sure. In casual conversation, off the computer. But on CKA, we all have access to the same internet. We all have access to the same links, news articles and databases. People will call you out on it, and it's happened here. None of the folks who are homosexual I know approve of this decision, and even though that is more than the three folks originally quoted, since I cannot reference them, I have not brought it up before now. Other people can question for similar reasons.

After all, in other threads, including the one on Chinese sweatshops and the one on marajuana, you were adamant when it came to sourcing materials. It's important that if you wish to criticize others for that, than you should have to support your comments in the same manner if they cross the line of being your opinion into being "facts." As far as I know, there is no solid way to say "some," "most," or "few" homosexual persons are offended by this song, since I don't think there's really been a poll of gay folks, nor are there any sizable groups of homosexual folks really discussing it -- even that site you referenced is only two forum threads which six or so posters. However, 95% of folks out there apparently are against this ban -- I would not be surprised if a similar value was in the homosexual community.

Before that site, I had not heard of a single homosexual person actually being offended by this song once they heard the story behind it, personally. In my view, ignoring that word and why it's there is worse than accepting why it's there in this case. It's ironic that so recently after Scape had posted the 99 Problems video, this one comes up -- since I have a feeling it's knee jerk offense on the most part, much like Jay-Z described in that video.

[Public_Domain]

To enter the foray here I'll note as a leftist I willingly participate in pro-gay leftist crap et cetera.

Yeah, some are offended. A bisexual girl in our class was in tears about this as we talked about it Friday. No sources by the way, so take it with a grain of salt.

It's difficult for me. It's just a word. I'm very critical about this, I'm horrible with political correctness. I'm fine with the song remaining on the radio. Hate speech is illegal and I feel it's doing basic justice. Banning some freaking song isn't helping the movement guys. It doesn't do anything. I'm very much for gay rights and what not, but I'm also anti-racist and don't give a damn about much of the censorship around words there. There are levels. Recognize what is and isn't discrimination and you won't shoot yourself in the foot.

'Faggot' is a horribly dirty word by the way. Sadistic and cruel, just one of the most vile things people say to each other. I'd appreciate it if every kid got a smack upside the head for saying it. But I'm in favour of the 'South Park' remedy, changing the definition to mean annoying Harley Davidson riders.

I'm going to be brutally honest right now, I've never consciously noticed the word 'faggot' in this song.

What's the Moral of the Story? Stop listening to the radio stations.

I repeat, I'm very certain many gay rights activists are against this. I'm also certain many are not.

I have no guess on what the percentage for either camp is.

Why does it matter?

[Refreshed]

People here have said it's only one gay person opposed to this word on the radio.

I've proved that's wrong already. I'm only saying 2/3's not all! Difference... seriously.

[Khar]

No, people have said that only one person complained, and that that response from the gay community has been mostly in agreement. Both of those come directly out of Zipperfish's responses, and neither comment said that only one gay person is opposed to this word on the radio.

Unless I missed a post, and if I did, could you please quote it? I've gone back 8 pages and cannot find a reference to a single person being the only one opposed to this.

Otherwise, you've not refuted what was said here. As I mentioned previously, a sample size of less than a dozen is not a real sampling of a community.

[Canadian_Mind]

Khar Khar:

No, people have said that only one person complained, and that that response from the gay community has been mostly in agreement. Both of those come directly out of Zipperfish's responses, and neither comment said that only one gay person is opposed to this word on the radio.

Unless I missed a post, and if I did, could you please quote it? I've gone back 8 pages and cannot find a reference to a single person being the only one opposed to this.

Otherwise, you've not refuted what was said here. As I mentioned previously, a sample size of less than a dozen is not a real sampling of a community.

I gotta ask Khar, how do you do it? photographic memory?

[Refreshed]

Khar Khar:

Unless I missed a post, and if I did, could you please quote it? I've gone back 8 pages and cannot find a reference to a single person being the only one opposed to this.

Really? Wow!

[Refreshed]

Goodbye everyone.

I've disagreed to the point certain folks want me to leave and I'm about to be banned.

Some people support free speech as long as they agree with it. If they don't, some people get angry and stop thinking clearly. Ironic but true. Take care hypocrites.

[SprCForr]

Wow. Very dramatic, baseless too.

I predict he'll be back. They always do...

[martin14]

Ya, not a very good meltdown yet, waiting for better..