More Liberal Censorship

[The True Adonis]

You originally posted the dog video I posted above, but removed it before I could respond. Right at the beginning of the video, the narrator references the presence of the teaser bitch. In the horse video you posted, it is likely there was a mounting or teaser mare present. In the comments of the horse video, commenters wonder why the horse gets hard so fast. It appears to get semi-aroused before it is even touched.

I honestly got tired of looking up animal ejaculation videos, but they are out there.  Also, in bonobos and gorillas homosexuality is practiced by some as practice for when they do get a female.  For others its a dominance hierarchical thing and some just do it for pleasure.   Same thing for humans, the fifth ape.

This book covers it all very well.

[Dos Equis]

This isn't his version of events. In that SI article he talked about trying for years to be hetero but always knowing that he wasn't. He has never said that he was straight and then decided to be gay. He has said that he's always been gay, but unsuccessfully tried to be straight.So if you were to ask Jason Collins, he'd say it wasn't a choice.

That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis.  She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men.  He made a choice to start sleeping with men.  If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long. 

[Straw Man]

That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis.  She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men.  He made a choice to start sleeping with men.  If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long. 

sounds more like the choice he made was to try to be straight

I love how you just assume that if he was "really gay" he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for "so long"

how long does the Bum Meter say someone can be engaged if they are really gay and just trying to be straight

I'm sure it never occurred to you that a black professional athlete would feel any pressure to try to be straight

How absurd...right ?

[The True Adonis]

sounds more like the choice he made was to try to be straight

I love how you just assume that if he was "really gay" he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for "so long"

how long does the Bum Meter say someone can be engaged if they are really gay and just trying to be straight

I'm sure it never occurred to you that a black professional athlete would feel any pressure to try to be straight

How absurd...right ?

Beach Bum`s scenario is the more likely one.

Its not all or nothing, its both as I said.

[Straw Man]

Beach Bum`s scenario is the more likely one.

Its not all or nothing, its both as I said.

how do you know "it's both" ?

Did Jason Collins say he was bi?

How many times have we heard this same story about a man "trying to be straight"

Do you ever hear stories of gay guys who tried to be gay but really couldn't suppress there straight urges

Layer in the fact that this guy is a black, professional athlete and it makes even more sense

I guess we should assume Jason Collins really doesn't know himself as well and Bum seem to know him

[Al Doggity]

That's the version from his fiance, who he was with for eight years, and I assume was having sex with on a regular basis.  She probably knew him as well as anyone and had no clue he liked men.  He made a choice to start sleeping with men.  If he was really gay from the jump he wouldn't have been engaged to a woman for so long.  

Being  a closeted gay man wouldn't have prevented him from being engaged. His relationship with a woman would have been an element of being closeted. That actually isn't the ex-fiancee's version of events, either. Here is what she did say:

I can't imagine what it's like to go through all the stages he has gone through, all the deep layers. I don't know what it's like to wear a mask for 34 years. It's sad that society puts that kind of pressure on a person.

So, neither Collins or his ex-fiancee thinks he made a choice to suddenly turn gay and both have stated that societal pressures had a lot to do with him hiding that fact.

[Al Doggity]

I honestly got tired of looking up animal ejaculation videos, but they are out there.

The videos may be out there, but it's certainly not the most common practice and your previous statements are inaccurate.

Also, in bonobos and gorillas homosexuality is practiced by some as practice for when they do get a female.  For others its a dominance hierarchical thing and some just do it for pleasure.   Same thing for humans, the fifth ape.

This isn't accurate. Bonobos don't use homosexuality as practice until they get a mate. Bonobos are a bisexual species.

[The True Adonis]

The videos may be out there, but it's certainly not the most common practice and your previous statements are inaccurate.




This isn't accurate. Bonobos don't use homosexuality as practice until they get a mate. Bonobos are a bisexual species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Hope this helps:

[ Invalid YouTube link ].O&biw=1920&bih=1034&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1

[Al Doggity]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Hope this helps:

[ Invalid YouTube link ].O&biw=1920&bih=1034&dpr=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1

What is this post supposed to be proving? From your first link: "nearly all bonobos are bisexual".

[Dos Equis]

Being  a closeted gay man wouldn't have prevented him from being engaged. His relationship with a woman would have been an element of being closeted. That actually isn't the ex-fiancee's version of events, either. Here is what she did say:

That's not all she said:

"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/

So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids.  That's just pure BS.  He made a choice.  And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants.  Free country.   

But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut. 

[Straw Man]

That's not all she said:

"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/

So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids.  That's just pure BS.  He made a choice.  And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants.  Free country.   

But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut. 

Bum, you and anyone else can talk all you want about your beliefs

The point is that others can choose not to agree with you and if they happen to be your employer and think those beliefs could harm their business then you may suffer the consequences

It would be no different than if you were a racist and your employer decided that your chosen beliefs would be harmful to his business

If you read the comments by Fox Sports that's pretty much exactly what they said

[Al Doggity]

That's not all she said:

"A month before I was set to marry the man I loved, he called off the wedding. I had no idea why. He and I had been together for eight years. We had planned to have children, build a family."

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/jason-collins-fiancee-cosmopolitan-carolyn-moos/

So he was a homosexual, yet living with a woman, sleeping with her, engaged to be married, and planning to have kids.  That's just pure BS.  He made a choice.  And he is free to sleep with whomever he wants.  Free country.   

But to bring it back to the subject matter, if you have any issues with or objections to the GLBT lifestyle, whether faith-based or not, you better keep your mouth shut. 

Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked  and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved  say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?

[Straw Man]

Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked  and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved  say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?

very simple

although we can presume that Bum has never met either of these people he somehow knows them both better than they know themselves

[Straw Man]

This entire thread is nothing more than Bums personal desire to luxuriate himself in a fantasy of being victimized for his religious beliefs

[Dos Equis]

Well, you said that if you asked Jason Collins he would say being gay was a choice. But he literally has been asked and answered the question on the record and said that it isn't. Then you said that his ex-fiancee would have a different version of events, but she was also asked  and answered on the record and she said the same thing, that she didn't believe it was a choice. Both of the people involved  say that things are one way, yet you insist that they are both wrong and you know better than them? Why do you think they would both lie? Why do you think you understand their situation better than they do?

What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.”  Those are facts.   

I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together.  Also facts.   

So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple. 

And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.”  If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with.  He made a choice, which he had the right to do.  He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants. 

What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.   

In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech.  We are in dangerous territory.   

[Straw Man]

What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.”  Those are facts.    

I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together.  Also facts.    

So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple.  

And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.”  If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with.  He made a choice, which he had the right to do.  He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants.  

What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.  

In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech.  We are in dangerous territory.    

you're claiming that Jason Collins said something to the effect that "he decided he liked men better"

you have an actual quote to that effect from Collins or is the "fact" you speak of your just your own statement to that effect ...i.e. it's a fact that you made that statement about Collins ?

BTW - for about the 100th time - NO ONE IS SUPPRESSING ANYONE`S SPEECH

you and anyone are free to say whatever you want

why do you keep pretending this is not the case

what you're really complaining about is that others don't agree with what you say and when these people exercise THEIR FREEDOM it bothers you

That's your real beef so why not just admit it

[Al Doggity]

What I said was “Just ask Jason Collins.  Engaged to a woman for years, then decided he liked men better.”  Those are facts.   

 No, those aren't facts. The "then he decided he liked men better" part is something you just made up. Collins has never said that and his ex-fiancee has never said that that is what she believes happened.

I also quoted his fiancé, who said they were not only together for eight years, but were planning a family together.  Also facts.   

So, both confirmed that he was in a committed relationship with a woman for years, planning to get married, and planning to have kids like any normal heterosexual couple. 

And what I also said is any comments by him (or anyone else) who say he was always a homosexual is “BS.”  If he was always a homosexual he would have just gotten a boyfriend and not lived with a woman he intended to marry and have children with.  He made a choice, which he had the right to do.  He can sleep with whomever the heck he wants. 

Even his ex-fiancee acknowledges that he was under a lot of societal pressure to present himself as a straight man.

What I’m doing is placing more emphasis on what actually happened, instead of after-the-fact claims that he was living a lie, etc.   

No, what you're doing is cherry-picking certain aspects of the story, ignoring whatever you find inconvenient and then simply making up "facts" out of thin air to create your own narrative.

In any event, the real issue is the suppression of speech.  We are in dangerous territory.   

As others have already said, speech isn't being suppressed. There is a difference between "free speech" and "offensive speech without any ramifications whatsoever."

[Dos Equis]

No, those aren't facts. The "then he decided he liked men better" part is something you just made up. Collins has never said that and his ex-fiancee has never said that that is what she believes happened.
 


Even his ex-fiancee acknowledges that he was under a lot of societal pressure to present himself as a straight man.

No, what you're doing is cherry-picking certain aspects of the story, ignoring whatever you find inconvenient and then simply making up "facts" out of thin air to create your own narrative.

As others have already said, speech isn't being suppressed. There is a difference between "free speech" and "offensive speech without any ramifications whatsoever."

Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women.  How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman?? 

I know about the societal pressure, etc., etc.  Could that have delayed his decision to start openly having sex with men?  Of course.  Does that mean he didn’t make a choice at the end of the day?  Of course not. 

I agree you could characterize my emphasis on certain statements as “cherry-picking,” although you’re doing the same thing.  But I’m really just using common sense. 

Yes, speech is absolutely being suppressed.  It’s not necessarily a First Amendment issue, because private employers can censor speech, but if you cannot see what is happening you need to take the blinders off.

Go look at the story about McClurkin I posted earlier in this thread.  A preacher was uninvited to an event that was likely going to be filled with religious overtones, because at some point in the past he made what used to be a noncontroversial statement about his own former lifestyle choice. 

Not sure if I posted it in this thread, but I created a thread during the NBA playoffs about the Pacers center (forget his name), who was fined $75k by the NBA for jokingly saying “no homo.” 

You cannot see how dangerous that kind of hypersensitivity is and how it can affect other forms of speech? 

[Al Doggity]

Yes, it is a fact he decided he liked men better than women.

No, it's not.

  How could that not be a fact if he’s now an open homosexual, after previously being in an eight year relationship with a woman?? 

Because he was gay throughout that relationship. Being in a relationship with a woman doesn't mean he wasn't attracted to men.

I know about the societal pressure, etc., etc.  Could that have delayed his decision to start openly having sex with men?  Of course.  Does that mean he didn’t make a choice at the end of the day?  Of course not. 
[/quote]
It also doesn't mean he did make a choice, which is what you are saying and he is not saying.

I agree you could characterize my emphasis on certain statements as “cherry-picking,” although you’re doing the same thing.  But I’m really just using common sense. 

No, I'm actually looking at the story as a whole at not adding made up facts.I'm not cherry-picking at all.

Yes, speech is absolutely being suppressed.  It’s not necessarily a First Amendment issue, because private employers can censor speech, but if you cannot see what is happening you need to take the blinders off.

Go look at the story about McClurkin I posted earlier in this thread.  A preacher was uninvited to an event that was likely going to be filled with religious overtones, because at some point in the past he made what used to be a noncontroversial statement about his own former lifestyle choice. 

Not sure if I posted it in this thread, but I created a thread during the NBA playoffs about the Pacers center (forget his name), who was fined $75k by the NBA for jokingly saying “no homo.” 

You cannot see how dangerous that kind of hypersensitivity is and how it can affect other forms of speech? 

And this has been covered. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want without repercussion. Of course if you say something that many people find offensive, there is a possibility of commercial backlash. There should be. Free speech does not mean  no one is  ever going to get angry at what you say.

[Dos Equis]

And this has been covered. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want without repercussion. Of course if you say something that many people find offensive, there is a possibility of commercial backlash. There should be. Free speech does not mean  no one is  ever going to get angry at what you say.

I never said there should be no repercussions for speech.  There are all sorts of restrictions. 

What I’m talking about is the suppression of speech that isn’t objectively offensive, or at a minimum has been speech that people have used for years in this country. 

Are you saying you have no problem with the NBA fining someone for jokingly saying “no homo”?  So people cannot even joke?  (More rhetorical questions.)  Of course they can do it.  Whether they should is another story.   

IMO, it’s really about an attempt to indoctrinate people. 

I also think it’s extremely hypocritical for liberals to suppress speech, when they are supposed to be people of tolerance.  In reality, many of them are just tolerant of things they agree with. 

[Straw Man]

I never said there should be no repercussions for speech.  There are all sorts of restrictions.  

What I’m talking about is the suppression of speech that isn’t objectively offensive, or at a minimum has been speech that people have used for years in this country.  

Are you saying you have no problem with the NBA fining someone for jokingly saying “no homo”?  So people cannot even joke?  (More rhetorical questions.)  Of course they can do it.  Whether they should is another story.    

IMO, it’s really about an attempt to indoctrinate people.  

I also think it’s extremely hypocritical for liberals to suppress speech, when they are supposed to be people of tolerance.  In reality, many of them are just tolerant of things they agree with.  

you're blind to the fact that many people find the statements by christians about homosexuals to be offensive and also a potential legal liability as well as potentially harmful to a businesses bottom line.

Your blindness to these things is YOUR CHOICE.  

I think you know these things but you have to choose to ignore them in order to maintain your belief system that you are somehow being persecuted for religious beliefs.   The idea that because a certain type of speech has been used "for years in this country" somehow makes it ok is ridiculous  and again I suspect you're well aware of that too.   It wasn't long ago that saying #igger  was completely acceptable and was certainly used "for years" with no repercussions but I assume you are aware that is no longer considered acceptable in spite of it's "years" of being used

[Al Doggity]

The idea that because a certain type of speech has been used "for years in this country" somehow makes it ok is ridiculous  and again I suspect you're well aware of that too.   It wasn't long ago that saying #igger  was completely acceptable and was certainly used "for years" with no repercussions but I assume you are aware that is no longer considered acceptable in spite of it's "years" of being used

What he's saying really does basically come down to him being upset that times have changed and standards have changed. It isn't about "suppressing speech". Every single one of those examples was essentially a business trying to mitigate public relations disasters and retain clients. Dangerous territory, indeed.

[Dos Equis]

Frightening: White House Intimidating Free Speech
by KEITH KOFFLER on OCTOBER 31, 2013

Okay, someone explain to me how this happens in the United States of America.

The White House is suppressing speech, bullying private citizens into not saying things that will hurt the president by calling attention to his false claim that people could keep their insurance if they like it.

According to CNN – and that doesn’t stand for Conservative News Network – insurance industry officials who criticize the Obamacare rollout are getting calls from the White House telling them to shut the &^%$! up. In particular, the White House doesn’t want them to talk about the inconvenient problem that insurers are being forced to drop people’s coverage – even though Obama promised this would not happen.

We really, really are becoming a new kind of country. These insurance executives are private citizens who have the right to say anything they want. Particularly sacrosanct is their freedom to criticize their government. While under Obamacare the feds exercise considerable sway over the insurers, THEY STILL DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

This is exactly what happens as the government expands its purview over your life. It gets it into its thick head that it can control your life, beyond the specific provisions of any given law. Obamacare is not just going to ruin your health care. It will bite off, chew up, and spit out a nice sized chunk of your freedom.

Here’s the report, as delivered by CNN’s Drew Griffin:

What’s going on is a behind the scenes attempt to at least keep insurers from publicly criticizing what is happening under this Affordable Care Act rollout. Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you are going to get a call from the White House – pressure to be quiet.

Insurance executives are being told to keep quiet . . . they feel defenseless against the White House PR team . . . the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade organizations, to keep quiet. The sources are telling us they fear White House retribution.

(They’re being told to keep quiet about) the fact that clarifications were made to the Affordable Care Act after the law was passed and those clarifications are forcing the insurance industry to drop insurance plans that do not meet Obamacare requirements.

Here’s the video.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/10/31/frightening-white-house-intimidating-free-speech/

[Soul Crusher]

Liberal commies at brown u just shut down ray kelly speech.   Fucking commie rats

[whork]

The reality is that everyone is pissy when things don't go their way.

End of story.

Mr Bum is upset because his religious beliefs don't carry more weight. He can cry a river to anyone who will listen, and in this day and age, there's not that many left.

Reality is that Mr. Bum is of an old guard who is dying off and the younger generation does not take hate for homosexuals lightly.

This!!