Why is OK for your to refer to homosexuals as "fairy" and there no disrespect, yet I say faggot and I'm a hater?


You sure your over that homophobia?

See, I'll fight the drug war my way and you can fight it your way and we can make damn sure we both never meet.

I like that plan just fine.

I have gay friends that are in a magickal group known as the Fairies. It's a term of endearment.

Interestingly enough in retrospect, my own bout with homophobia (which like yours was also partialy culturaly influenced) also involved a homosexual pedeophile. When I was 13, my parents were divorced and for a while I had a "Big Brother", he took me to concerrts, skiing and other fun things. One day will swimming in a pool together and wrestling he started going "I am going to grab your balls" and started trying to grab my nuts. I never even realized at the time that this was not exactly healthy play. Luckily things never preceeded past that and as I started to clue into the fact that this guy was a homosexual and was making suttle adavances at me, and as a result, combined with the negative stereotyping of homosexuals by Western Society, I developd homophobia, and that mental construct became entrenched for sometime.

It was becoming a cannabis activist that brought Gays back into my social circle, and I have a lot of deep respect for what they have collectively overcome and accomplished as a culture within a culture.

"See, I'll fight the drug war my way and you can fight it your way and we can make damn sure we both never meet.

I like that plan just fine."


Where is the Love Mr. Lonely? Feel free to look me up if you ever make the pilgrimage to the promised land.

I'm a mind my own business kind of guy Chris.

I believe I will pass on the invite.

"And I uttered the word faggot when I was 13 in the movie theatre when some pervert homosexual tried to feel me up. It was well deserved on that particular homosexual's part."


Only the most fucked-up of people judge an entire community by their worst examples. Anti-jewish folks do that all the time:




Oh, it is sad, very sad, that once more, for the umpteenth time, the old truth is confirmed: "What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Jew does is thrown back at all Jews.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/anne_frank.html

I agree David.


And when the press went to war on Andre Boisclair, and i see the Jean Charest Liberals are taking shots at him, where was Chris Buors?


Why he was right there is Andre's corner, because Chris Buors is big enough to put minor bias's past the better interests of the drug using community.

This guy is using cocaine. How many people you figure there are in Canada with the knowledge of ceremonial drug use capable of going to the man's defense?

I figure two. Alan Randell and I because we are both Szaszians.

So, David, I have judged that homosexual worthy of my support, despite the fact that I am not happy about his sexual preferances.

So, Chris Bennett said that he did not support Boisclairs politcal position and therefore would did nothing to defend Boisclair.

I, on the otherhand, besides understanding that the threat of seperation is the only power a province has to hold the Federal government responsible, could care less what the man's politcs are. I am pleased to discover that the man is a fiscal conservative from the more right wing of the PQ. But I did not know that when I first wrote on his behalf.

And, to boot, when they were saying nasty things about Chris Bennett at smalldeadanimals, i didn't let the fact that Chris is more left on the spectrum than I stand in the way of putting in a line or two in his defense.

So we all have our own biases and our character flaws, not to mention moral lines we will or will not cross. That's what makes us people.

Sorry, jumping to the defense of a homosexual because of one unfair stigma (illegal drug use) does not excuse you from leveling other unfair stigmas upon him and his kind ("immoral" homosexuality).

It doesn't work like that.

Morality works any way you want it to work.

Crackhead...is that an unfair stigma?

What do you think of posters who make make these types of comments?

Quote:

---

From Wodan

Just a reminder
big·ot (b?g'?t)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

At some point you have to stop searching for shills like Scientologist Ssazs, when you have to dig up someone who believes that the reason you are so fucked up is that you are 'possesed by alien beings' you have some serious issues.

---

Now that would seem to be intolerant of Scientology. He slags the whole religion and anybody that Scientologists use to bolster their beliefs.

I called him a bigot by his own definition.

Any comment on that while you are educating me on how bigotry works?

"Morality works any way you want it to work."

You might feel that way. But nobody gets to be a bigot in one area because they attacked bigotry in another area. For example, the Nazis often attacked allopathic medicine for being toxic bullshit, which I think is "the right thing to do" - but it doesn't excuse them from their other actions.




"Crackhead...is that an unfair stigma?"

The crackheads I know generally would prefer opium, and aren't proud of their affiliation with crack (do you know of any proud crack activists?) ... they invite their own stigma. I still don't think they should be discriminated against.



What do you think of posters who make make these types of comments?

Quote:



From Wodan

Just a reminder
big·ot (b?g'?t)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

At some point you have to stop searching for shills like Scientologist Ssazs, when you have to dig up someone who believes that the reason you are so fucked up is that you are 'possesed by alien beings' you have some serious issues.



"Now that would seem to be intolerant of Scientology."

I didn't know Szasz was one of those parasite crazy fuckers. Scientology is worth slagging - if you bother to do any research on the subject you would agree:

http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2145.html

http://pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2144.html

http://pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2112.html

http://pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2111.html

http://pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2150.html

http://pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-3056.html




"He slags the whole religion and anybody that Scientologists use to bolster their beliefs."

They're anti-cannabis activists. You should look into them before you defend them. They're totally worth slagging.





"I called him a bigot by his own definition."

His "bigotry" is very, very justified - unlike yours.







"Any comment on that while you are educating me on how bigotry works?"

Calling all homosexuals "immoral" is not justified, because most of them are harmless and helpful beings - thus they are "moral".

Dissing all scientologists is justified, because they are all - without exception, part of an anti-cannabis money stealing cult that was TOO WEIRD EVEN FOR MICHAEL JACKSON.

I absolutly loved the last answer.

My prejudices are OK, yours are all wrong.

The logic of the drug warrior!

But good bigotry and bad bigotry is a start.

Good and bad are like ugly and beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

I don't care what your opinion of Scientologists are. I don't care what the scientologist do, just like I don't care what the Pope does or any religious leaders does.

What the Scientologists have in common with Szasz is their disdain for the concept of mental illness.

Scientologists promise to rid the world of mental illness, any idea how?

They plan on legislating them out of existance, just like they were legislated into existance.

The Scientologists plan on separating medicine and state because they understand that medicine has become the official state religion...it's competition.

So, a world free from addiction means no more sentencing cannabis users to treatment.

Not to mention the chief demonizing tool would vanish.

So the Scientologists do good work in my eyes.

Quote:

---

The Church of Scientology (CoS) is opposed to “mind-altering” drugs of any kind. This includes all drugs used in psychiatric treatment, to which it is also opposed - but that's another story.

---

What is Narcanon

The 'cult' of scientology is the enemy of drug-reform. I'll take the Pope over them anyday and I am not a Catholic. You better look into them before saying they are 'good' much more. I know you are 'credibility challanged' but defending the CoS will shred whatever you may have left.

The only reason they are so down on psychiatry is because their methods of 'auditing' is some kind of regression therapy that the mainstream medical professionals consider too dangerous. Up with Hubbards 'Dianetics' and down with the modern day (well the 50s really) pyschiatry. Science has evolved since LRH created scientology.

Quote:

---

“ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 18 October 1967

[SP = Suppressive Person a.k.a. critic of Scientology]

---

So you see that any non-scientologist who is anyone who supports any kind of drug use, including psychiatric, is an 'infidel' and treated as such. They would be supporting 'asset-forfeiture' and caging of drug users. (or subjecting them to their mind-control techniques)