If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups
We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is
no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter. rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to happen here. -- Christopher J. Campbell World Famous Flight Instructor Port Orchard, WA For the Homeland! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
There is
no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to them A) They're already busy merrily posting arguments on other newsgroups. B) The pilots themselves do a sufficient job of dragging discussions off-topic to bicker about politics and social issues. Just watch. C) Yeah, just like the news media, newsgroups devoted to a topic shouldn't post anything bad about that topic. If we hushed up all the bad news we'd be just like that nice Soviet Union and the Afghan news. Then we could all be happy and censored. That's the ticket. D) Learn to separate facts from opinions. Leave the latter out. How refreshing that would be. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
According to my dictionary, homophobe came into existence (ie: was
made up) in 1975. It literally means fear of homosexuality. Perhaps it's an appropriate term for those showing hatred for gays, but I never did understand the way it is usually applied to anyone who has an opinion that's not 100% supportive of gays. It has always seemed to me that the gay community would have less opposition if they didn’t use that term so broadly. It’s quite interesting to see the response to the combination heterophobe. -- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter. rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to happen here. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Really, I had no intention of starting a heated discussion on homosexual
rights with my original post. This thread confirms some things for me, though: There is no one who is so intolerant as someone who professes to hate intolerance. The Boy Scouts is a private organization devoted to the interests of straight young males. So what? Those who cannot stand the existence of such an organization genuinely deserve the appellation of "heterophobes." It is hypocritical to assert that the Scouts are attempting to impose their morality on others. They are doing no such thing. In fact, the critics are attempting to impose their morality on the Scouts, which I think is just wrong. My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any reason. This is the only way to achieve and maintain any kind of healthy cultural and political diversity. Here is where modern liberalism has failed. Instead of celebrating diversity, as it claims, modern liberalism seems solely interested in an Orwellian, politically correct monoculture where the only value is "tolerance" -- which has been given a new and twisted definition meaning only "tolerant of the party line." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... Here is where modern liberalism has failed. Modern liberalism has failed EVERYWHERE. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any reason. I agree with you there. However: * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort of government support. As a private organization, they should be self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate. * As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that. In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best. However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism. Pete |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... | "C J Campbell" wrote in message | ... | My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization | should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any | reason. | | I agree with you there. However: | | * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort | of government support. As a private organization, they should be | self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate. | I really get tired of that canard. The Boy Scouts do not get any more government support than any other private organization. Yes, they are allowed to meet in public schools, just like the gay rights groups -- many of whom do not allow straight members. Yes, they are allowed to use the public parks, drive on the public roads, and even breathe the public air, despite the fact that I have heard from numerous activists who do not think any of these things should be allowed. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
... "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... | "C J Campbell" wrote in message | ... | My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization | should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any | reason. | | I agree with you there. However: | | * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort | of government support. As a private organization, they should be | self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate. | I really get tired of that canard. The Boy Scouts do not get any more government support than any other private organization. Yes, they are allowed to meet in public schools, just like the gay rights groups -- many of whom do not allow straight members. Again, CJ, you are just inventing claims about your opponents from thin air, so reflexively that you don't even notice that you're doing it. Please cite even *one* example *anywhere* of a gay rights group meeting in public schools and not allowing straight members. I doubt you can even find a completely *private* gay rights group anywhere that doesn't allow straight members. Yes, they are allowed to use the public parks, drive on the public roads, and even breathe the public air, despite the fact that I have heard from numerous activists who do not think any of these things should be allowed. This is beyond ludicrous. Apparently these activists confide in you their secret intentions that they do not reveal anywhere else, or else you would be able to find at least one documented instance of activists who oppose Scouts' use of public parks or roads. Back in the real world, CJ, groups like the ACLU that are at the forefront of the gay rights movement are also the most adamantly in *support* of the free-speech rights of those they disagree with, such as when the ACLU defends the rights of Nazis to march in the streets of Skokie. --Gary |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Well, Gary, you can call me a liar if you wish, but in fact gay rights
activists have posted their opinion on rec.scouting.usa and rec.scouting.issues that BSA should not be allowed to use public facilities, including parks and roads, because to do so constitutes a government subsidy of a discriminatory group. You can fantasize all you want, but your refusal to accept the facts does not change them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |