Ignorant? Hateful?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheArchDuke

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
511
Location
San Diego
I understand if this thread gets locked because it is only indirectly gun-related.

But, on another forum I visit, I posted the "40 things you must believe to support gun control" and just minutes later I recieve this message from the admin:

"this post is unacceptable to the forum rules and therefore deleted in it's pure ignorance / other peoples beliefs. We label this as a hate post although you probably found it funny. Think twice and watch it. "

My reply:
"Well first of all, your calling the post "pure ignorance" is an opinion. If the rules say that we can't post things that in your opinion are ignorant, then I broke the rules. I don't remember that being against the rules here. And secondly. What part was "hateful"? I'd like to know so that I can go correct it on the other forums I've posted it on."

His second message to me:
"Not an opinion, fact. That's the only thing you have to abide by by posting here, Armageddon (his handle) is right. I'm not here to discuss."

My last reply:
"You're right, this is your little world. But it would really help if you could point out what was hateful so that I can correct it on the other boards. I don't want to seem like a hateful person."


What forum is this?
A Christian extreme metal community.
 
In my experience, the most intolerant people are enlightened liberals. They believe in quashing free speech, unless it is leftist, and they become very angry when people express their beliefes with a little humor. The response calling your posting hatefull exposes the lefts intolerance.
Mauserguy
 
ArchDuke, pardon my ignorance here, but just what is "Christian extreme metal?" Would that be Christian rock music that's beyond "heavy metal?"

And yes, it'd be helpful if we could read what you posted, as it's difficult to see how an internet forum post relating to gun control could be termed a "hate" message.

Kinda curious what their forum rules say ... do the rules specifically refer to guns? Or just say one cannot post something that other forum members do not/may not believe in?

therefore deleted in it's pure ignorance / other peoples beliefs
Neither here nor there, but I note that their mods apparently need a review of when to use apostrophes ...
 
Mauserguy said:
In my experience, the most intolerant people are enlightened liberals. They believe in quashing free speech, unless it is leftist, and they become very angry when people express their beliefes with a little humor. The response calling your posting hatefull exposes the lefts intolerance.
Mauserguy

I agree. Leftists cry and whine about their unabridged 1st amendment rights to very extent that they demand a group like NAMBLA be protected yet the moment a conservative says something they don't like it is deemed hateful and intollerant. You should tell them that a fat middle age man sodomizing a prepubesent boy is "hateful" yet they as a group think that such ideas should be protected and tolerated. Then ask them why voicing one's opinion about gun ownership is so intollerable.
 
This is what the admin said, "this post is unacceptable to the forum rules and therefore deleted in it's pure ignorance / other peoples beliefs. We label this as a hate post although you probably found it funny. Think twice and watch it. " about that our young friend failed to provide to us. BTW AD, where is this "little world" that the Anti admin runs?

40 Reasons For Gun Control
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5thAmendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
 
Extremists, fanatics and small-minded folks are dangerous to free thought wherever they may be found.

Apparently, you found some ...

Avoidance is easy, and ultimately less frustrating ...

Insidious encroachment into everyone else's right to have their own thoughts and opinions (including about organized religion and/or spiritual beliefs [not necessarily always the same thing] or the lack thereof), and a desire to dominate all societies of the world and unite all people under their enlightened thinking is another issue altogether, however ... :uhoh:

Society, and acceptable societal controls, mores and standards can be a mixed blessing.:)

People are funny.
 
In my experience, the most intolerant people are enlightened liberals.
Exactly right - that's the origin of "political correctness", i.e., the intolerance that overly empowered liberals display towards diversity of free expression.
 
Something I've noticed about Christian Rock folk is that they tend to be even MORE liberal than their secular counterparts, and are much more intolerant of "conservativism".

I suspect its because they are in deep rebellion against the "Religious Right" and have a lot invested in not appearing to be one of them.

Also for most of them they see it as their "mission" to reach out to the unchurched rock music fan (and I would assume that for a "Christian extreme metal" fan/musician this would include reaching out to the death/thrash/satanic metal music fans) I think they fear that if they get labeled as having ANYTHING in common with the short haired, tie wearing, white bread, bland, "conservative" Christian mainstream that it would hamper their ability to reach out to people who listen to stuff like Cannibal Corpse, or other "extreme" metal type music.

So while this guy is an intolerant schmuck, he may have been right to delete your post (albeit for the wrong reasons) because it might hinder the overall goal of the forum.
 
Probably should have been deleted for being off topic on a music forum. Though i still wonder why he didnt include it in his original post.
 
Are you sure the moderator even read the list? Many similar lists are indeed filled with ignorance and thinly veiled hate. This one isn’t too bad, but it does have some implied hatred and a few minor spots of ignorance.

Such lists are also reposted endlessly. If I were a moderator, I would probably delete repostings as a matter of course.

~G. Fink
 
The "40 reasons" was taken from an article by a THR member without attribution.

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/rants/guncontrol.php

TheArchDuke said:
I understand if this thread gets locked because it is only indirectly gun-related.

But, on another forum I visit, I posted the "40 things you must believe to support gun control" and just minutes later I recieve this message from the admin:
 
Nothing hateful there at all.

Now if 500 THR users were to register at that forum and post the same list over and over and over :evil: :neener: , THEN it could be considered....well.....at least spiteful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top