printer
Well-Known Member
No disrespect intended. I have used quotation makes in many of my posts to have a word stand out. The reason for the quotation marks is to indicate that it is not the previous use of the word, they, has not been as a pronoun. On non-straight, I said how many other letters are we going to add to the designation. Why do we not add S&M to the end? 2SLGBTQ+S&M, I am sure the people that are against people with other sexual leanings are not too happy about people that mix pain with pleasure. Or is that what will happen once the 2S gets fulling incorporated in LGBTQ family? Speaking of, is not two spirited the same thing as being bisexual, or close enough not to require another letter or two? Then there is the +, does that not include all the rest of non-straight people that the 2S is not needed? Or does 2S only qualify Native American bisexuals and Bi is reserved for all the rest in the world?
To ease your mind I will explain how see people of different colours, races, people with different belief systems...
I believe we are souls inhabitating imperfect bodies and we are here to be refined. I do not believe there are black souls, white souls, mixed souls, we are all the same spiritual beings. In believing this I feel we are all of equal value and that people that think they are better that others are sadly mistaken. I also think that we make many trips down here (with astronomy the down here may not apply in respect to heaven) and could end up in a body of a different race or religion or economic class. If I am racist against a group of people karma may have me in the same group I looked down on in my next incarnation reaping what I have sown.
In believing this it would be really stupid of me if I am against a subset of humanity without good reason. I can think negatively against some people, I had a dim view of Trump from before he ran for office as I have seen his flaws and found him wanting. I understand we all have flaws but people like Trump, that abuse his position in life, I look scornfully at due to actions that he has control of. I worked under a director that treated his employees like shit but he is held in high regards in his church. How does he reconcile the difference? "If I do not behave like this at work they will just replace me with someone who will do these things." Just a way to justify being an ass hole over people he has power over. He deserves my disrespect.
And speaking of disrespect, I used to frequent another sub-forum that was called ARP (America Religion Politics), after a year I received a message from the mods asking if I would like to join them as they had an opening. I asked why me? They said that I never lost my cool (there were some heated exchanges) and being liberal (compared to them) they thought I might see another side to an argument as the four of them were very much to the right. Even back then I had one main rule. You do not attack the person, you can take exception to the person's statements and debate them using evidence to back up your opinion but you can not demean the other person. It worked out well and with me on the left and the other three on the right, we pretty much came to the same conclusions related to a flareup. But those were simpler times back then, before the coming of Obama.
Here when I started I had encourage the use of giving a link to statements made. It seems the norm now and it is second nature to the regulars here. I did the same back then rather than only give a statement that makes it hard for someone to refute. It goes back to giving the person a level of respect of their intelligence. If they say something that is just plain wrong I would first question them of what they mean and if they could clarify it. That is unless we have a mature enough relationship going on where I could say I thought they were wrong (hi HP). But even then I tend to be civil, going back to my thoughts on our lives on this earth. Hope this helps put some of my future posts in context. Thank you if you made it this far down.
printer
Last edited:
