ME
MemberOriginal Poster
Jan 4, 2015Today and a couple of days ago, a topic of concern was voiced about a purported new AANR policy concerning welcoming LGBT folks to the varied nudist's venues; this subject touched a serious 'hot button'. I actually went and looked for the policy / announcement and could not find it. But...that's not really the crux of the issue. There was a severe shortfall of reasonable negatives or affirmatives; there was a fair amount of 'name calling' and intellect questioning. Can we not respond in an intelligent fashion to positions with which we disagree? What is your thought?
ReactReplySubscribe
Replies
- RS
ruhl straleyJan 4, 2015- Today and a couple of days ago, a topic of concern was voiced about a purported new AANR policy concerning welcoming LGBT folks to the varied nudist's venues; this subject touched a serious 'hot button'. I actually went and looked for the policy / announcement and could not find it. But...that's not really the crux of the issue. There was a severe shortfall of reasonable negatives or affirmatives; there was a fair amount of 'name calling' and intellect questioning. Can we not respond in an intelligent fashion to positions with which we disagree? What is your thought?
.....John what I think your trying to say is ' can't we agree to disagree like adults '.......Ruhl
ReactReply - Today and a couple of days ago, a topic of concern was voiced about a purported new AANR policy concerning welcoming LGBT folks to the varied nudist's venues; this subject touched a serious 'hot button'. I actually went and looked for the policy / announcement and could not find it. But...that's not really the crux of the issue. There was a severe shortfall of reasonable negatives or affirmatives; there was a fair amount of 'name calling' and intellect questioning. Can we not respond in an intelligent fashion to positions with which we disagree? What is your thought?
- EM
EmptyClosetJan 5, 2015The OP in the original thread of question just showed perfectly why I reject all forms of organized "religion". I was surprised to see the lack of moderation on a thread that obviously crossed the line in forum etiquette. I am a straight male, and used to think the LGBT were messed in the head. I now have no problem having friends that I spend time with who identify with the LGBT community. The rant the op went on was full of so many fact-less assumptions it was laughable. The worst part is the op is blind to the fact that it is people who hold the opinion she spouted who are the problem.
ReactReply - RE
renebbareJan 5, 2015[quote] Today and a couple of days ago, a topic of concern was voiced about a purported new AANR policy concerning welcoming LGBT folks to the varied nudist's venues; this subject touched a serious 'hot button'. I actually went and looked for the policy / announcement and could not find it. But...that's not really the crux of the issue. There was a severe shortfall of reasonable negatives or affirmatives; there was a fair amount of 'name calling' and intellect questioning. Can we not respond in an intelligent fashion to positions with which we disagree? What is your thought?
[/quote]My thoughts are, that I am glad the odious thread has now been removed!ReactReply - MEMemberOriginal PosterJan 5, 2015Ruhl...you are mostly correct. I was also lamenting the lack of substantive rebuttal of her statement(s) and the basic 'name calling' and 'you're a bigot' as the general reply. Those types of responses are nothing more than instant emotion. I was hoping for a little more thoughtful logic. John.ReactReply
- MEMemberOriginal PosterJan 5, 2015RabbitandBunny...a reference to Hitler is obviously hyperbole. Trying to make a comparison with forum posts about controversial topics bears no resemblance to Brown Shirts hauling people away in the dark of night nor the removal of potential adversaries. We're not taking about 'disposal' here, but an AANR policy that was not even clearly visible on their website. There's a big difference. John.ReactReply
- T=
Tom === Thomas S. TierneyJan 5, 2015Godwin's law
Mike Godwin (2010)
Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches — that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's Law originally referred, specifically, to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles and other rhetoric.
In 2012, "Godwin's Law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.ReactReply - DE
DesertRatJan 6, 2015[quote] You are WW11 Historian! I am a WW11 Veteran.
[/quote]WW Eleven! I hope not.ReactReply - MA
ManOfWicklowJan 6, 2015[quote]They didn't teach you Roman numerals in school? Too bad.[/quote]
DesertRat is correct, he knows his Roman numerals.
2 in Roman numerals is II and not 11, you have used numbers instead of letters.
WW1 = World War one. WW2 = World War two, butnotWW11 which is World War eleven.ReactReply - RErenebbareJan 7, 2015John916, - Name calling aside, many of us here have been and still are blocked by said profiles, for speaking out before against the narrow minded views of said profiles. We are tired of the repetitious rants.ReactReply