I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Machiavelli? You mean the guy who wrote a handbook for tyrants, and encouraged brutal oppression of population as a means of upholding an autocratic state?
I Am A Radical Homo
- Thread starter Howey
- Start date
Machiavelli? You mean the guy who wrote a handbook for tyrants, and encouraged brutal oppression of population as a means of upholding an autocratic state?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Well, I don't exactly like SSM as a topic. It's important and all, but I see all the bickering about it as steering people's attention from class struggles. In any case, I tend to avoid it.
But there's this obligation I have as a leftist and radical libertarian... I need to herald the gay rights movement as all important - which it is. So when I see the topic being stripped of real content and meaning by the liberal media and neo/social conservatives (and Howey, recently), it kind of bugs me.
Why pollute the thread by responding to the ignorant pissant child?
Disillusioned
New member
First, the word is hetero, secondly I never taught anyone to be ashamed so I'll take no guilt for that. Now we get to the bragging part and here's where democrats confuse the hell outta me.
Principle One: All men(people) are equal.
Principle Two: Belonging in a minority is not a choice and in no way makes one less entitled to freedom.
Principle Three: Homosexuality is not a choice.
Now, since homosexuality is not a choice, therefore in the words of George Carlin, "It's a fucking genetic accident." Why would you brag about something you have no control over? I could go down the street and brag about my predisposition to colon cancer or my height or my hair color or anything. If you want to be happy? Fine, be happy, not enough happiness in the world as it is, but bragging about anything that is not a personal accomplishment is empty.
You don't make a valid point and just claiming that anyone who doesn't 100% support everything anyone in any minority community does is a bigot does not enhance your opinions it detracts from them since obviously you're not thinking about them to begin with.
As somebody said, "Get over yourself"
he was just trying to get right with the medicis, cut the guy some slack.
You started out so promising...
Then you get to stupid...
a. Homosexuality is no more a genetic accident than heterosexuality. For all we know, homosexuality is a God-Given miracle.
b. I've never claimed that "that anyone who doesn't 100% support everything anyone in any minority community [gay] does is a bigot". However, it's easy to point out bigotry through words.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Hitler was just trying to get right with Mussolini, cut the guy some slack.
Tsar Nicolas II was just trying to live up to his parent's expectations, cut the guy some slack.
Obama is just trying to get right with plutocrats, cut the guy some slack.
OBL was just trying to get right with suicide bombers, cut the guy some slack.
Auster
New member
Machiavelli wasnt some autocractic nut.
in his time, Italy and all of Europe -his whole world- was a collection of loosely allied, decentralized kingdoms. He wrote about pleasing the nobility verus pleading the plebs. He wrote about the necessity of an army, the quandry of choosing a side or staying out of a war, how to maintain trade, a prototype model to our modern PR system, and quite a bit more. Sea Bird, Machiavelli was no more authoritarian tham communism always ends up as, and this in itself was only the result of the monarchies and republics that populated his world.
Have you ever read his work? Or are you merely criticizing something blindly?
in his time, Italy and all of Europe -his whole world- was a collection of loosely allied, decentralized kingdoms. He wrote about pleasing the nobility verus pleading the plebs. He wrote about the necessity of an army, the quandry of choosing a side or staying out of a war, how to maintain trade, a prototype model to our modern PR system, and quite a bit more. Sea Bird, Machiavelli was no more authoritarian tham communism always ends up as, and this in itself was only the result of the monarchies and republics that populated his world.
Have you ever read his work? Or are you merely criticizing something blindly?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Have you? You do know that he believed the in an amoral government, right? And claimed the only measure of a leader was his ability to maintain a statist regime?
"Communism" ended up statist because of a misunderstanding of Marx's utopian end goal...
Auster
New member
And in that time of constant warfare, wasnt the ability to maintain rule so that you could eventually bring improvement into the lives of the people important? But you didnt answer my question.
The period of fighting amoungst the city-states of italy, and the bordering countries was always in contest. His assertion was that as a king you had to groom your offspring to continue your vision and ensure his sucession to the throne. As the leader of a republic you would have a much harder time doing so, and risked losing progress (perhaps permanently) of your vision for your country, your people.
He wrote at a time when most were feudal servants, ignorant of all but their immediate enviornment. He wrote at a time when republics were weak, tied down with couruption and unable to organize as a kingdom could.
In this period where people didnt know freedom he attempted to bring them security.
The period of fighting amoungst the city-states of italy, and the bordering countries was always in contest. His assertion was that as a king you had to groom your offspring to continue your vision and ensure his sucession to the throne. As the leader of a republic you would have a much harder time doing so, and risked losing progress (perhaps permanently) of your vision for your country, your people.
He wrote at a time when most were feudal servants, ignorant of all but their immediate enviornment. He wrote at a time when republics were weak, tied down with couruption and unable to organize as a kingdom could.
In this period where people didnt know freedom he attempted to bring them security.
OnearmSword
New member
A God given miracle? What was God trying to do with that, destroy the human race. Gay men produce no offspring.
Are you on really strong meds?
you guys don't know shit about Machiavelli. the prince was not something he actually believed you retards.
Because you'd be trolling.
Which one of the three principles is wrong.
People brag all the time about being white or male and female, how is that different from being proud that you are male and homosexual.
No one says you have to agree with these positions, but you can't deny others their pursuit of happiness just becuse you don't agree.
Oh, and thanks for the spelling lesson.
Aristotle and Machiavelli interesting combination, this is why I think pisskop is confused.
Disillusioned
New member
So then it's a choice? Interesting, so people who choose to be gay also choose their lifestyle and who they love and what kind of marriage they should have.
No howey, the primary claim of the gay community is that homosexuality is not a choice. It's pretty much fundamental to their social activism.
As for bigotry, there are some words that people have latched onto because they heard them once and think they make a convincing point. "Nazi, Facist, Racist, Retard, Tyrant, Despot, Socialist, Communist" Pretty much all should be removed from the English language unless somebody can prove they're accurate. The words get used far too much these days and it's getting old. We can stick Bigot into that list. They're no more than semi intellectual equivalents of "Asshole, motherfucker, jackoff, prick, faggot, N*****, Whore, C***, Etc."
My original point is simple, don't be proud, don't rub your life in somebody elses face and get along. People who get aggressive about their homosexuality are almost as annoying as people who get aggressive about their Christianity or vegetarianism.
I never said homosexuality was a choice, did I. As far as using those words to describe anti-gay rhetoric, I only use two:
Homophobe and bigot
ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Both are quite accurate.
Bullshit. We're loud and we're proud. After decades of bigotry, that's now a right. Ask the blacks.
And bring this up again when you and your fellow breeders sit around the bar during a football game and talk about that girl you fucked last night.
Last edited:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Dune's in a bad mood today.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Same here. Apparently it's their schtick.