@noneedforawoman2 off topic but, now i realise what tom leykis means when he says, vote with your feet and by that i mean, walk out....on getting married
no if i was in that situation i would sue them to punish them and then after that i would not go to their business so that they dont get my money and then maybe i might try telling other people about it so that their business might suffer.
Something tells me most non blacks would still go. Not being evil, but the truth is, non blacks in the world really don't care so long as it does not directly effect them. Asians do not care about black issues. And why should they? They're different people with their own issues. That's the reality.
at first when you said the thing about the christians not printing and got sued, i was like good for them! but when you reversed it it made sense, and i was like "oh." Alas, again, you're right! and i have seen the other side.
What if the next printshop also refuses to print their stuff? And the next one? And the next? I know it's not a likely scenario, but what IF? At what point do you say enough is enough? And where do we draw a line? Can people refuse to give me service because they don't like my face? Or because they don't like that I'm a feminist?
And why are you comparing gay wedding announcement prints with anti-black prins or pictures straight porn? Those things are not comparable at all.
In today's world that's just not going to happen. Gays have many supporters. Someone will print their gay invitations. Worst case scenario, even IF no one would print their invitations, they are not going to die. If we were talking about being refused medical attention it would be a different story for me.
@UHeardMe1stTime I thought an important American value was liberty and justice for all as well as equal opportunities. If we allow people to disciminate each other under the pretense that everyone has the right to not associate with 'gays' or 'blacks' or 'asians', then what makes you think people will be equal and have equal opportunities? Do you think the civil rights act from 1964 would have ever happened if people had reasoned the way you do?
"I thought an important American value was liberty and justice for all "
Well, where's the liberty for Christians being forced to print something against their religion? The gays can go somewhere else even if they have to go online. In this scenario everyone retains their liberty, but if the Christians are forced to print gay material, they lose their liberty.
I love the way you analyze things. You are very logical in your thinking. You make your opinion but also leave logical statements and data to back it up. Whether me or anyone else agrees with your opinion or not is irrelevant because you always make logical sense. I love it.
(BTW I'm using a general you, I'm not saying you specifically) Nobody is forcing people to accept anyone who is different from them, but if you want the benefits that WE ALL contribute to you have to take the good with the bad.
I mean if you don't want to accept people that are different from you fine. Give up the benefits of living with people who CAN accept the rules.
Go to to vacant land, build your own house, supply your own electricity, create your won plumbing system. Oh and make your own clothing, and grow your own food and provide your own medical care. Because last time I checked people OF ALL races/ethnicities/sexualities made and maintained those things that you are using enjoying and benefiting from.
And yes, tolerance goes both ways. If I ran a printing shop and Christians wanted to print leaflets about homosexuals deserving AIDS, or about black people being monkeys I would have to print that too. Because racists and homophobes are a part of society too.
If the social contract is unfair or unjust to you or the group you are apart of then I think it a founding principle belief of this country and humanity in general to oppose it. But that was not the case here.
Suing might have been excessive but so was them not printing the wedding announcements.
Were they a church, or a printing shop? If you're a printing shop and I've paid you to print something that's what you need to do. If they hadn't brought their personal beliefs into it, they would not have been sued, and there would be no issue.
They could have complained at home prayed about it or something else. But your personal beliefs and preferences don't exempt you from the social contract. Period
Self segregation is still possible in private anyway just not when you serve the public. If you want to go move to a shack in the mountains and do whatever you please somewhere no one will stop you.
But if you choose to interact with society you have to obey that society's rules. If you choose not to, you can face the consequences and one of those in this case was getting sued. If the christian printers only wanted to print christian things they shouldn't have opened a business to begin with.
Your solution would only work if people existed in a vacuum of their own creation. They don't, no one in society does. No one in this entire world does. No man is an island unto himself and for us to survive we have to live together. People need to grow up and accept that.
I may not agree with killing people but I still have to pay federal taxes to support the military because whether I like it or not, they protect me by defending the country that I am apart of. If I do not wish to be apart of that kind of society I can do three things
a) accept that
b) try to change that
c) leave the society that I find such objection with.
So the rest of your argument as far as it goes that people shouldn't be forced to accept homosexuality or anything else they don't agree with..how is society supposed to function?
The social contract is just that. Why I am I "forced"to pay taxes for public schools when I have no children? There is a way to opt out. If you do not like living in a society where you are expected to receive equal treatment and in return give the same equal treatment that you receive to others you can just leave.
People used to think being an alcoholic a moral weakness too. But in light of the fact that monkeys and lab mice can fall prey to alcoholism it seems stupid to regard it that way. Animals don't really have morals at least no in the sense that people do. They do what is biologically necessary. Human beings are also animals, we just have intelligence(better cognitive abilities), language and culture.
Sorry about the long comments. I know your stance on this and I'm fine with it. I don't think you're homophobic or really care if you are. But saying being born attracted to the same sex and choosing to act on are two different things...it's a logical fallacy.
You seem to be basing this off of the idea that some people are born gay and some are conditioned to homosexuality. Are monkeys or penguins conditioned to be homosexual?
You seem to be basing this off of the idea that some people are born gay and some are conditioned to homosexuality.
As I told another user, I do not know & I don't think science has ruled either way for sure. But that's irrelevant because I don't think people should be forced to accept blacks either & we know being black is not something a person can choose. So even though homosexual attraction is not a choice that doesn't make a difference to me.
First of all, no one is forced to accept anything. If you don't like black people move to a predominantly white European country. Is there anything that will legally prevent you from doing that? No. Or remove yourself from society all together. By your line of reasoning no one should pay taxes, obey the laws of traffic or do anything they personally don't want to do.
Whether you realize it or not you're trying to invalidate the social contract. Being a member society means you eschew some personal choices in favor of the benefits that it offers. That's just a given. I agree in principle that people shouldn't accept what they don't agree with, but they need to be proactive about it and understand what making that choice REALLY means.
@Uheardme1sttime: EDIT: Sorry, I realized that you said that the print shop would have printed anything else for the couple just not the gay marriage photo. My bad, didn't mean to misquote you. But I think my argument would still stand.
Not sure why you keep bringing the immigration issue up on this page, not aware of what that has to do with this video but I think the video below may answer some if not all of your questions/concerns
Anyway, was the reaction of the customers a bit excessive? Perhaps. But, just as its the business' right to not serve them it is the customer's right to either go somewhere else or demand the business compliance. You could say that their case was the free market at play I mean I suppose eventually the print shop would have lost a consumer base if the customers had simply just protested or told their friends and associates to go elsewhere, but the case made the inevitable happen sooner not later
they have to be prepared to deal with the consequence of their decisions. I'm not quite sure if the shop would have printed pro-gay propaganda like you suggest, because if they were willing to print such things, then why not a gay marriage photo? I mean that's as pro-gay as anything else they would've printed so what would be the difference? contd.
@uheardme1stTime: I'm not sure if I'm 100% with you on this video, let's say I'm 50% LOL. On the one hand I do understand your position; business have the right to serve and cater to whoever they want. A customer does not have to go to a place of business where they are not wanted. However, if a business is going to take a stance on something such as gay marriage (okay you're right, technically, the shop wasn't against gays they just didn't want to be associated with gay marriages) then (contd).
Oh really? So the fact that the anti-white PC cult says white people are not allowed to discriminate in favor of our children`s continued existence and against mass immigration+"assimilation"=GENOCIDE being forced on all white countries and ONLY white countries" has nothing to do with the major theme of your video which IS discrimination?
I might not have minded your comments so much if you answered my questions, but you don't. (I asked why you were typing these things to me, NO response). You just keep typing the same thing over & over and that's spam. I don't want my comment section spammed up so I'm blocking you. For someone who complains about not wanting certain people around (non-white immigration) you sure have no respect for me not wanting your comments on my video.
"I don`t like the idea of forcing other people to live by your rules"
White people don`t want mass immigration+"assimilation"=GENOCIDE forced on them by the so-called "anti-racists" in every white country on Earth(and ONLY white countries)
I've already advised someone with a similar comment to please not hijack my comment section. This video is not about the conversation you're trying to steer it to. Please keep your comments on the subject of this video. If you want to talk about something else, go to a video that talks about it.
Hey there! I love your videos! Subscribed to both channels but I'll have to disagree with the example you used. The gay couple was not asking to print anything anti heterosexual and they weren't promoting negativity. It would be understandable if they were. If a black owned business didn't want to print promotion for something like Jewish pride they'd be wrong no? That's discriminatory but as you said they should be free to serve who they want.
It IS White geNOcide! If you spell Hitler's name backwards (i.e. RELTIH), it's still Hitler. Genocide against Whites is the same as geNOcide against Jews, Rhawandans, Tahitians, Turks, etc.
The white race faces extinction because of the clearly genocidal effect of this policy: AFRICA FOR AFRICANS, ASIA FOR ASIANS AND WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYONE. What kind of govt and its agencies will support this kind of policy? AN ANTI-WHITE GOVT with many anti-white supports.
@UHeardMe1stTime Respecting property rights is natural law, but as your video points out, those rights are not upheld and we know this is due to anti-White ideology (so called anti-racism). Like I said. You would have no video to make otherwise. Pretty on-topic I would say to be honest.
I didn't know you were talking about the legal term. Either way, your comment about anti-racist is off top. You know that I and most of my listeners are black and leaving a comment like that is kinda like you're trying to bait us. It has nothing to do with the video.
3 years ago, I debated several white nationalists for about 4 months & I addressed all the talking points; race quality. IQ, crime, racism, birth rates, etc. These topics are probably what you're trying to steer the conversation over to with you "anti-racist" comment. I don't like when nationalists go around trying to bait black people. Not saying you were, but your comment is off topic.
@UHeardMe1stTime I think you are judging too harshly. As a nationalist I support African concerns about identity and culture also. Africans will be displaced and screwed over too, but right now Whitey is at the sharp end of the cancer that is Cultural Marxism and facing genocide because of it.
I do not believe that u truly support African concerns. "Support" implies that you would act if necessary. If I support gay rights, that means I would vote favorably for them (for example). If African "concerns" were threatened, what would you DO? My guess is nothing because you probably feel any efforts would be better spent on your people & that's fine. But that's not support. It's just lip service.
When you guys say you support all nationalism, it's similar to giving a compliment in hopes of getting one in return as in "I support your nationalism so support ours". That's as far as your "support" goes. All these friendly things you say is just repackaging to make yourselves more sympathetic. I'm unmoved.
@UHeardMe1stTime That is entirely up to you. I am consistent to my principles and I say every nation has the right to exist and every nation has the right to self-determination.
Unfortunately, anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. So my race is vilified constantly and the corporate media never made accountable. It's genocide.
You're just regurgitating catch phrases. Do you have any thoughts of your own to share?
Muslims/ middle eastern people are vilified. Black people are vilified. So if whites are vilified too, welcome to the club. Why are whites so special that their vilification is unique? Again, I'm unmoved.
@UHeardMe1stTime In racial context I believe we all know that ONLY one race is villified - the White race.
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White" bothers you? You don't like slogans? Welcome to the World where slogans like "racist" are thrown around like confetti.
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White" gets to the core of it nicely.
But since I have not identified myself as an anti-racist nor have I called you a racist, why do you KEEP saying it? I heard you the 1st time. Repeating random stuff makes it seem like you can't think for yourself. You're not even responding to the points I'm making. You're just ranting about white genocide & anti-white codes, 2 things I have not mentioned. That's just plain weird.
@UHeardMe1stTime When you wrote that your tongue must have been firmly in your cheek. The ENTIRE corporate media polices racial politics like Stalin and you know it.
Ok, this convo is over. Actually it never was a conversation. It's a monologue. You're just spouting off rhetoric & catch phrases. You can't seem to answer any questions or respond to what I say with anything other than a pre-written script. Not interested. I'm done.
You said "anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white" is an attempt to bait black people.
This is totally wrong.It`s the white anti-whites who are the mortal enemies of white children who are forcing mass non-white immigration+"assimilation"+GENOCIDE on them in every white country.
Without being disrespectful,black people and all the non-whites are just the background scenery in this white genocide struggle.
"You said "anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white" is an attempt to bait black people."
No, I was saying is POSTING the saying on a video by a black person with mostly black listeners is baiting especially when it has nothing to do with the video.
"No, I was saying is POSTING the saying on a video by a black person with mostly black listeners is baiting "
Ah,I see,well we`ve made our point in regard to discrimination i.e that whites should be allowed to discriminate in favor of white children`s continued existence as opposed to their genocide.
Do you mind if we respond to any anti-white comments that might be made here,or will that be "off topic" as well?
"This is totally wrong.It`s the white anti-whites who are the mortal enemies of white children who are forcing mass non-white immigration+"assimilation"+GENOCIDE on them in every white country.
Without being disrespectful,black people and all the non-whites are just the background scenery in this white genocide struggle."
Why are you writing all this stuff to me? What do you want me to say?
@MarkMuses No it's not. When i say anti-racist, I mean anti-racist. All forms of racism, directed at any ethnicity. There is no reason for you to take offense to that word unless you are in fact racist.
@MarkMuses I support you, also blacks have it better then anyone right now in western civilizations but don't seem to appreciate it. The fact is that it's ok to be racist as long as it's against whites.
@UHeardMe1stTime I consider it spam then when anti-Whites post "racist", "bigot", "nazi", "hater", "white supremacist" at me for nothing but OPPOSING my own racial group's genocide.
You don't seem to mind anti-White spam terms repeated ad nauseum, but when I use a terminology to counter it you call foul?
And this "spam", DESPITE my replying in context to each reply?
If this is your double standard then you'll indeed block me, because self-evidently, anti-racist is a CODEWORD for anti-White.
"You don't seem to mind anti-White spam terms repeated ad nauseum, but when I use a terminology to counter it you call foul?"
No one else has been typing the exact same phrase 20 times times but you. You're not even making sense or being honest. But that's ok, because you won't have the opportunity to continue your spam. Blocked.
The words “immigration”, “tolerance” and “assimilation” are being used to promote a program of Genocide against White children.
No one’s flooding Mexico with non-Mexicans in some attempt to end “Racism”, and trying to Force Integrate them to create a Blended Humanity. It IS genocide.
@MarkMuses Hell yeah. My white mom got with my African dad and made me and my brother! Her eggs took part in the white genocide which consists of breeding out her white gene pool. I'm going to find me a man black as tar to continue that genocide!
Where I reside, a majority of Asians shop keepers hate Blacks & Mixed-race folks, even when we putting money in their pockets, patronising their business. So, in the early 90's I stopped spending my hard earn cash with these folks. When I come across Black folks moaning about Asian shop keepers, I tell them, stop going there. I always make a point of not spending my money at establishments who hate my kind.
The right to not like someone's lifestyle choice and not deal with it or do business with them is a right. Gays need to be told not everybody likes your life style and they have that right. Secondly, your rights end, where someone elses rights begin. It seems liberals, feminists, gays and other people think that they can make people like their choices and somehow can force it on others.
Some you so called gay people need to get over themselves; people do not have to agree with the gay lifestyle. If you were so proud why do have to tell everyone you are gay get over your fucking selves. That store was entitled to refuse service period. They could have went to FedEx Office or any other print shop.
@arthuria321 A lot of those comments are multiple posts made by the same person, so your method of polling is totally off and unreliable. SECONDLY, stop calling me "my dear." She has a cult following because she tackles issues in a very, very intelligent and ordered manner. You CAN'T CLAIM her followers didn't listen to the whole video and just clicked LIKE. How could you possibly know that? Who is talking out their rear end now?
@arthuria321 Actually I think she has a "live and let live" attitude when it comes to gays. I believe in the US that is how most people think. She has more LIKES than DISLIKES so I don't see where this majority statement comes from.
I think most people, like me, feel she was off course with the WHITES ONLY thing though.
I think you may have reached a little bit with this one. The gay thing, for a lot of people, is seen as a MORAL issue. That lifestyle is looked at by many as being as the bottom or near the bottom of a moral cesspool. However, the whites only thing is totally different. Anyone who puts up a whites only anything should be put on blast immediately. If not, that WILL create and encourage a hostile climate that will grow out of control.
@ChrisEveryDay Stopping something like that in its tracks is for the greater good of society in general. People who sue don't necessarily do it because they WANT to eat at the place but because that can't be tolerated and it can't be allowed to fester and grow. I am surprised you can't see that.
Had they wanted to print flyers about feeding the hungry the owners wouldn't know they were gay. That example is invalid! You actually have to know someone is gay to discriminate against them because of it.
@stephenabm - I know! Those perverted Christians with their absurd, barbaric, Bronze Age beliefs from a book of plagiarized pagan mythologies that they use to justify hatred and bigotry and anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific stances need to stop pushing their religion on the rest of us intelligent, rational human beings.
People have the freedom to associate with whomever they want on their own free time, but if you are running a business, it is unconstitutional to pick and choose your paying customers to your liking. Many people are forced to do things they don't agree with on the job, to associate with people they don't want to on the job. People who have religion-based objections to the request of certain customers should not work in a secular environment. And it is safe to assume that on the job...
...these printshop owners have performed several tasks that may not necessarily have been sanctioned in the Bible, as many mainstream Americans (Amish excluded) going about modern-day life have had to. I agree that the gay couple should find a printshop that will fulfil their request, and give THEM their money, but should businesses be free to discriminate against potential customers based on their beliefs? Invoking the cliché "slippery slope" argument, the Bible has been used to justify...
...all kinds of evil, such as slavery and racial discrimination, as well as domestic violence. It sets a dangerous precedent if people are allowed to legally discriminate based on their religious beliefs.
"the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of evil, such as slavery and racial discrimination"
The bible might have justified those things but the LAW made it legal. Now you want to use the law to force people to associate with things they don't agree with? How is your stance any better.
The Christian printer effectively had a Heteros Only sign hanging on their print shop when they refused to print the wedding fliers for the gay couple. It's no different than a White print shop refusing to print a Black couple's wedding invites because they don't like Blacks in the Jim Crow era South.
If a print shop today refused to print flyers because the couple was Black, there would be an outcry and they would be run out of town, and rightfully so.
I'm surprised at disagreeing with you on yet another video. And oddly enough, again on a gay issue even though I'm not gay, nor even have any gay friends.
I think the problem I have is with the impression your words gave of your understanding of homosexuality. When you said "lifestyle" it seemed to imply that you don't believe homosexuality to be an innate attribute like skin color but rather a lifestyle choice.
The Whites Only sign is a perfect analogy and yet you seem to miss the parallel.
"When you said "lifestyle" it seemed to imply that you don't believe homosexuality to be an innate attribute like skin color but rather a lifestyle choice."
No YOU said the word choice. I did not. Lifestyle & choice are not the same thing. I already explained in my 1st video whether I think it's a choice or not. I said the attraction to the same sex is not a choice, ACTIONS are. I could be attracted to 2 men- not a choice. But to have a relationship to 2 men, that's a choice.
@UHeardMe1stTime - Mind you, I am a fan/supporter, not a hater, but let me make sure I'm following your logic. Turning the equation around, you're attracted to men because that's the sexual orientation you were born as.
But if you "act" on that hard wired sexual physiology and its natural resulting attraction, you're "choosing" to live a heterosexual "lifestyle"? Seriously?
That's like saying birds choose to live a "flying" lifestyle.
Do you believe that most homosexuals are born that way?
@UHeardMe1stTime I think you're misunderstand me or are missing my point. SO let's go about this another way.
Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute - like race, height, eye color, etc, but rather a lifestyle choice or actions/behaviors?
Or what do you believe about homosexuality. I'm trying to understand your thoughts so I don't put words in your mouth or provoke a defensive/legalistically worded response when that's not my goal. Understanding is.
"Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute but rather a lifestyle choice or actions/behaviors"
I'm telling you I do not know & I don't think science has conclusively proven either theory to be true. But it doesn't matter because I'm not against homosexuality. I really don't care where it comes from. If that's how a person feels, it's legitimate.
But I believe I have answered your question previously. Attraction is not a choice. ACTIONS are.
"Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute but rather a lifestyle choice or actions/behaviors"
I'm telling you I do not know & I don't think science has conclusively proven either theory to be true. But it doesn't matter because I'm not against homosexuality. I really don't care where it comes from. If that's how a person feels, it's legitimate.
But I believe I have answered your question previously. Attraction is not a choice. ACTIONS are.
"Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute but rather a lifestyle choice or actions / behaviors"
I'm telling you I do not know & I don't think science has conclusively proven either theory to be true. But it doesn't matter because I'm not against homosexuality. I really don't care where it comes from. If that's how a person feels, it's legitimate.
"Do you believe that most homosexuals are born that way?"
It doesn't matter whether they were born that way or not because I believe people have the right to have any kind of CONSENSUAL adult sex they choose. Whether they were born that way or not is a non-issue for me. You are arguing as if I'm against homosexuality. I am not. I am against people being forced to accept homosexuality.
"Do you believe that most homosexuals are born that way?"
Whether someone was born gay or developed gay attraction later on, both are EQUALLY valid to me. So again, born that way or not is a non-issue for me.
@UHeardMe1stTime - Your argument only makes sense if you are under the impression that homosexuality is about behavior not biology.
Homosexuality is not a set of actions or behavior. It's an attribute. Like your eye color or being double jointed. It's not personal opinion. There's much medical and scientific evidence to that effect.
Not accepting homosexuals because they're homosexual is like not accepting Black people because their skin is Black. It's bigoty, regardless of label or wording.
@UHeardMe1stTime - Your argument only makes sense if you are under the impression that homosexuality is about behavior not biology.
Homosexuality is not a set of actions or behavior. It's an attribute. Like your eye color or being double jointed. It's not personal opinion. There's much medical and scientific evidence to that effect.
Not accepting homosexuals because they're homosexual is like not accepting Black people because their skin is Black. It's bigoty, regardless of label or wording.
@UHeardMe1stTime - Wait. How is "lifestyle" not a choice? It's a life STYLE, hence a chosen set of physical expressions, hobbies, etc associated with your outlook, predilections, tastes, aspirations, etc. Maybe if you were born Amish ro Hassidic Jew, THE it's not a choice, because you were born into it, - but even then you can choose to opt out.
But being gay is not a "lifestyle" any more than heterosexuality is one.
I'm afraid your perspective differs from mine on this issue.
You're arguing semantics now. I've told you how I feel about homosexuality (choice or not) so I'm not sure why you're still trying to prove that I'm claiming it's a choice. I said attraction is not a choice, but actions are. That's my stance.
But for the record, your definition of lifestyle does not jive with the dictionary which defines it as : The way in which a person or group lives.
Homosexuality is often referred to as an alternative lifestyle. I didn't come up with the term.
@UHeardMe1stTime You legalistically deconstruct every sentence I write, ignoring key points like my challenging you on your use of the word "lifestyle" to describe sexual orientation, and instead harp on the fact that I paired the word "choice" with lifestyle, and I'M the one arguing semantics? >:-/
As if lifestyle WASN'T a choice! You CHOOSE a lifestyle. It's a choice.
Birds don't "choose" to fly. That's what they do. "Not accepting" a bird for "choosing" to fly is nonsensical.
It doesn't matter whether I think it's a choice or not because my stance is that people should be able to associate/ not associate with whomever they chose EVEN on a racial basis. So, if I support people's right to discriminate racially (race is something people have no control over) then why would I feel any different when it comes to sexual discrimination whether the person can control their sexuality or not?
@UHeardMe1stTime - Then I guess you and most enlightened thinkers/philosophers differ on this subject. Most believe that legal explicit discrimination fosters a climate of hatred, violence, oppression and systemic abuse.
American and global history have borne that fact out.
I feel your perspective is informed by cultural orthodoxy and a lack of scientific knowledge of this topic.
I'm afraid that we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
"I feel your perspective is informed by cultural orthodoxy and a lack of scientific knowledge of this topic."
To my knowledge, science has not definitively found that people are born gay / straight or not. But again it's irrelevant. I believe people have a right not to accept it.
@UHeardMe1stTime That sounds word for word EXACTLY like a Creationists argument against evolution. Actually, Elizabeth Hasselbeck used almost the exact same phrase.
It's not about "accepting" or "believing". It's about understanding the science of the matter and then CHOOSING (your favorite word lol) whether or not to become a better person in spite of your knee jerk reaction.
@UHeardMe1stTime - Well, since you're taking the climate change denier's style stance on the science behind the cause of homosexuality, I guess you don't understand that it's hard coded biology at work.
That's why you see to realize that it's preposterous to equate homosexuality or heterosexuality with choice of action. Reproduction is a biological imperative as powerful as eating or survival. Evolution didn't give you a choice. You NEED to have sex. Period. It's not a choice.
But I don't believe people should be forced to accept/ associate with homosexuals OR blacks so again, whether or not it's a choice is irrelevant to my point.
You're getting hung up on the choice argument when in actuality it is irrelevant. Choice or not, people should not be forced to accept it.
@UHeardMe1stTime They've tried making societies like that. Ancient Rome with it's slavery was one, and in more recent times, apartheid South Africa.
Whenever discrimination is legally permissible, oppression and disenfranchisement for the minority always follow.
If an equitable social compact weren't established and idealized, we'd still be slaves and you wouldn't have Black Wall Street or Historically Black Colleges.
You wouldn't be allowed to read. You'd be too busy fetchin' Massuh's food.
Whoa, I never said I agreed with slavery or apartheid. Forcing someone to be a slave denies them freedom of association. I do not support laws that say black people cannot enter a place. However I DO support a business owner saying he does not wish to serve blacks. Two totally separate things.
@UHeardMe1stTime "I do not support laws that say black people cannot enter a place. However I DO support a business owner saying he does not wish to serve blacks."
Exactly HOW are they different?
"Now, I'm not telling you niggers ya'll can't come in here. I'm just telling you I ain't serving ya."
You're right. HUGE difference. :-/
That's a difference without a distinction. You want to talk about arguing semantics???
@UHeardMe1stTime The legally permissible discrimination you're advocating for in the name of libertarian freedom has the unintended (by you) effect of creating mass inequalities.
And the whole, "well we already have that now" argument falls apart when pitted against the very real history of slavery, Jim Crow and apartheid - which are the result of unchecked "freedom" to discriminate.
It's not about association. It's about equal treatment, market fairness and level playing field.
@UHeardMe1stTime If you don't like the way you are being treated at a business establishment go somewhere else, My uncle who fought in the korean war said that while visiting certain cities segregation was breaking down before any laws were actually passed, because he and his budies were being served at previously white only establishments before any anti segregation laws were passed.
"Whenever discrimination is legally permissible, oppression and disenfranchisement for the minority always follow."
Laws can lead to the disenfranchisement of the MAJORITY. Laws can make the will of a minority be forced upon the majority. Laws can be made that YOU don't agree with so that's why it's better to leave people free to make their own choices.
@UHeardMe1stTime - Laws are made to govern the majority that peopel don't agree with all the time. Sometimes those laws have to change but you still NEED laws.
What's your alternative to laws of governance for the great middle swath of society? Anarchy?
@UHeardMe1stTime There is a lawsuit at eastern university where a black christian counselor did not want to counsel a gay student because of her beliefs and she won the lawsuit.
The need for sex is hard wired built into our species' survival and is an overwhelming need and urge.
You don't need it to SURVIVE, if that's the legalistic definition yo're getting at, but that's not what makes it a Need. It's an undeniable biological imperative.
"The need for sex is hard wired built into our species' survival and is an overwhelming need and urge."
I'm not arguing that sexual urges are not hard-wired. I'm saying you do not NEED sex. if you NEEDED sex, but didn't have it, you'd die. Some people are born without or lose their sexual urges. Shouldn't they die if sex was a necessity?
Collectivley as a species, we WOULD die or our numbers would be greatly reproduced. How would we reproduce without sex? ANd reproduction is a biological urge, it is how something is classified as BEING alive in the first place. That is why virus's are considered alive because they cannot reproduce with other viruses, they need another organism to reproduce.
sorry I meant "our numbers would be greatly reduced" and "reproduction is a biological NECESSITY" therefore SEX of some kind is necessary.
And yes there are asexual, infertile people but they are
A) an anomaly
People born without sexual urges are probably not going to reproduce and in a biological sense are an error. If everyone had no sexual urges, human beings would die out. Soo...your reasoning is really wrong on this point from a biological stance, I'm just saying.
Sorry lol so many typos, "viruses are NOT considered alive" because they cannot reproduce on their own, ect, ect.
You're a very intelligent person but sometimes you make stupid arguments for your own preferences by ignoring facts like that. It kind of destroys your whole argument. And BTW science doesn't definitely "PROVE" anything. Mathematics proves things using inferential and deductive logic.
Science provides EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for proofs. Get that? Evidence. I'm sorry but I'm studying Neurology in school and this bugs the hell out of me when lay people say this.
The difference between "proof" and "evidence" is not what you "know" but what you can "prove".
A lot of erroneous things can be "proved" by creating a logical argument to support them. Diseases coming from "miasmas" "witches" "bad water" had PROOF because it had a sound logical argument behind it but it had very little EVIDENCE and DATA to support it, it had more to go against it. No one had knowledge of germs and bacteria, until a powerful enough microscope was invented to provide EVIDENCE of another cause of diseases.
And as far as science "Proving" that homosexuality is biologically determined, it will not. That is not a logical proposal so it cannot be proved or disproven, like Pythagorean Theorem. Science has provided numerous "EVIDENCE" that there is a biological predisposition toward it.
I think you're just choosing to ignore facts and evidence that don't support whatever personal conclusions/feelings/opinions you've come to about homosexuality. It's called confirmation bias.
@UHeardMe1stTime Vervet Monkeys have rates of alcohol addiction the same as humans. Some are complete winos, some drink moderately, some don't touch alcohol ever. They got exposed to alcohol the same way humans did, by eating fermented fruits off of the forest floors. Does this "PROVE" that susceptibility to addiction is predetermined somewhat by genetics? No it does not because something like this cannot be PROVEN. BUT it does provide EVIDENCE for
the idea that alcoholism or other addictions are biological urges somewhat influenced by genetic makeup that are not subject to a person's will or choice,Likewise with homosexuality. Vervet monkeys that are alcoholics are no more "choosing" a lifestyle of alcoholism then Ververt Monkey's who embrace homosexual behavior are "choosing" to "embrace a homosexual lifestyle".
@noneedforawoman2 off topic but, now i realise what tom leykis means when he says, vote with your feet and by that i mean, walk out....on getting married
pyramidhead138 1 month ago
no if i was in that situation i would sue them to punish them and then after that i would not go to their business so that they dont get my money and then maybe i might try telling other people about it so that their business might suffer.
Samuel115s 1 month ago
Something tells me most non blacks would still go. Not being evil, but the truth is, non blacks in the world really don't care so long as it does not directly effect them. Asians do not care about black issues. And why should they? They're different people with their own issues. That's the reality.
ImNotYourFriend212 1 month ago
at first when you said the thing about the christians not printing and got sued, i was like good for them! but when you reversed it it made sense, and i was like "oh." Alas, again, you're right! and i have seen the other side.
rainonmebi 1 month ago
What if the next printshop also refuses to print their stuff? And the next one? And the next? I know it's not a likely scenario, but what IF? At what point do you say enough is enough? And where do we draw a line? Can people refuse to give me service because they don't like my face? Or because they don't like that I'm a feminist?
And why are you comparing gay wedding announcement prints with anti-black prins or pictures straight porn? Those things are not comparable at all.
SupaAmi 1 month ago
@SupaAmi
In today's world that's just not going to happen. Gays have many supporters. Someone will print their gay invitations. Worst case scenario, even IF no one would print their invitations, they are not going to die. If we were talking about being refused medical attention it would be a different story for me.
UHeardMe1stTime 1 month ago
@UHeardMe1stTime I thought an important American value was liberty and justice for all as well as equal opportunities. If we allow people to disciminate each other under the pretense that everyone has the right to not associate with 'gays' or 'blacks' or 'asians', then what makes you think people will be equal and have equal opportunities? Do you think the civil rights act from 1964 would have ever happened if people had reasoned the way you do?
SupaAmi 1 month ago
@SupaAmi
"I thought an important American value was liberty and justice for all "
Well, where's the liberty for Christians being forced to print something against their religion? The gays can go somewhere else even if they have to go online. In this scenario everyone retains their liberty, but if the Christians are forced to print gay material, they lose their liberty.
UHeardMe1stTime 1 month ago
A business has right o refuse service it was not racist; It was due to their beliefs the homosexual couple should have went somewhere else.
flc2009 1 month ago
GREAT VIDEO:-)
sajm4315 1 month ago
@sajm4315
Thanks
UHeardMe1stTime 1 month ago
I just want to say I love your videos. You speak truth and wisdom..
HoneiiDiiva 2 months ago
@HoneiiDiiva
Thanks!
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
I love the way you analyze things. You are very logical in your thinking. You make your opinion but also leave logical statements and data to back it up. Whether me or anyone else agrees with your opinion or not is irrelevant because you always make logical sense. I love it.
Mscookie3131 2 months ago
Comment removed
linneahope 2 months ago
@Uheardmefirst
(BTW I'm using a general you, I'm not saying you specifically) Nobody is forcing people to accept anyone who is different from them, but if you want the benefits that WE ALL contribute to you have to take the good with the bad.
linneahope 2 months ago
I mean if you don't want to accept people that are different from you fine. Give up the benefits of living with people who CAN accept the rules.
Go to to vacant land, build your own house, supply your own electricity, create your won plumbing system. Oh and make your own clothing, and grow your own food and provide your own medical care. Because last time I checked people OF ALL races/ethnicities/sexualities made and maintained those things that you are using enjoying and benefiting from.
linneahope 2 months ago
And yes, tolerance goes both ways. If I ran a printing shop and Christians wanted to print leaflets about homosexuals deserving AIDS, or about black people being monkeys I would have to print that too. Because racists and homophobes are a part of society too.
If the social contract is unfair or unjust to you or the group you are apart of then I think it a founding principle belief of this country and humanity in general to oppose it. But that was not the case here.
linneahope 2 months ago
Suing might have been excessive but so was them not printing the wedding announcements.
Were they a church, or a printing shop? If you're a printing shop and I've paid you to print something that's what you need to do. If they hadn't brought their personal beliefs into it, they would not have been sued, and there would be no issue.
They could have complained at home prayed about it or something else. But your personal beliefs and preferences don't exempt you from the social contract. Period
linneahope 2 months ago
Self segregation is still possible in private anyway just not when you serve the public. If you want to go move to a shack in the mountains and do whatever you please somewhere no one will stop you.
But if you choose to interact with society you have to obey that society's rules. If you choose not to, you can face the consequences and one of those in this case was getting sued. If the christian printers only wanted to print christian things they shouldn't have opened a business to begin with.
linneahope 2 months ago
Your solution would only work if people existed in a vacuum of their own creation. They don't, no one in society does. No one in this entire world does. No man is an island unto himself and for us to survive we have to live together. People need to grow up and accept that.
linneahope 2 months ago
I may not agree with killing people but I still have to pay federal taxes to support the military because whether I like it or not, they protect me by defending the country that I am apart of. If I do not wish to be apart of that kind of society I can do three things
a) accept that
b) try to change that
c) leave the society that I find such objection with.
linneahope 2 months ago
So the rest of your argument as far as it goes that people shouldn't be forced to accept homosexuality or anything else they don't agree with..how is society supposed to function?
The social contract is just that. Why I am I "forced"to pay taxes for public schools when I have no children? There is a way to opt out. If you do not like living in a society where you are expected to receive equal treatment and in return give the same equal treatment that you receive to others you can just leave.
linneahope 2 months ago
People used to think being an alcoholic a moral weakness too. But in light of the fact that monkeys and lab mice can fall prey to alcoholism it seems stupid to regard it that way. Animals don't really have morals at least no in the sense that people do. They do what is biologically necessary. Human beings are also animals, we just have intelligence(better cognitive abilities), language and culture.
linneahope 2 months ago
@ Uheardme1sttime
Sorry about the long comments. I know your stance on this and I'm fine with it. I don't think you're homophobic or really care if you are. But saying being born attracted to the same sex and choosing to act on are two different things...it's a logical fallacy.
You seem to be basing this off of the idea that some people are born gay and some are conditioned to homosexuality. Are monkeys or penguins conditioned to be homosexual?
linneahope 2 months ago
@linneahope
You seem to be basing this off of the idea that some people are born gay and some are conditioned to homosexuality.
As I told another user, I do not know & I don't think science has ruled either way for sure. But that's irrelevant because I don't think people should be forced to accept blacks either & we know being black is not something a person can choose. So even though homosexual attraction is not a choice that doesn't make a difference to me.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime
First of all, no one is forced to accept anything. If you don't like black people move to a predominantly white European country. Is there anything that will legally prevent you from doing that? No. Or remove yourself from society all together. By your line of reasoning no one should pay taxes, obey the laws of traffic or do anything they personally don't want to do.
linneahope 2 months ago
@UheardMe1stTime
Whether you realize it or not you're trying to invalidate the social contract. Being a member society means you eschew some personal choices in favor of the benefits that it offers. That's just a given. I agree in principle that people shouldn't accept what they don't agree with, but they need to be proactive about it and understand what making that choice REALLY means.
linneahope 2 months ago
@Uheardme1sttime: EDIT: Sorry, I realized that you said that the print shop would have printed anything else for the couple just not the gay marriage photo. My bad, didn't mean to misquote you. But I think my argument would still stand.
sexychobit86 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not sure why you keep bringing the immigration issue up on this page, not aware of what that has to do with this video but I think the video below may answer some if not all of your questions/concerns
/watch?v=bIHcsmFfvx0
Yolandra101 2 months ago
Anyway, was the reaction of the customers a bit excessive? Perhaps. But, just as its the business' right to not serve them it is the customer's right to either go somewhere else or demand the business compliance. You could say that their case was the free market at play I mean I suppose eventually the print shop would have lost a consumer base if the customers had simply just protested or told their friends and associates to go elsewhere, but the case made the inevitable happen sooner not later
sexychobit86 2 months ago
they have to be prepared to deal with the consequence of their decisions. I'm not quite sure if the shop would have printed pro-gay propaganda like you suggest, because if they were willing to print such things, then why not a gay marriage photo? I mean that's as pro-gay as anything else they would've printed so what would be the difference? contd.
sexychobit86 2 months ago
@uheardme1stTime: I'm not sure if I'm 100% with you on this video, let's say I'm 50% LOL. On the one hand I do understand your position; business have the right to serve and cater to whoever they want. A customer does not have to go to a place of business where they are not wanted. However, if a business is going to take a stance on something such as gay marriage (okay you're right, technically, the shop wasn't against gays they just didn't want to be associated with gay marriages) then (contd).
sexychobit86 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime
"it has nothing to do with the video."
Oh really? So the fact that the anti-white PC cult says white people are not allowed to discriminate in favor of our children`s continued existence and against mass immigration+"assimilation"=GENOCIDE being forced on all white countries and ONLY white countries" has nothing to do with the major theme of your video which IS discrimination?
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
WhiteRabbitRadioFTW 2 months ago
@WhiteRabbitRadioFTW
I might not have minded your comments so much if you answered my questions, but you don't. (I asked why you were typing these things to me, NO response). You just keep typing the same thing over & over and that's spam. I don't want my comment section spammed up so I'm blocking you. For someone who complains about not wanting certain people around (non-white immigration) you sure have no respect for me not wanting your comments on my video.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago 2
TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS !!
messeyehere 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
once again good point
dfjr1990 2 months ago
"I don`t like the idea of forcing other people to live by your rules"
White people don`t want mass immigration+"assimilation"=GENOCIDE forced on them by the so-called "anti-racists" in every white country on Earth(and ONLY white countries)
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
WHITERABBITRADIO21C 2 months ago
@WHITERABBITRADIO21C
I've already advised someone with a similar comment to please not hijack my comment section. This video is not about the conversation you're trying to steer it to. Please keep your comments on the subject of this video. If you want to talk about something else, go to a video that talks about it.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
Comment removed
Yolandra101 2 months ago
Hey there! I love your videos! Subscribed to both channels but I'll have to disagree with the example you used. The gay couple was not asking to print anything anti heterosexual and they weren't promoting negativity. It would be understandable if they were. If a black owned business didn't want to print promotion for something like Jewish pride they'd be wrong no? That's discriminatory but as you said they should be free to serve who they want.
MrSpeechie2010 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anti-racist is a code-word for Anti-white.
johnnywhiterabbit 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It IS White geNOcide! If you spell Hitler's name backwards (i.e. RELTIH), it's still Hitler. Genocide against Whites is the same as geNOcide against Jews, Rhawandans, Tahitians, Turks, etc.
Anti-racist IS a code word for anti-White.
Dariush0911 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all YOU anti-Whites; if you burn your computer, are you sure your advocacy for White geNOcide is going to be erased?
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
Dariush0911 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The white race faces extinction because of the clearly genocidal effect of this policy: AFRICA FOR AFRICANS, ASIA FOR ASIANS AND WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYONE. What kind of govt and its agencies will support this kind of policy? AN ANTI-WHITE GOVT with many anti-white supports.
ARE YOU PRO-WHITE SURVIVAL OR PRO-WHITE GENOCIDE?
SAVETHECHILDREN6592 2 months ago
I agree with the principle of this video. That fact this video is necessary demonstrates that:
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. Now read that again.
MarkMuses 2 months ago 2
@MarkMuses
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White."
Come on, man. Don't hijack my comment section. That has nothing to do with this video.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Respecting property rights is natural law, but as your video points out, those rights are not upheld and we know this is due to anti-White ideology (so called anti-racism). Like I said. You would have no video to make otherwise. Pretty on-topic I would say to be honest.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
Property rights is not a natural law. It was created by man. The law in nature is might is right / survival of the fittest.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Perhaps you should look up the term. Natural law is specific to humanity.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
I didn't know you were talking about the legal term. Either way, your comment about anti-racist is off top. You know that I and most of my listeners are black and leaving a comment like that is kinda like you're trying to bait us. It has nothing to do with the video.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
3 years ago, I debated several white nationalists for about 4 months & I addressed all the talking points; race quality. IQ, crime, racism, birth rates, etc. These topics are probably what you're trying to steer the conversation over to with you "anti-racist" comment. I don't like when nationalists go around trying to bait black people. Not saying you were, but your comment is off topic.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime I think you are judging too harshly. As a nationalist I support African concerns about identity and culture also. Africans will be displaced and screwed over too, but right now Whitey is at the sharp end of the cancer that is Cultural Marxism and facing genocide because of it.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
I do not believe that u truly support African concerns. "Support" implies that you would act if necessary. If I support gay rights, that means I would vote favorably for them (for example). If African "concerns" were threatened, what would you DO? My guess is nothing because you probably feel any efforts would be better spent on your people & that's fine. But that's not support. It's just lip service.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
When you guys say you support all nationalism, it's similar to giving a compliment in hopes of getting one in return as in "I support your nationalism so support ours". That's as far as your "support" goes. All these friendly things you say is just repackaging to make yourselves more sympathetic. I'm unmoved.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime That is entirely up to you. I am consistent to my principles and I say every nation has the right to exist and every nation has the right to self-determination.
Unfortunately, anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. So my race is vilified constantly and the corporate media never made accountable. It's genocide.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
" anti-racist is a code word for anti-White"
You're just regurgitating catch phrases. Do you have any thoughts of your own to share?
Muslims/ middle eastern people are vilified. Black people are vilified. So if whites are vilified too, welcome to the club. Why are whites so special that their vilification is unique? Again, I'm unmoved.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime In racial context I believe we all know that ONLY one race is villified - the White race.
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White" bothers you? You don't like slogans? Welcome to the World where slogans like "racist" are thrown around like confetti.
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White" gets to the core of it nicely.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
But since I have not identified myself as an anti-racist nor have I called you a racist, why do you KEEP saying it? I heard you the 1st time. Repeating random stuff makes it seem like you can't think for yourself. You're not even responding to the points I'm making. You're just ranting about white genocide & anti-white codes, 2 things I have not mentioned. That's just plain weird.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
"In racial context I believe we all know that ONLY one race is villified - the White race."
Come on. You cannot deny that Black people are vilified in RACIAL context.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime When you wrote that your tongue must have been firmly in your cheek. The ENTIRE corporate media polices racial politics like Stalin and you know it.
White people are allowed two positions:
1) Accept their own genocide.
2) naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@MarkMuses
Ok, this convo is over. Actually it never was a conversation. It's a monologue. You're just spouting off rhetoric & catch phrases. You can't seem to answer any questions or respond to what I say with anything other than a pre-written script. Not interested. I'm done.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime And how accommodating were you of my points? Your argument cuts both ways you know...
Anyway, you sound potentially okay to me even though we disagree. No hard feelings on my part and Merry Christmas to you whether you like it or not :)
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime
You said "anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white" is an attempt to bait black people.
This is totally wrong.It`s the white anti-whites who are the mortal enemies of white children who are forcing mass non-white immigration+"assimilation"+GENOCIDE on them in every white country.
Without being disrespectful,black people and all the non-whites are just the background scenery in this white genocide struggle.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
WHITERABBITRADIO21C 2 months ago
@WHITERABBITRADIO21C
"You said "anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white" is an attempt to bait black people."
No, I was saying is POSTING the saying on a video by a black person with mostly black listeners is baiting especially when it has nothing to do with the video.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UHeardMe1stTime
"No, I was saying is POSTING the saying on a video by a black person with mostly black listeners is baiting "
Ah,I see,well we`ve made our point in regard to discrimination i.e that whites should be allowed to discriminate in favor of white children`s continued existence as opposed to their genocide.
Do you mind if we respond to any anti-white comments that might be made here,or will that be "off topic" as well?
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.
WHITERABBITRADIO21C 2 months ago
@WHITERABBITRADIO21C
"This is totally wrong.It`s the white anti-whites who are the mortal enemies of white children who are forcing mass non-white immigration+"assimilation"+GENOCIDE on them in every white country.
Without being disrespectful,black people and all the non-whites are just the background scenery in this white genocide struggle."
Why are you writing all this stuff to me? What do you want me to say?
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@MarkMuses Poor you. "Your people" are sooooooo oppressed.
rep5281 2 months ago
@MarkMuses No it's not. When i say anti-racist, I mean anti-racist. All forms of racism, directed at any ethnicity. There is no reason for you to take offense to that word unless you are in fact racist.
SupaAmi 1 month ago
@SupaAmi Don't blame me for what your mother did.
End White Genocide.
MarkMuses 1 month ago
@MarkMuses I support you, also blacks have it better then anyone right now in western civilizations but don't seem to appreciate it. The fact is that it's ok to be racist as long as it's against whites.
astrolifter 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@astrolifter You said chap, that's why anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
MarkMuses 1 month ago
@MarkMuses
Stop spamming, Mark. Absolute last warning.
UHeardMe1stTime 1 month ago
@UHeardMe1stTime I consider it spam then when anti-Whites post "racist", "bigot", "nazi", "hater", "white supremacist" at me for nothing but OPPOSING my own racial group's genocide.
You don't seem to mind anti-White spam terms repeated ad nauseum, but when I use a terminology to counter it you call foul?
And this "spam", DESPITE my replying in context to each reply?
If this is your double standard then you'll indeed block me, because self-evidently, anti-racist is a CODEWORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 1 month ago
@MarkMuses
"You don't seem to mind anti-White spam terms repeated ad nauseum, but when I use a terminology to counter it you call foul?"
No one else has been typing the exact same phrase 20 times times but you. You're not even making sense or being honest. But that's ok, because you won't have the opportunity to continue your spam. Blocked.
UHeardMe1stTime 1 month ago
@MarkMuses Wow anti-racist white supremacy from the same people who gave the world the concept of humanitarian carpet bombing.
oliverlaw02 1 month ago
@MarkMuses This victim mentality that white racists like you are exhibiting is very tiring. White genocide? Really? Where?
SupaAmi 1 month ago
@SupaAmi In your opinion I'm a racist.
You're just saying that because I'm White.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
MarkMuses 1 month ago
@MarkMuses
Don't type that phrase not one more time. You've typed it enough. I'll consider it spam & you'll be blocked. I mean it. Not even one more time.
UHeardMe1stTime 1 month ago
@MarkMuses Oh wow, shut up already.
ImNotYourFriend212 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The words “immigration”, “tolerance” and “assimilation” are being used to promote a program of Genocide against White children.
No one’s flooding Mexico with non-Mexicans in some attempt to end “Racism”, and trying to Force Integrate them to create a Blended Humanity. It IS genocide.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
PeteHappee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Youtube censors - test
MarkMuses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Youtube censors - test
MarkMuses 2 months ago
Youtube censors - test
MarkMuses 2 months ago
The racism industry is anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
The racism industry is anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The racism industry is anti-White.
Nobody is flooding Africa with non-Africans to create a blended humanity.
Nobody is flooding Asia with non-Asians to create a blended humanity.
Africa will still be African.
Asia will still be Asian.
ONLY White countries are being displaced and assimilated without their consent.
It's geNOcide. White Genocide.
Anti-racist is a CODE WORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The racism industry is anti-White.
Nobody is flooding Africa with non-Africans to create a blended humanity.
Nobody is flooding Asia with non-Asians to create a blended humanity.
Africa will still be African.
Asia will still be Asian.
ONLY White countries are being displaced and assimilated without their consent.
It's geNOcide. White Genocide.
Anti-racist is a CODE WORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The racism industry is anti-White.
Nobody is flooding Africa with non-Africans to create a blended humanity.
Nobody is flooding Asia with non-Asians to create a blended humanity.
Africa will still be African.
Asia will still be Asian.
ONLY White countries are being displaced and assimilated without their consent.
It's geNOcide. White Genocide.
Anti-racist is a CODE WORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The racism industry is anti-White.
Nobody is flooding Africa with non-Africans to create a blended humanity.
Nobody is flooding Asia with non-Asians to create a blended humanity.
Africa will still be African.
Asia will still be Asian.
ONLY White countries are being displaced and assimilated without their consent.
It's geNOcide. White Genocide.
Anti-racist is a CODE WORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The racism industry is anti-White.
Nobody is flooding Africa with non-Africans to create a blended humanity.
Nobody is flooding Asia with non-Asians to create a blended humanity.
Africa will still be African.
Asia will still be Asian.
ONLY White countries are being displaced and assimilated without their consent.
It's geNOcide. White Genocide.
Anti-racist is a CODE WORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The racism industry is anti-White.
Nobody is flooding Africa with non-Africans to create a blended humanity.
Nobody is flooding Asia with non-Asians to create a blended humanity.
Africa will still be African.
Asia will still be Asian.
ONLY White countries are being displaced and assimilated without their consent.
It's geNOcide. White Genocide.
Anti-racist is a CODE WORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
The racism industry is anti-White.
Nobody is flooding Africa with non-Africans to create a blended humanity.
Nobody is flooding Asia with non-Asians to create a blended humanity.
Africa will still be African.
Asia will still be Asian.
ONLY White countries are being displaced and assimilated without their consent.
It's geNOcide. White Genocide.
Anti-racist is a CODE WORD for anti-White.
MarkMuses 2 months ago
@MarkMuses Hell yeah. My white mom got with my African dad and made me and my brother! Her eggs took part in the white genocide which consists of breeding out her white gene pool. I'm going to find me a man black as tar to continue that genocide!
Are you going to cry now?
Fucking paranoid lunatic.
SupaAmi 1 month ago
@SupaAmi Actually, scrap that, it'd be better to find a WHITE man. Yay.
SupaAmi 1 month ago
Where I reside, a majority of Asians shop keepers hate Blacks & Mixed-race folks, even when we putting money in their pockets, patronising their business. So, in the early 90's I stopped spending my hard earn cash with these folks. When I come across Black folks moaning about Asian shop keepers, I tell them, stop going there. I always make a point of not spending my money at establishments who hate my kind.
H1MLA 2 months ago
The right to not like someone's lifestyle choice and not deal with it or do business with them is a right. Gays need to be told not everybody likes your life style and they have that right. Secondly, your rights end, where someone elses rights begin. It seems liberals, feminists, gays and other people think that they can make people like their choices and somehow can force it on others.
unclefixer 2 months ago
you arent as crisp as you usually are, did you switch to decaf
musicIuvr 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Some you so called gay people need to get over themselves; people do not have to agree with the gay lifestyle. If you were so proud why do have to tell everyone you are gay get over your fucking selves. That store was entitled to refuse service period. They could have went to FedEx Office or any other print shop.
flc2009 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
Comment removed
flc2009 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
Maniacal Laughter at the end.
DionLaurent1 2 months ago
@arthuria321 A lot of those comments are multiple posts made by the same person, so your method of polling is totally off and unreliable. SECONDLY, stop calling me "my dear." She has a cult following because she tackles issues in a very, very intelligent and ordered manner. You CAN'T CLAIM her followers didn't listen to the whole video and just clicked LIKE. How could you possibly know that? Who is talking out their rear end now?
ChrisEveryDay 2 months ago
@arthuria321 Actually I think she has a "live and let live" attitude when it comes to gays. I believe in the US that is how most people think. She has more LIKES than DISLIKES so I don't see where this majority statement comes from.
I think most people, like me, feel she was off course with the WHITES ONLY thing though.
ChrisEveryDay 2 months ago
I think you may have reached a little bit with this one. The gay thing, for a lot of people, is seen as a MORAL issue. That lifestyle is looked at by many as being as the bottom or near the bottom of a moral cesspool. However, the whites only thing is totally different. Anyone who puts up a whites only anything should be put on blast immediately. If not, that WILL create and encourage a hostile climate that will grow out of control.
cont.
ChrisEveryDay 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ChrisEveryDay Stopping something like that in its tracks is for the greater good of society in general. People who sue don't necessarily do it because they WANT to eat at the place but because that can't be tolerated and it can't be allowed to fester and grow. I am surprised you can't see that.
ChrisEveryDay 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
100% right as usual. I never understood suing to get admitted somewhere you are not wanted.
Unekwu89 2 months ago
Had they wanted to print flyers about feeding the hungry the owners wouldn't know they were gay. That example is invalid! You actually have to know someone is gay to discriminate against them because of it.
SamuelZamuel 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I am tired of these perverts, they need to stop pushing their agenda on the rest of us!
stephenabm 2 months ago
@stephenabm - I know! Those perverted Christians with their absurd, barbaric, Bronze Age beliefs from a book of plagiarized pagan mythologies that they use to justify hatred and bigotry and anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific stances need to stop pushing their religion on the rest of us intelligent, rational human beings.
You're 100% right! :-D
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
People have the freedom to associate with whomever they want on their own free time, but if you are running a business, it is unconstitutional to pick and choose your paying customers to your liking. Many people are forced to do things they don't agree with on the job, to associate with people they don't want to on the job. People who have religion-based objections to the request of certain customers should not work in a secular environment. And it is safe to assume that on the job...
laughingstalk 2 months ago
...these printshop owners have performed several tasks that may not necessarily have been sanctioned in the Bible, as many mainstream Americans (Amish excluded) going about modern-day life have had to. I agree that the gay couple should find a printshop that will fulfil their request, and give THEM their money, but should businesses be free to discriminate against potential customers based on their beliefs? Invoking the cliché "slippery slope" argument, the Bible has been used to justify...
laughingstalk 2 months ago
...all kinds of evil, such as slavery and racial discrimination, as well as domestic violence. It sets a dangerous precedent if people are allowed to legally discriminate based on their religious beliefs.
laughingstalk 2 months ago
@laughingstalk
"the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of evil, such as slavery and racial discrimination"
The bible might have justified those things but the LAW made it legal. Now you want to use the law to force people to associate with things they don't agree with? How is your stance any better.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
Yet another GREAT VIDEO! And I've taken something valuable from this one.
DionLaurent1 2 months ago
The Christian printer effectively had a Heteros Only sign hanging on their print shop when they refused to print the wedding fliers for the gay couple. It's no different than a White print shop refusing to print a Black couple's wedding invites because they don't like Blacks in the Jim Crow era South.
If a print shop today refused to print flyers because the couple was Black, there would be an outcry and they would be run out of town, and rightfully so.
Those bigoted printers got their due.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
I'm surprised at disagreeing with you on yet another video. And oddly enough, again on a gay issue even though I'm not gay, nor even have any gay friends.
I think the problem I have is with the impression your words gave of your understanding of homosexuality. When you said "lifestyle" it seemed to imply that you don't believe homosexuality to be an innate attribute like skin color but rather a lifestyle choice.
The Whites Only sign is a perfect analogy and yet you seem to miss the parallel.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
"When you said "lifestyle" it seemed to imply that you don't believe homosexuality to be an innate attribute like skin color but rather a lifestyle choice."
No YOU said the word choice. I did not. Lifestyle & choice are not the same thing. I already explained in my 1st video whether I think it's a choice or not. I said the attraction to the same sex is not a choice, ACTIONS are. I could be attracted to 2 men- not a choice. But to have a relationship to 2 men, that's a choice.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime - Mind you, I am a fan/supporter, not a hater, but let me make sure I'm following your logic. Turning the equation around, you're attracted to men because that's the sexual orientation you were born as.
But if you "act" on that hard wired sexual physiology and its natural resulting attraction, you're "choosing" to live a heterosexual "lifestyle"? Seriously?
That's like saying birds choose to live a "flying" lifestyle.
Do you believe that most homosexuals are born that way?
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
No, you're changing what I said. I spoke of being attracted to TWO men & having a relationship with TWO men. Attraction is NOT a choice. ACTION is.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime I think you're misunderstand me or are missing my point. SO let's go about this another way.
Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute - like race, height, eye color, etc, but rather a lifestyle choice or actions/behaviors?
Or what do you believe about homosexuality. I'm trying to understand your thoughts so I don't put words in your mouth or provoke a defensive/legalistically worded response when that's not my goal. Understanding is.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute but rather a lifestyle choice or actions/behaviors"
I'm telling you I do not know & I don't think science has conclusively proven either theory to be true. But it doesn't matter because I'm not against homosexuality. I really don't care where it comes from. If that's how a person feels, it's legitimate.
But I believe I have answered your question previously. Attraction is not a choice. ACTIONS are.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute but rather a lifestyle choice or actions/behaviors"
I'm telling you I do not know & I don't think science has conclusively proven either theory to be true. But it doesn't matter because I'm not against homosexuality. I really don't care where it comes from. If that's how a person feels, it's legitimate.
But I believe I have answered your question previously. Attraction is not a choice. ACTIONS are.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"Do you believe that homosexuality is not an inborn attribute but rather a lifestyle choice or actions / behaviors"
I'm telling you I do not know & I don't think science has conclusively proven either theory to be true. But it doesn't matter because I'm not against homosexuality. I really don't care where it comes from. If that's how a person feels, it's legitimate.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
But I believe I answered your question previously. Attraction is not a choice. ACTIONS are.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"Do you believe that most homosexuals are born that way?"
It doesn't matter whether they were born that way or not because I believe people have the right to have any kind of CONSENSUAL adult sex they choose. Whether they were born that way or not is a non-issue for me. You are arguing as if I'm against homosexuality. I am not. I am against people being forced to accept homosexuality.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime
"Do you believe that most homosexuals are born that way?"
Whether someone was born gay or developed gay attraction later on, both are EQUALLY valid to me. So again, born that way or not is a non-issue for me.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime - Your argument only makes sense if you are under the impression that homosexuality is about behavior not biology.
Homosexuality is not a set of actions or behavior. It's an attribute. Like your eye color or being double jointed. It's not personal opinion. There's much medical and scientific evidence to that effect.
Not accepting homosexuals because they're homosexual is like not accepting Black people because their skin is Black. It's bigoty, regardless of label or wording.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UHeardMe1stTime - Your argument only makes sense if you are under the impression that homosexuality is about behavior not biology.
Homosexuality is not a set of actions or behavior. It's an attribute. Like your eye color or being double jointed. It's not personal opinion. There's much medical and scientific evidence to that effect.
Not accepting homosexuals because they're homosexual is like not accepting Black people because their skin is Black. It's bigoty, regardless of label or wording.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime - Wait. How is "lifestyle" not a choice? It's a life STYLE, hence a chosen set of physical expressions, hobbies, etc associated with your outlook, predilections, tastes, aspirations, etc. Maybe if you were born Amish ro Hassidic Jew, THE it's not a choice, because you were born into it, - but even then you can choose to opt out.
But being gay is not a "lifestyle" any more than heterosexuality is one.
I'm afraid your perspective differs from mine on this issue.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
You're arguing semantics now. I've told you how I feel about homosexuality (choice or not) so I'm not sure why you're still trying to prove that I'm claiming it's a choice. I said attraction is not a choice, but actions are. That's my stance.
But for the record, your definition of lifestyle does not jive with the dictionary which defines it as : The way in which a person or group lives.
Homosexuality is often referred to as an alternative lifestyle. I didn't come up with the term.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime You legalistically deconstruct every sentence I write, ignoring key points like my challenging you on your use of the word "lifestyle" to describe sexual orientation, and instead harp on the fact that I paired the word "choice" with lifestyle, and I'M the one arguing semantics? >:-/
As if lifestyle WASN'T a choice! You CHOOSE a lifestyle. It's a choice.
Birds don't "choose" to fly. That's what they do. "Not accepting" a bird for "choosing" to fly is nonsensical.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
It doesn't matter whether I think it's a choice or not because my stance is that people should be able to associate/ not associate with whomever they chose EVEN on a racial basis. So, if I support people's right to discriminate racially (race is something people have no control over) then why would I feel any different when it comes to sexual discrimination whether the person can control their sexuality or not?
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime - Then I guess you and most enlightened thinkers/philosophers differ on this subject. Most believe that legal explicit discrimination fosters a climate of hatred, violence, oppression and systemic abuse.
American and global history have borne that fact out.
I feel your perspective is informed by cultural orthodoxy and a lack of scientific knowledge of this topic.
I'm afraid that we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
But hey, 9 out of 10 issue agreements ain't bad.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"I feel your perspective is informed by cultural orthodoxy and a lack of scientific knowledge of this topic."
To my knowledge, science has not definitively found that people are born gay / straight or not. But again it's irrelevant. I believe people have a right not to accept it.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime That sounds word for word EXACTLY like a Creationists argument against evolution. Actually, Elizabeth Hasselbeck used almost the exact same phrase.
It's not about "accepting" or "believing". It's about understanding the science of the matter and then CHOOSING (your favorite word lol) whether or not to become a better person in spite of your knee jerk reaction.
*Here's the science - ti(.)me/gItw0
*Here's the actual study - bit(.)ly/9gENUT
*Remove parenthesis in URLs
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
You don't CHOOSE whether you like the taste of ice cream or not, but you DO chose whether to eat it or not eat it.
That how I feel about heterosexuality & homosexuality both.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime - Well, since you're taking the climate change denier's style stance on the science behind the cause of homosexuality, I guess you don't understand that it's hard coded biology at work.
That's why you see to realize that it's preposterous to equate homosexuality or heterosexuality with choice of action. Reproduction is a biological imperative as powerful as eating or survival. Evolution didn't give you a choice. You NEED to have sex. Period. It's not a choice.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
But I don't believe people should be forced to accept/ associate with homosexuals OR blacks so again, whether or not it's a choice is irrelevant to my point.
You're getting hung up on the choice argument when in actuality it is irrelevant. Choice or not, people should not be forced to accept it.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime They've tried making societies like that. Ancient Rome with it's slavery was one, and in more recent times, apartheid South Africa.
Whenever discrimination is legally permissible, oppression and disenfranchisement for the minority always follow.
If an equitable social compact weren't established and idealized, we'd still be slaves and you wouldn't have Black Wall Street or Historically Black Colleges.
You wouldn't be allowed to read. You'd be too busy fetchin' Massuh's food.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
Whoa, I never said I agreed with slavery or apartheid. Forcing someone to be a slave denies them freedom of association. I do not support laws that say black people cannot enter a place. However I DO support a business owner saying he does not wish to serve blacks. Two totally separate things.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime "I do not support laws that say black people cannot enter a place. However I DO support a business owner saying he does not wish to serve blacks."
Exactly HOW are they different?
"Now, I'm not telling you niggers ya'll can't come in here. I'm just telling you I ain't serving ya."
You're right. HUGE difference. :-/
That's a difference without a distinction. You want to talk about arguing semantics???
Yeesh....
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime The legally permissible discrimination you're advocating for in the name of libertarian freedom has the unintended (by you) effect of creating mass inequalities.
And the whole, "well we already have that now" argument falls apart when pitted against the very real history of slavery, Jim Crow and apartheid - which are the result of unchecked "freedom" to discriminate.
It's not about association. It's about equal treatment, market fairness and level playing field.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime If you don't like the way you are being treated at a business establishment go somewhere else, My uncle who fought in the korean war said that while visiting certain cities segregation was breaking down before any laws were actually passed, because he and his budies were being served at previously white only establishments before any anti segregation laws were passed.
1s23d 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"Whenever discrimination is legally permissible, oppression and disenfranchisement for the minority always follow."
Laws can lead to the disenfranchisement of the MAJORITY. Laws can make the will of a minority be forced upon the majority. Laws can be made that YOU don't agree with so that's why it's better to leave people free to make their own choices.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime - Laws are made to govern the majority that peopel don't agree with all the time. Sometimes those laws have to change but you still NEED laws.
What's your alternative to laws of governance for the great middle swath of society? Anarchy?
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime There is a lawsuit at eastern university where a black christian counselor did not want to counsel a gay student because of her beliefs and she won the lawsuit.
1s23d 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"You NEED to have sex. "
No, you don't. If you needed to have sex, celibate people would die & so would most children. You NEED food, you NEED air. You NEED sleep. Sex? NO.
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago 2
@UHeardMe1stTime
I'm afraid that Science/Biology/Evolution all beg to differ with you...
en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Biological_imperative#Reproduction
The need for sex is hard wired built into our species' survival and is an overwhelming need and urge.
You don't need it to SURVIVE, if that's the legalistic definition yo're getting at, but that's not what makes it a Need. It's an undeniable biological imperative.
morpheusxnyc 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"The need for sex is hard wired built into our species' survival and is an overwhelming need and urge."
I'm not arguing that sexual urges are not hard-wired. I'm saying you do not NEED sex. if you NEEDED sex, but didn't have it, you'd die. Some people are born without or lose their sexual urges. Shouldn't they die if sex was a necessity?
UHeardMe1stTime 2 months ago 2
@UHeardMe1stTime
Collectivley as a species, we WOULD die or our numbers would be greatly reproduced. How would we reproduce without sex? ANd reproduction is a biological urge, it is how something is classified as BEING alive in the first place. That is why virus's are considered alive because they cannot reproduce with other viruses, they need another organism to reproduce.
linneahope 2 months ago
@linneahope
sorry I meant "our numbers would be greatly reduced" and "reproduction is a biological NECESSITY" therefore SEX of some kind is necessary.
And yes there are asexual, infertile people but they are
A) an anomaly
People born without sexual urges are probably not going to reproduce and in a biological sense are an error. If everyone had no sexual urges, human beings would die out. Soo...your reasoning is really wrong on this point from a biological stance, I'm just saying.
linneahope 2 months ago
@linneahope
Sorry lol so many typos, "viruses are NOT considered alive" because they cannot reproduce on their own, ect, ect.
You're a very intelligent person but sometimes you make stupid arguments for your own preferences by ignoring facts like that. It kind of destroys your whole argument. And BTW science doesn't definitely "PROVE" anything. Mathematics proves things using inferential and deductive logic.
linneahope 2 months ago
@linneahope
Science provides EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for proofs. Get that? Evidence. I'm sorry but I'm studying Neurology in school and this bugs the hell out of me when lay people say this.
The difference between "proof" and "evidence" is not what you "know" but what you can "prove".
linneahope 2 months ago
@linneahope
A lot of erroneous things can be "proved" by creating a logical argument to support them. Diseases coming from "miasmas" "witches" "bad water" had PROOF because it had a sound logical argument behind it but it had very little EVIDENCE and DATA to support it, it had more to go against it. No one had knowledge of germs and bacteria, until a powerful enough microscope was invented to provide EVIDENCE of another cause of diseases.
linneahope 2 months ago
@linneahope
And as far as science "Proving" that homosexuality is biologically determined, it will not. That is not a logical proposal so it cannot be proved or disproven, like Pythagorean Theorem. Science has provided numerous "EVIDENCE" that there is a biological predisposition toward it.
linneahope 2 months ago
@linneahope
I think you're just choosing to ignore facts and evidence that don't support whatever personal conclusions/feelings/opinions you've come to about homosexuality. It's called confirmation bias.
linneahope 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime
Did you know animals display homosexual behavior at about the same rate of human beings? Roughly 25% of a given population.
Is it their "Choice" to embrace homosexual behavior too?
linneahope 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime Vervet Monkeys have rates of alcohol addiction the same as humans. Some are complete winos, some drink moderately, some don't touch alcohol ever. They got exposed to alcohol the same way humans did, by eating fermented fruits off of the forest floors. Does this "PROVE" that susceptibility to addiction is predetermined somewhat by genetics? No it does not because something like this cannot be PROVEN. BUT it does provide EVIDENCE for
linneahope 2 months ago
@UHeardMe1stTime
the idea that alcoholism or other addictions are biological urges somewhat influenced by genetic makeup that are not subject to a person's will or choice,Likewise with homosexuality. Vervet monkeys that are alcoholics are no more "choosing" a lifestyle of alcoholism then Ververt Monkey's who embrace homosexual behavior are "choosing" to "embrace a homosexual lifestyle".
linneahope 2 months ago
@morpheusxnyc
"The Whites Only sign is a perfect analogy and yet you seem to miss