Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'

smac97

By smac97
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't think those two men are the same. The nose is different, eyebrows are different, one has wavy hair and the other is straight hair, lack of brown spots on the forehead too as opposed to the other man. The name is unusual for sure but there is another "Earl Friedberg" in California, at least listed on google, but I don't know if he is gay or sings

Fair points.  

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, cinepro said:

In your summary of the lyrics, you left out the most important (and explanatory) line:

WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR.

I don't see anything in the song beyond that. What are you seeing,

Where to begin...

"BUT YOU'RE JUST FRIGHTENED" - Mindreading.  Imputing evil motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

"YOU THINK THAT WE'LL CORRUPT YOUR KIDS ... JUST THIS ONCE, YOU'RE CORRECT." - Res ipsa loquitur.  And innuendo.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, HAPPENS BIT BY BIT, QUIETLY AND SUBTLELY AND YOU WILL BARELY NOTICE IT" - Subversion/undermining of parents.

"YOU WON'T APPROVE OF WHERE THEY GO AT NIGHT" - Subversion/undermining of parents.

"OH, AND YOU'LL BE DISGUSTED ... WHEN THEY START FINDING THINGS ONLINE" - Res ipsa loquitur.  And innuendo.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, SOMEONE'S GOTTA TEACH THEM NOT TO HATE." - Mindreading.  Imputing evil motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

"WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN / WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN / FOR YOUR CHILDREN" - Res ipsa loquitur.  And innuendo.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, THEN WE'LL TURN TO YOU, GIVING UP THE FEAR INSIDE" - Mindreading.  Imputing motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, AND MAKE AN ALLY OF YOU YET!" - Mindreading.  Imputing motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

or are you objecting to the "tolerant and fair" part?

As Hamba put it: "Dress up an agenda as tolerance and fairness, and anyone who disagrees with it is now a hateful bigot."

Thank you for so amply illustrating his point.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

My strongest apologies for assuming it was true. That was wrong to do without confirming myself. No sarcasm included. 

Edited by Calm
  • Popular Post
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Where to begin...

"BUT YOU'RE JUST FRIGHTENED" - Mindreading.  Imputing evil motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

"YOU THINK THAT WE'LL CORRUPT YOUR KIDS ... JUST THIS ONCE, YOU'RE CORRECT." - Res ipsa loquitur.  And innuendo.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, HAPPENS BIT BY BIT, QUIETLY AND SUBTLELY AND YOU WILL BARELY NOTICE IT" - Subversion/undermining of parents.

"YOU WON'T APPROVE OF WHERE THEY GO AT NIGHT" - Subversion/undermining of parents.

"OH, AND YOU'LL BE DISGUSTED ... WHEN THEY START FINDING THINGS ONLINE" - Res ipsa loquitur.  And innuendo.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, SOMEONE'S GOTTA TEACH THEM NOT TO HATE." - Mindreading.  Imputing evil motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

"WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN / WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR THEM / WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHILDREN / FOR YOUR CHILDREN" - Res ipsa loquitur.  And innuendo.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, THEN WE'LL TURN TO YOU, GIVING UP THE FEAR INSIDE" - Mindreading.  Imputing motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

"WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN, AND MAKE AN ALLY OF YOU YET!" - Mindreading.  Imputing motives.  Subversion/undermining of parents.

As Hamba put it: "Dress up an agenda as tolerance and fairness, and anyone who disagrees with it is now a hateful bigot."

Thank you for so amply illustrating his point.

Thanks,

-Smac

You don’t get sarcasm do you? Look at the whole song. It is a mockery. A deliberate and obvious mockery. Of people like you. I can understand why you would be offended at it but that is no reason to play dumb and pretend you don’t understand. This is the language you always use when describing their agenda and how it works. Now you are screaming at them for using the language you use to describe them.

Irony is dead.

9
california boy Grand Master

california boy

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You're not wrong.

Exactly! Where do you recommend they go to report their parents for teaching 'that kind of stuff'?

They grow up, move away from home and live their lives.  I realize you are trying to provoke me, but, I'm not recommending any reporting of their parents. I think you knew that.

3
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I thought the accusation, standing alone, was serious.  So I ran it down.  As it turns out, there does appear to be at least one sex offender in the video.  Singing about coming after our children.

I provided documentary evidence rather than speculation or hearsay.  For you, this is . . . bad?

Thanks,

-Smac

A YouTube comment is documentary evidence?

Wait, aren’t you a lawyer?

Wow……..

3
california boy Grand Master

california boy

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently that right does not apply to parents vis-à-vis their children.

Thanks,

-Smac

Who implied that?

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

@smac97 @Calm

Here is the man that Smac slandered above. It took 20 seconds of googling. Maybe do that next time instead of looking at YouTube comments?

Kinda schizophrenic in your criticisms.  First I'm spending too much time on the topic, now not enough?

I stand corrected.  

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://theindustryofux.com/episodes/ux-hiring-at-google-with-earl-friedberg-s2e8/

Honestly Smac you are as bad as the worst you accuse church critics of being. 

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You don’t get sarcasm do you?

I do.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Look at the whole song. It is a mockery. A deliberate and obvious mockery. Of people like you.

I get that.  

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can understand why you would be offended at it but that is no reason to play dumb and pretend you don’t understand.

I haven't been playing dumb.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is the language you always use when describing their agenda and how it works. Now you are screaming at them for using the language you use to describe them.

I'm not screaming.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Who implied that?

The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A YouTube comment is documentary evidence?

Wait, aren’t you a lawyer?

Wow……..

It wasn't a YouTube comment.  It was on FB.

And I wasn't that invested in the claim.  I didn't originate it.  I just looked for evidence as to whether it was true.

As it turns out, it wasn't true.  I stand corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
Kenngo1969 Grand Master

Kenngo1969

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

This is all a distraction from the REAL issue:

Should “Praise to the Man”, “In Our Lovely Deseret”, and “Onward Christian Soldiers” be included in the next edition of the LDS hymnal?

Regarding the first two, absolutely!  But I'm afraid I seem too provincial for saying so, since one of the expressed aims of compiling a new hymnal is to reflect the internationalization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints better.

1
SeekingUnderstanding Grand Master

SeekingUnderstanding

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Kinda schizophrenic in your criticisms.  First I'm spending too much time on the topic, now not enough?

If I had just slandered two men, I’d apologize, instead you double down. I wonder why?

 

1
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do.

The documentary evidence suggests otherwise.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't been playing dumb.

The alternative isn’t any better.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not screaming.

Okay, I will update the list of things smac does not get accordingly:

sarcasm
hyperbole

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It wasn't a YouTube comment.  It was on FB.

And I wasn't that invested in the claim.  I didn't originate it.  I just looked for evidence as to whether it was true.

As it turns out, it wasn't true.  I stand corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would think that you would want to do more before throwing around accusations of pedophilia but you do you I guess.

2
  • Popular Post
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It wasn't a YouTube comment.  It was on FB.

And I wasn't that invested in the claim.  I didn't originate it.  I just looked for evidence as to whether it was true.

As it turns out, it wasn't true.  I stand corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac

You saw someone you thought was an enemy. Someone said something that supported your attempt to vilify something. You assumed it was true despite its heinous nature. My guess is that if someone on Facebook said a member of the first quorum of the seventy was a pedophile you probably would have scrutinized it to the nth degree.

It was not a simple error. It was an error born of intense bias.

8
SeekingUnderstanding Grand Master

SeekingUnderstanding

Posted
Posted
Just now, The Nehor said:

You saw someone you thought was an enemy. Someone said something that supported your attempt to vilify something. You assumed it was true despite its heinous nature. My guess is that if someone on Facebook said a member of the first quorum of the seventy was a pedophile you probably would have scrutinized it to the nth degree.

It was not a simple error. It was an error born of intense bias.

Admitting this would require a modicum introspection. So I give it a snowballs chance in hell. 

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, The Nehor said:

You saw someone you thought was an enemy.

Not really.  

Just now, The Nehor said:

Someone said something that supported your attempt to vilify something.

Oh, the irony.

Just now, The Nehor said:

You assumed it was true despite its heinous nature.

I did not assume.  

Just now, The Nehor said:

My guess is that if someone on Facebook said a member of the first quorum of the seventy was a pedophile you probably would have scrutinized it to the nth degree.

Yes.  Because I would have been invested in that accusation.  As it was, I was not particularly invested in the one under discussion.

Just now, The Nehor said:

It was not a simple error. It was an error born of intense bias.

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The documentary evidence suggests otherwise.

The alternative isn’t any better.

Okay, I will update the list of things smac does not get accordingly:

sarcasm
hyperbole

Oh, the irony.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would think that you would want to do more before throwing around accusations of pedophilia

I wasn't throwing around accusations.  I erroneously conflated two "Earl Friedbergs."  I stand corrected.

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

but you do you I guess.

Okay.

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Admitting this would require a modicum introspection. So I give it a snowballs chance in hell. 

Oh, the irony.

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

redacted out of respect for @Calm>.

Thank you. That means a lot. 

SeekingUnderstanding Grand Master

SeekingUnderstanding

Posted
Posted
Just now, smac97 said:

Not really.  

Oh, the irony.

I did not assume.  

Yes.  Because I would have been invested in that accusation.  As it was, I was not particularly invested in the one under discussion.

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

So it’s okay to bandy about unsubstantiated accusations of pedophilia as long as we aren’t “particularly invested”. Is that a legal term? 
 

I’m getting close to bannable territory (if I haven’t reached there already) so I’m going to bow out. Enjoy your delusions. 

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I had just slandered two men, I’d apologize,

So would I.  Except I haven't slandered two men.  And neither of them are on this board.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

instead you double down. I wonder why?

I haven't doubled down.  I have repeatedly said that I stand corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac

1
Hamba Tuhan Grand Master

Hamba Tuhan

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, california boy said:

I'm not recommending any reporting of their parents. I think you knew that.

I'm glad to hear that! And no, I didn't know that.

As I noted above, our local parliament last year passed a law indirectly making it legally risky for parents and others to teach their children certain aspects of Christian sexual morality that run counter to the LGBTQI+ agenda, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Dobbing parents in is a very real option. I know we're often ahead of the US when it comes to 'progressive' politics, but I wasn't sure how far ahead in this matter.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...