Oh, Poop? I didnât see that.
Maybe we do really need @Jo_Fairley to explain how itâs an euphemismâŚ
Sometimes I wonder if these accounts like yours that pop up, make a single bigoted comment and vanish are just fakes that someone sets up to give people an easy target to tear apart. Itâs not so much that I find it impossible to believe someone really has these views, just⌠are you even trying? Your argument, if you can even call it that, is so shallow, stereotypical and lazy it makes me wonder why a real person would bother.
EDIT: Well, I was wrong about the âhit and runâ style of commenting at least. Arguments arenât getting any less lazy and laughable, though.
Iâm actually fine with this. Maybe because when I was in school, uniforms were a thing, but no, wearing a T-shirt that speaks of sexuality doesnât seem appropriate in a school. Good call, teachers.
Big Straight Ice Cream, or Big GBLTQetc Ice Cream, or Big Asexual Icecream wouldnât be any better. Nor any shirt which speaks on any other divisive issue, such as political affiliation, gang membership, gun rights, sports affiliation, abortion, anything at all from tshirthell.com, etc.
Part of the purpose of school is to teach kids whatâs socially acceptable in what settings. School is a formal setting, akin to a job, and if this isnât acceptable at work, then itâs not acceptable at school.
No, you donât get free speech rights from your parents, carer, teacher, or boss. Yes, thereâs some crossover with government; no, this isnât one of them. Teachers get pretty much total rights over you and your property while youâre at school, just as your parents do. Welcome to being a kid. We all went through it, suck it up.
Thatâs not actually true. Students arenât stripped of their 1st amendment rights in school settings. If they were then it wouldnât be very illegal to compel them to participate in school prayers, it wouldnât be illegal to forbid them from reading religious material during their lunch period and non-instructional time.
So, students do have 1st ammendment rights. And teaching them that they donât as kids teaches them to accept abuse and hinders their ability to be self-determined.
Also this is horseshit:
Teenagers talk about sex in school all the damn time, thereâs even sex ed class. Restricting their speech in this way amounts to fascism. Especially because often in high schools straight couples arenât ever hassled by administration for âreasonable public displays of affectionâ while gay couples (at least when I was in high school) were often broken up and forced to move along by administration.
If straight kids are allowed to express their straightness (which they do all the time in myriad ways without you noticing because of the heteronormative culture), then itâs unfair and honestly disgustingly hypocritical to restrict the same sentiment for non-straight people.
I hope you really appreciate your double standard, because it stinks like a pile of manure to me.
ETA:
What a depressingly defeatist, authoritarian and absolutist statement. People have done lots of things âbecause thatâs how itâs always beenâ, that are wrong, stupid, evil, harmful or just silly, but weâve managed to figure out that it wasnât the right thing to do. Just because kids are in a shit situation doesnât mean itâs right, or it should be that way.
What if Martin Luther King had that attitude about segregation and racial equality? What hopeless and awful idea to advocate.
What if the person who owned the business was named âGayâ and they were a bit on the corpulent side?
Well that didnât take long did it, somehow, I knew thereâd be a butt joke in response.
What sort of âChristiansâ are you talking about ? Lie ? Really, they are commanded not to. Slander ? Again commanded not to. Conflate gay people with nazis and WMD - LOL - every Gay protest Iâve seen is quick to label everyone else a Nazi (pot, kettle, black with that one Iâm afriad). What !? Blow up planned parent hood clinics ? Is that not murder ? Again a Christian is forbidden to do such things. You clearly do not understand what a true Christain is, all the above comments, regarding women, acts of violence and so on, is not Christian behaviour. If they donât follow the teachings, they are not Christians - so find a different label and donât slander.
Sounds like the Coca Cola advert from the 1970s - nice picture you painted but not true in the slightest.
We are all people, it is just a question of morals. Some people just wish to push morality back to Pagan times.
Well, there wouldnât be a problem if it was called âBig Rainbow Ice Creamâ. It gets the message across who its for, but âGayâ and having âBigâ preceding it would be similar to, say, a Mr John Ballcock, selling his ice cream with the slogan âBig Ballcock Ice Creamâ - legitimate (as its his name) but not appropriate.
Thatâs a No True Scotsman if Iâve ever heard one. The only criteria for a christian is that the person calls themselves that. Youâre trying to exclude the extremists when the only criteria, according to the new testament, for being a âTrue Christianâ is belief in the trinity and the resurrection of jesus. Anything beyond that is nit-picking and handwaving excuses to try and disenfranchise the True Christians who do evil in the name of your evil concept of god.
Just count up the number of innocent and righteous people killed by your god in the bible. It far outnumbers the people who satan killed. If youâre going to judge, then satan actually is far more merciful and is better for humanity than the god you worship anyway. I wouldnât worship your schizophrenic abusive god even if he were proven to exist, because he is evil.
Some people just wish to push morality back to Pagan times.And some people are trying to push morality back to the times of nearly completely illiterate bronze-age savages.
What is it with christians thinking they have some kind of claim to inventing morality and ethics?
If you think about it, taking orders regarding morality from an invisible god nobody else can see, or failing that authority figures with some kind of ârevealed knowledgeâ is the most intellectually and morally lazy reasoning a human can choose.
Iâd rather decide for myself how to act morally, taking into account the harm I cause to people, rather than the anger I engender in an imaginary and untestable deity who gives me no reason to even believe exists.
Someoneâs surname isnât appropriate? Tell that to Ballzac.
Fuck your censorship. Itâs far more obscene than any words I can say.
It sounds like a coca-cola ad because âTrue Gay Peopleâ arenât out killing in the name of equal rights. While âTrue christiansâ have racked up an obscenely large deathtoll in self-professed service to their god.
You can try to disown as much as you like, but the truth is, the bible says that many classes of people are to be killed for victimless crimes, and if the bible didnât exist then those people wouldnât have had an excuse for their heinous and horrific acts of violence.
What he wrote on the placard covering all the gay is good!
I would have gone with âWarning: This shirt offends repressed homosexuals and your standard ignorant homophobic bigots (who may also be repressed homosexuals). STAND BACK!!!1111â
When were the âPagan timesâ? Is that when the majority of people on earth werenât Christian?
Yet they still doâŚ
Aside from LDoBeâs excellent rebuttal to you, I wanted to raise another point: How about Big Joy Ice Cream, Big Fun Ice Cream, or Big Happy Ice Cream? Those too offensive to you? Gay still has two valid meanings, and I donât see any reason to assume the sexual one, especially when one is talking about frigginâ ICE CREAM. Yes, it has a rainbow on it. Which is also a symbol commonly associated with happy, carefree things as well as homosexuals. Itâs bad enough that the mere mention of homosexuality is offensive to you, but youâre deliberately CHOOSING to be offended when you could just as easily take it as the other, completely non-sexual meaning.
Honestly not surprised - I can see this as the result of some administrator A) not knowing that Big Gay Ice Cream is a real business and B) having the permanent mindset that teenage boys just sit around calling each other gay on XBox Live in their free time and assuming that it was meant to be offensive.
Aside from Christian religious organizations, of course.
Well, at least there youâre acknowledging that, at least in what youâve seen, the name-calling isnât limited to one side. If these were âprotestsâ you attended, though, then, yes, LGBTQI people and their allies were drawing attention to an injustice, and some may have gotten hyperbolic. Then again youâre very vague about what the protest was about, and a comparison to Nazis may have been appropriate.
Try attending a Pride celebration this summer, though, and youâll find that the insults and protests come from groups of Christians. They donât represent all Christians, but Christians are a diverse group. Some of them are pretty despicable. Look up the work of Scott Lively, for instance. Heâs a Christian. Funny, though, how that whole âcommanded not to slanderâ thing doesnât apply to Christians like him.
Oh, and welcome to Boing Boing. Stick around. You might learn something.
According to the Bible the t-shirt is inappropriate because the name of the company is inappropriate. If a Christian had a Bible verse you would call that inappropriate. If a Muslim had a t-shirt with a Koran verse on it you would probably have no problem with it, even though they hate gays and want them all dead. Christains simply disagree with the lifestyle and do not want it in their face, their solution is to help gays to come out of that lifestyle. I donât know why Christians are called tha haters and Muslims get a free pass and are even promoted by the media. Apparently we need to start picking sides because there is no compromise, the expression of one side offends the others. So I am picking sides. I choose Jesus.
Can you please cite the chapter and verse to which you are referring, because Iâm having trouble finding it.