Forums | MacLife

Sounds counter productive to me.

Is this something like Shirley Muldowney? I know that NASCAR is dominant in that part of the country, but I doubt they'd be adverse to Top Fuel.

mackerm wrote:

Is this something like Shirley Muldowney? I know that NASCAR is dominant in that part of the country, but I doubt they'd be adverse to Top Fuel.

Sooooo funny

bedstuy wrote:

Homophobia > cancer donations

No.
Your logic is flawed.

Slapping a good cause on something does not make it instantly justifiable.

If the godhatesfags crew wanted to do a show in your town, with proceeds going to feed world hunger, would you say that the cause they were donating to outweighed their bigotry, or would you demonstrate against it?

I suspect you would demonstrate against it, because slapping proceeds to a good cause does not justify what they are doing.

Personally I think these churches are being silly, but criticize them because they don't like drag queens and want to force their ideology on others, not because of the cancer funds.

I don't think you understood my point.

Group A (the churches) are protesting Group B (the queens).

A does not agree with B.
A's disagreement may be silly, but it is still their disagreement.

B doing it for a good cause does not make is suddenly bad for A to disagree with B.

If Nazi's wanted to do a promotion in my town (making them Group B) and I was group A - the fact that the Nazi's were donating proceeds to whatever good cause doesn't make it wrong for me to protest them doing the show.

Thus - don't argue that the breast cancer is why it is wrong for the churches to protest them. You may wish to protest against a group that donates to breast cancer some day.

Instead, argue that the church has no place trying to force their ideology on those who want nothing to do with it. Who the drag queens donate money to doesn't matter.

Like Jehovah's witnesses?

Metacell wrote:

It would make your point better if you didn't replace the drag queens in your analogy with Nazis and godhatesfags, but instead some other harmless and friendly group.

I disagree.  Things are looking more and more like 1930s Germany.

resedit wrote:

I don't think you understood my point.

Group A (the churches) are protesting Group B (the queens).

A does not agree with B.
A's disagreement may be silly, but it is still their disagreement.

B doing it for a good cause does not make is suddenly bad for A to disagree with B.

If Nazi's wanted to do a promotion in my town (making them Group B) and I was group A - the fact that the Nazi's were donating proceeds to whatever good cause doesn't make it wrong for me to protest them doing the show.

Thus - don't argue that the breast cancer is why it is wrong for the churches to protest them. You may wish to protest against a group that donates to breast cancer some day.

Instead, argue that the church has no place trying to force their ideology on those who want nothing to do with it. Who the drag queens donate money to doesn't matter.

drag queens = nazis.
got it.

Haven't you always dreamed of joining the Drag Queen Corps?

Chickenhawk wrote:

drag queens = nazis.
got it.

Why the smurf do you all insist on ridiculous blatant twisting of everything?

It's smurfing annoying. I suspect that answers my question, you do it specifically to annoy, but that makes you trolls and in violation of the DBAJ rule. So please stop.

Whether or not they contribute to cancer research has nothing to do with why the churches are protesting the event.
It might as well be the price of tea in China.

The churches are protesting the event because they have an ethical problem with Drag Queens.
It is their right to have that opinion and it is their right to protest the event.

It is your right to criticize their opinion and their protest, but the cancer research has nothing to do with whether or not the churches would protest the event, it's not a point of contention.

Capiche?

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality, such as what the fundamental semantic, ontological, and epistemic nature of ethics or morality is (meta-ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), how a moral outcome can be achieved in specific situations (applied ethics), how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology), and what moral values people actually abide by (descriptive ethics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

I suspect they have an ethical problem with it.