@...Elepski:

No I don’t get the ‘point’.
A black man becoming the president of America wasn’t a ‘taboo’. At one time black people didn’t have the same rights, and that is over my friend, that’s all.
You know, and then of course there was this thing with women who weren’t allowed to vote either, now that they’re allowed to, was that also a step into the wrong direction?

Since when is ‘calling someone an atheist’ an insult?
Atheism is a lack of belief, you’re either an atheist or not. You can’t call anybody an atheist the way I could call you an idiot.

And what’s up with, ‘Nipple is not evil’? Is it too difficult or do you find forming correct sentences offensive as well? Get a grip.

@...Catherine Longfellow:
Ah yes that’s kind of true. But if you say it like, atheism is the lack of belief in any deity, then it is correct.
I’d say agnosticism is not exactly a lack of belief either. Anyhow, I know what you mean and I agree.

Yeah I honestly don’t see the point in calling yourself an atheist either. It’s useless. Though some would argue, that it helps to clarify certain things. Like, oh so that automatically means you have nothing against gay people.
Things of that nature. Which again is ridiculous, since atheism has no agenda, and you could very well be a conservative republican as well as an atheist.

It’s obviously rare though. 90% of all people whom I’ve talked to who called themselves atheists, turned out to be very open-minded people so I do think it helps you get a better picture of a person. Indirectly.

YES, the idea of a black man being the president of America was somehow strange to some ignorant pussies like you. But it wasn’t a taboo. If it were, Obama wouldn’t be where he is now.

‘wtf does women’s suffrage have to do with Elepski’s point’ – Let’s examine his ‘point’, shall we?
So he assumes, that because a large group of people in a country have come to tolerate black people to a very high degree – all of the sudden they will also legalise drugs, oppress religious people, and whatever his other garbage is supposed to mean.

What does women’s suffrage have to do with BLACK PEOPLE HAVING THE SAME RIGHTS AS WHITE PEOPLE?
Come again?

You racist piece of shit.

I have no problem with people being too dumb to spell. I have only a problem with people amputating the god damn English language, the fucking sole basis of our communication. Thank you god damn much.

@...mintymadness:

In no way am I trying to insult any body by using curse words. It’s merely a nice way to accentuate certain things that happen to be dear to my heart. Like common sense. And tolerance.

I didn’t ‘preach’ against any ‘bible-thumper’.
The main issue was about race and has nothing to with any religion.
In no way does the bible mention any thing about black people not being allowed to become president of America, so what the fuck are you talking about.

Again, the bandwagon you accuse me of being on, is called common fucking sense. Do you consider yourself to be educated? Do you think that the colour of any body’s skin should interfere with their rights?

Maybe you’re the one who should grow up.

@...jascas_:

You can only read the words I’m typing, so no I’m not angry. In fact I am fascinated.

Ah thank you, are you done explaining what that guy *really* meant? I think his post speaks for itself.

I’m going to repeat this, to make it clear, what he basically said:

The fact that a society overcame a ‘taboo’, related to a man’s race (and yes that is precisely what he wrote), are signs that drugs will be legalised, religious people oppressed, and that suddenly women are going to run around topless. Can you say delusional?

No I don’t know who you are and what your race is. And I do not care because there’s no way for me to know those things except if you tell me. All i was judging you by, were your words. If you have a problem with that, too bad.

@...mintymadness:

I was acting all defensive? I explained myself alright.

My words on your screen were not full of anger. That is impossible. They were aggressive yes, I apologise if I hurt any body’s feelings but for some reason I doubt I did.

So what do you propose, should I react to intolerance with tolerance? I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense.
You’re taking things a bit too seriously if you think the word fuck has such significant meaning.

And no, I did not see the word ‘taboo’ and saw red. I saw poor assumptions based on nothing but false logic.
And how was I discriminating any body? Did you understand what *I* was trying to say? If you have a problem with people who have something against delusional/ racist assumptions then I don’t want to have any thing to do with you.

I don’t care how many people ‘point their finger’ at me. I know where I stand on issues like racism, and irrational, intolerant fears. I could be arguing with 10 nazis, does that mean my arguments are any less valid? I beg your pardon. Your arguments are moot.

@...jascas_:

Say what? How was he stating that ‘our society will loosen up a bit more’?

Dear god, please do me a favour and read what he wrote again: Election of a BLACK president is a sign that this country is starting to progress socially. One taboo down… 1000 more to go.

He makes a clear connection between two things.
I know what you are trying to say, but that is not what he said. Would you stop explaining things for him, in a way he didn’t even write?

@...elzarcothepale:

Your comparison to the gay marriage argument couldn’t have been any more perfect. So you understand what I was trying to say.

And yeah I understand exactly what you mean.
That’s what I thought at first as well.
But think again, when women weren’t allowed to vote, that was just as much a taboo. Why is it, that just now after a black guy got elected, these things seem more realistic?

@...Elepski:

Alright I am sorry. But it was worded very badly, Usually it’s the far right republicans talking like that. No offense.

@...elzarcothepale:
I see. Well unfortunately, I don’t think those things will happen any time soon. And I don’t think now that Obama made it, any of those republicans will open up any more. We’re lucky if nobody tries to kill him.

Just to give an example that we’ve already took a step back – proposition 8 passed. By 63% or so.

And yea again, I apologise. If you had understood it the same way I did, you’d understand why I was so aggressive.
At least I’ve made my point about grammar.

@...mintymadness:

Since you never understood what I was trying to say, to begin with, what do you expect? I assumed those things about you based on what I thought you were defending. If you had understood what I said in response to Elepski, there would have been no conflict. Instead you accused me of being on a high horse?

And thank you for your concern, but I don’t need you to be blunt with me or anything else. I was responding to another user, not you. Since he didn’t respond earlier, I couldn’t have realised my error.
How are my arguments moot? I still think racism is wrong, do you object to that or what.

@...mintymadness:
I was only accused at first, so I assumed I was right and you people agreed with what I thought he said.
You seem pretty offended. I apologised already and you talk about games. What more do you want