<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. The fact that your two friends are not actually ?causing? street violence by your lights takes nothing away from the fact that others see it quite differently and will act on their perceptions not yours.Quote:
Originally posted by Pi?a:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Captain Whizbang:
So my point still stands: Two dudes bumping uglies does not cause street violence. That others may want to attack the two dudes is a different issue. The violence is out of the control of the two dudes.
You keep confusing what motivates people with reality. People don?t act on reality. They act on their interpretation of reality.
To that vocal, oh so holy, minority your ugly bumping buddies (wouldn?t that hurt by the way?) are seen as just as much of a cause of street violence as the drug dealers. Really.
The ?logic? goes something like this. Taint natural. Degrades the family. The family is the kernel that holds this country together. Without the kernel everything goes to anarchy. Anarchy begets violence. Six degrees of separation and you have homo?s cause drive-bys. Seems nuts to you and me but not to the die hards who would take their bibles and thump your ugly into oblivion. To them it makes perfect sense and how could anyone not see it????
My point is: They think it makes sense. It doesn?t. We need to be careful about the validity of our own deeply held beliefs and always need to whip a little critical thinking on ?em just to be on the safe side lest we let our preconceptions and wishes skew our observations and conclusions.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everything you say is true. Just last winter a number of males walking alone in Northside were attacked, presumably because they were perceived as gay. I know at least others two who were assaulted outside bars (downtown and Newport).
The difference with this scenario is that the courts (and the general public) will side with the victim of the violence, not the perpetrator.
I'm sure we can find circumstances to the contrary, but by and large an unprovoked attack on someone who is gay or perceived to by gay will result in a conviction against the perpetrator. The gay person would not be blamed for someone assaulting him.
I'm rambling, but in a nutshell I'd say you're taking truth and trying to take it somewhere beyond where it needs to go.
<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ July 28, 2005 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]</font>
