For more Dwight Smith goodness you can go back to a video we featured a couple years back.
Posted by Darrell
“Predatory.” Where in the world did this get started? Did some leading light (sic) of a past generation of IFB preachers first proclaim desire for other adults of one’s own genital setup predatory? And why?
A defender of a sect that abets its Men of God when they prey upon their own flocks really should not use that word in a theological debate (sic).
There have been news investigations about some homosexual men doing what amounts to proselytization in a rather suspicious manner. I’m not saying it is necessarily representative of the lot, but those claiming “predatory” have at least anecdotal evidence.
Do you really think there are more homosexual men attempting to recruit partners than there are heterosexual men doing the same?
I said anecdotal evidence. I was answering Jenny’s question of where did this get started. In other words, “predatory” is not a purely homophobic, fundy idea. I’m not arguing for any normative principle. All humans are capable of moral failure.
Yeah, like news programs are easy to cite. . . let me get right on that.
Hushai–try either a search engine or Snopes. You’ll be amazed what you can find.
The news isn’t really a citable source. They all say different things. Again, if you missed my point, it was that thinking homosexuals are predatory is not original to fundies. A significant percentage of the population thinks this way. I am not intending to show that homosexuals are predatory, hence why citing a source is really unnecessary. Does no one understand what the word “anecdotal” means?
Hushai…You refer to an unknown number of un-citable references, but then suggest that a “significant percentage” of the population believes this “theory”. That’s quite interesting. In any case, it certainly sounds pretty legitimate…kinda like there have been several stories of male bank robbers so by deduction, all males could be or have the inclination to be bank robbers. Besides, wouldn’t a gay guy “proselytizing” another guy be just trying to get a date? Or do they sneak up on some unsuspecting guy in a dark alley, give him a Chick track and ask if they have considered converting to homosexuality?
Wouldn’t that be a Chuck tract? Or a no-chick tract?
Ok, seriously READ ALL MY COMMENTS! For one final time I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE PREDATORY!!!! I am saying that people other than fundies believe this to be the case. It is not only a fundy idea. News by nature is not citable, hence why I didn’t cite it. News is purely the opinion of journalists. So, if a news agency says something it means that someone thinks it to be the case.
Since several people are having trouble understanding what exactly let me restate it.
Observation: A major news network (which one, I don’t know. It was awhile ago) ran a story showing their view that some homosexuals were predatory since they were seducing young men in vulnerable situations.
Conclusion: Since a major news network said this, there are people outside of fundy circles who think that homosexuals are predatory.
This is all I am saying, no more. The statement “People think that homosexuals are predatory” is a general knowledge statement. It does not need a citation. It is like saying “There are people who think that man has not landed on the moon.” Now if I were to say, “Man has not landed on the moon,” that would require a verifiable source. My argument is not, gays are predatory, it is that there is a significant (more than 1%) part of the population thinks that they are.
Yes a NON-Chick tract…for some reason Chick tracts came to mind when I thought about a gay guy stalking other men in a dark alley…why would that be?
Hushai…that’s fine…I just don’t get how you derive the concept that a significant portion (assuming anything > 1% is “significant”) of the population believes gays are predatory from a news story
Here is my thinking process on that. (1) News stories are chosen either because they are legitimate news (Hurricane in the gulf), or because they are controversial and will boost ratings. (2) A news story of this type is controversial. (3) Controversies necessarily have two sides and those sides must be large enough to cause a boost in ratings. (4) The fundy circles make up a very small percentage of the population, hence why something even as small 1% would be significant. (Conclusion) The news agency must have thought that a significant enough percentage of the population has taken sides on this story as to cause a boost in ratings, so more people than just fundies must believe it to be so.
I suspect this tweet says quite a bit more about the speaker than about his chosen subject…
Dwight is ignorant
DWight is a dick.
D.Smith preached a LOT at my tiny fundy high school. He was cute enough at the time (compared to our lack of males in the school) for us to pay attention…
Late to this, but the “No-Chick Tract” comment made my day!
Mail (will not be published) (required)
[ Ctrl + Enter ]
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Copyright © 2009 Stuff Fundies Like • Simpl3 Theme by Human3rror
Switch to our mobile site