Diageo

Having a hateful belief doesn't make someone a hateful or bad person. But holding the belief that the attraction someone was born makes them "wrong" or "disgusting" will make you act differently to those people. Maybe not consciously, but you will partake in unconscious behaviours that, if picked up on will make a homosexual uncomfortable. It can affect decisions to hire a homosexual to a workplace, to be friends with someone, to help someone. Implicit associations have a strong effect on quick heuristic decision making and thus is dangerous. Additionally, if you think something is wrong, you think it shouldn't be there, and even if you don't behave in a way that reflects that, saying that you hold that opinion affects people.

Eh, who said that mr jump to conclusions? Let's be very clear here people. There's a very large difference between finding homosexuality disgusting and homosexual sex acts disgusting. Finding homosexuality itself as wrong or disgusting is a hateful belief. Finding male on male penetrative anal sex disgusting is not a hateful belief. Please clarify when you make such claims as there is a difference. It's like saying, I find old age disgusting and wrong because you don't like the image of two old people having sex. It doesn't equate.

Then why the "you wanna put what where?" comment. Surely that's the same thing?

Well then it's different. You're not finding homosexuality disgusting, you're finding specifically anal penetrative sex disgusting. Don't label that as an entire sexuality as homosexual women don't do that and many homosexual men don't do it either. I assume you find anal sex with women disgusting too? Is that the problem your friend has too because you're labelling it all wrong. Unless you find a person disgusting just because they are attracted to the same sex, then you don't think homosexuality is disgusting.

While people have the right to believe whatever they want, you can't say that hateful beliefs are not dangerous. Even if people against homosexuality don't consciously act against it, there are implicit associations that will affect every decision they make. It can induce unconscious behaviours that may affect homosexuals leading to self-fulfilling prophecies or confirmatory bias. While of course you wouldn't force them to change their minds, people should challenge them on it regularly. Just as if someone said they thought that black people were an inferior race, I would hope that the people around that person would challenge that. Is it necessary to have both? Recent studies have shown that homosexual parents with adopted children tend to raise them better than the average heterosexual couple as they wait for financial stability and are sure they want a baby. If having a mother or father was more important than other factors this significant difference would be seen in the opposite direction.

You seem to insinuate I'm ordering him to confess all his problems, which I was not. That's why the word "can" is in there, because he clearly has a choice.

Yes, those we're my only words, "Get over it". I didn't give reasoning or an explanation. Absolutely no chance for you to create a counterargument. You're right, it's completely my fault.

You're right. A question used for emphasis that you have already answered means every point I have made throughout the thread is void. That's an interesting tactic where you distract from the actual point of the conversation over and over with no apparent motivation to actually go forward with it.

[Assassin name] is way better than [other Assassin name].

Just because you highlight your own hypocrisy doesn't mean it's not hypocritical. Unless you think it's ok for people to post petty complaints as long as they put a #petty after it?

You like to insinuate hypocrisy in the way others do things yet you are here trivially complaining about how other people trivially complain. When you are so eager to label the complaints of others as trivial can you not comprehend how others might do the same. It's one thing to say that people should be understanding of other people's opinions, but when other people's opinions are that your opinions are invalid, you can understand how that might create a conflict that negates understanding. There's also a distinct difference in what both parties want. You're annoyed that others post petty disturbances and want others to stop posting. We're saying that this will not happen and you should give up. Not that you should stop posting. And even if people's complaints are petty, so what? There are no rules on how bad something must be before it can be posted here. Anyone is allowed to post no matter how small. If you want a controlled space where people only post highly emotionally disturbing life events then you can create your own thread.

I understood exactly what you said, I was making a joke. No need to compare me to some homunculus version you have concocted in your head. For bad things where people need real help and opinions from others, you can clearly see that this thread offers that. When a person's relative or close companion passes away, there's not much else to do than offer condolences. There is no need for some sort of therapy room affair where we regularly check in with one another. Go to a support group for that. This is a place for people to ask for advice yes, but to vent as well and just let their feelings out. Who cares how mundane it is. No one has the right to dictate how you feel. There is no higher order of suffering where we must all target the most severe cases and only when that is settled, can we support what is perceived as a smaller problem. Emotions are subjective anyway and while you may think that stubbing your toe or whatever else doesn't really matter, it matters to others. This thread isn't all about a single person's belief of what should be put online under the label of bad. You said you get annoyed because you are going through some things and people here are complaining about mundane stuff that drowns out what you consider to be sufficient suffering for the thread label. Well I've got to say, get over it. You can put your problems down and vent like the others, where people might or might not offer some words of encouragement. But don't let your moodiness over what you've got going on interrupt the perfectly valid complaints of others here.

How meta, someone's bad stuff is that the bad stuff thread doesn't have enough bad stuff.

That shows it then. Rummy and Smeagol are Mafia. Smeagol has been protecting Rummy so he can kill without being seen. Come on guys we need to vote for someone. Smeagol is being very secretive at an end point in the game where it's clear he's just stalling. Can we finish this please!

AC Liberation? Any time period before the 11th century cannot happen because that's when the assassin order started. I also know very little about the French revolution, other than it spurred some battles in Ireland. I don't think it's a particularly boring period either. Any period can be exciting depending on the storyline.

Are you not the shield now? What is your power then?

Jonnas was town and had the exact same power as Sméagol. I severely doubt that in a small game like this there would be two complete protectors.

vote smeagol .

Are you saying you're the shield then? Because if so I think you're Mafia even more now!

Don't pull a DuD. Full role reveal or I'm voting for you. And it's getting very close.

I think both The Peeps and Smeagol need a full target reveal and we'll have to go from there.

Left my bag in a taxi that had my 3DS in it, as well as Super Smash Bros Brawl, and two Wii motes with nunchucks and Wii Motion +, one of which came with Skyward Sword. It hasn't been handed in and it probably won't be. There was also a lot of leftover food in there

I think we're gonna lose very soon unless we take a bet and go for it and I think Rummy is our best bet right now, followed by Jimbob. And ReZ, I didn't get any information on Rummy, but from looking at Jonnas' power and my power, I don't think there's a townie doing this to Rummy, so it's probably his own or the mafia.

I have reason to believe that Rummy has a shield as part of his ability, and there is no complete protector, especially since Jonnas was already a complete protector. So if there is another, it would be a mafia power. Rummy is really the way to go. Jimbob is voting for two people eh?

Nothing is happening really so I've gonna vote Rummy.