I'm going to give a brief example from my own, Christian, non LGBT supporting life.
We used to go to a church from a denomination. I'd spent the first 13 years of my life there, and we left because the denomination made some choices about how they were going to interpret the bible, and those choices weren't accepted by my parents, or by myself. Thus, we switched churches and I went through the worst twelve months of my life. I still don't really like my new church, and I've been going for almost a year.
I was very much affected by it, and if you're telling me that my emotions are invalid here because I'm a straight Christian and therefore unaffected by anything LGBT people do, you're wrong. The same goes for my brothers, who, gasp are straight white Christian men.

^

Also, since it involves, as you said, 'Christians, gays, and gay Christians', maybe, in that case, the opinions of the gay people and gay Christians should be the most important? Just a thought, since they're the ones who actually have a stake in that argument.

…
Are you trying to tell me that Christians aren't affected by a debate on how to interpret the Bible? You might not know this, but the Bible is kind of considered an important thing for many Christians due to the fact that it's one of the main foundations of our beliefs

Also, even if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't mean gays should be completely forbidden from living their own lives as equals. The only "stakes" for them in that argument were that every once in a while, someone might say "Uhhh, isn't that considered sinful?". I know, there are such high risks there.

You cannot silence someone you disagree with just because you disagree with them. That's practically the debate equivalent of my little brother plugging his ears and singing "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA" whenever I try to have a reasonable conversation with him.

First off, I am Christian, so don't talk down to me.
Second, countries have literally banned being gay and have it be punishable by death, so yeah the stakes are pretty damn high.
Thirdly, I am not obligated to entertain and listen to the opinions of a 12 year old who's trying to tell me how to debate. I can choose to listen to or ignore anyone I feel like listening to or ignoring.
Write up a decent argument without regurgitating the same points before calling my reaction unreasonable.

I'm going to give a brief example from my own, Christian, non LGBT supporting life.
We used to go to a church from a denomination. I'd spent the first 13 years of my life there, and we left because the denomination made some choices about how they were going to interpret the bible, and those choices weren't accepted by my parents, or by myself. Thus, we switched churches and I went through the worst twelve months of my life. I still don't really like my new church, and I've been going for almost a year.
I was very much affected by it, and if you're telling me that my emotions are invalid here because I'm a straight Christian and therefore unaffected by anything LGBT people do, you're wrong. The same goes for my brothers, who, gasp are straight white Christian men.

People have literally been killed over people misunderstanding the Bible and saying it's anti-gay, but tell me again how much it sucks for you to go to a new church. How horrible.
Your emotions aren't invalid, but they certainly aren't nearly as important as the LGBTQA+ people who have been killed, beaten, or disowned over religion and sexuality and/or gender combining.

I have an idea for a new subject because book reports:

Should required reading be demanded from schools, and if so, what books should be taught? And should graphic novels count?

People have literally been killed over people misunderstanding the Bible and saying it's anti-gay, but tell me again how much it sucks for you to go to a new church. How horrible.
Your emotions aren't invalid, but they certainly aren't nearly as important as the LGBTQA+ people who have been killed, beaten, or disowned over religion and sexuality and/or gender combining.

Yeah. Most people who kill the gays are not acting in a Christian manner. If they are not acting Christian, don't blame the Christians.

Also, since it involves, as you said, 'Christians, gays, and gay Christians', maybe, in that case, the opinions of the gay people and gay Christians should be the most important? Just a thought, since they're the ones who actually have a stake in that argument.

…
Are you trying to tell me that Christians aren't affected by a debate on how to interpret the Bible? You might not know this, but the Bible is kind of considered an important thing for many Christians due to the fact that it's one of the main foundations of our beliefs

Also, even if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't mean gays should be completely forbidden from living their own lives as equals. The only "stakes" for them in that argument were that every once in a while, someone might say "Uhhh, isn't that considered sinful?". I know, there are such high risks there.

You cannot silence someone you disagree with just because you disagree with them. That's practically the debate equivalent of my little brother plugging his ears and singing "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA" whenever I try to have a reasonable conversation with him.

First off, I am Christian, so don't talk down to me.
Second, countries have literally banned being gay and have it be punishable by death, so yeah the stakes are pretty damn high.
Thirdly, I am not obligated to entertain and listen to the opinions of a 12 year old who's trying to tell me how to debate. I can choose to listen to or ignore anyone I feel like listening to or ignoring.
Write up a decent argument without regurgitating the same points before calling my reaction unreasonable.

1. If you are a Christian why can't you understand the importance of following what you believe to be Christian morals?
2. How many times do we have to say that we know for you to understand that we know?

3. Pot calling the kettle black. Plus she's doing a better job then you.

4. Serious talk here.
   I don't know, but I am afraid that you are getting emotional. That's not good for you. If you are getting seriously affected you should stop. Trust me. It could poison the already dubious relationships you have with me and Nutella. Debating is all about learning to see things from the other persons point of view so as to grow in mental strength as well as widen your mind and be more tolerant. If this is damaging to you, it's not worth it.
   Simply put, you have to remain emotionally distant during these or it can have negative effects on you. No one wants that.

Also, since it involves, as you said, 'Christians, gays, and gay Christians', maybe, in that case, the opinions of the gay people and gay Christians should be the most important? Just a thought, since they're the ones who actually have a stake in that argument.

…
Are you trying to tell me that Christians aren't affected by a debate on how to interpret the Bible? You might not know this, but the Bible is kind of considered an important thing for many Christians due to the fact that it's one of the main foundations of our beliefs

Also, even if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't mean gays should be completely forbidden from living their own lives as equals. The only "stakes" for them in that argument were that every once in a while, someone might say "Uhhh, isn't that considered sinful?". I know, there are such high risks there.

You cannot silence someone you disagree with just because you disagree with them. That's practically the debate equivalent of my little brother plugging his ears and singing "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA" whenever I try to have a reasonable conversation with him.

First off, I am Christian, so don't talk down to me.

Okay. So?

Second, countries have literally banned being gay and have it be punishable by death, so yeah the stakes are pretty damn high.

That’s not what we were arguing, both Dom and I have clearly stated that you guys deserve equality whether the Bible says it’s sinful or not, and If you’d just freaking listen to me then maybe you would’ve gotten that by now.

If I’m educated properly, the stakes of an argument are what problems/sacrifices people would have to put up with if that argument was put into place.
In this case, If the law was changed to line up with the opposing arguments (mine and Dom’s), then gay marriage would be fully legal and you’d be free to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt or effect anyone else. The only stakes would be that most denominations of Christians would have officially recognized homosexuality as a sin, which as long as you aren’t running around church halls screaming “HEY LOOK AT ME, IM GAYYYYYY!”, shouldn’t effect you much other than occasionally having to hear people mention it as sinful.

Thirdly, I am not obligated to entertain and listen to the opinions of a 12 year old who's trying to tell me how to debate. I can choose to listen to or ignore anyone I feel like listening to or ignoring.

I’m 13, and yet I actually try to pay attention to other people’s arguments instead of just saying “Nope, this person disagrees with me, guess I don’t have to listen!”

You are not obligated to listen to me by any means, however, you probably should, or else you’re just going to end up arguing with yourself for entire debates.

Okay but seriously, you sound exactly like my 9-year-old brother. You plug your ears when people present a counter-argument, repeat the same things over and over again, and if you can’t debunk a point, you just shout something along the lines of “Uh huh, and I don’t care, so shut up!”.

Write up a decent argument without regurgitating the same points before calling my reaction unreasonable.

I wouldn’t have to regurgitate everything if you wouldn’t brush off arguments by saying “You’re not gay so therefore your opinion doesn’t matter” or “but other people have it worse so therefore none of your problems exist and you’re pathetic for complaining about them”. If you can write up a decent reason why Dom and I aren’t allowed to get involved in debates that technically involve us unless we agree on everything you say, then maybe I’d stop considering this reaction unreasonable.

(Sorry if I’m getting a little bit bitter here, I don’t know if you can tell but I don’t necessarily like it when people try and silence me for things I can’t change about myself.)

(Also, it’s far past my bedtime so… Goodnight fellow sentient beings made up of cells)

1. I understand the importance, and I am. And it's not any of your business how I follow my religion.
2. When you all acknowledge it.
3. Bullshit, but whatever. My arguments aren't the same poorly worded hunk of text that barfs up the same 3 points again and again, but go off I guess.
4. Emotions are good. If my arguing helps you see the perspective of a community I am a part of, I have every right to argue for it. If you and Nutella can't handle me debating, that seems like a you issue. I don't hold debates against people, it's not my issue if you do. And I'm already an emotional wreck so it doesn't matter.

Also, since it involves, as you said, 'Christians, gays, and gay Christians', maybe, in that case, the opinions of the gay people and gay Christians should be the most important? Just a thought, since they're the ones who actually have a stake in that argument.

…
Are you trying to tell me that Christians aren't affected by a debate on how to interpret the Bible? You might not know this, but the Bible is kind of considered an important thing for many Christians due to the fact that it's one of the main foundations of our beliefs

Also, even if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't mean gays should be completely forbidden from living their own lives as equals. The only "stakes" for them in that argument were that every once in a while, someone might say "Uhhh, isn't that considered sinful?". I know, there are such high risks there.

You cannot silence someone you disagree with just because you disagree with them. That's practically the debate equivalent of my little brother plugging his ears and singing "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA" whenever I try to have a reasonable conversation with him.

First off, I am Christian, so don't talk down to me.

Okay. So?

Second, countries have literally banned being gay and have it be punishable by death, so yeah the stakes are pretty damn high.

That’s not what we were arguing, both Dom and I have clearly stated that you guys deserve equality whether the Bible says it’s sinful or not, and If you’d just freaking listen to me then maybe you would’ve gotten that by now.

If I’m educated properly, the stakes of an argument are what problems/sacrifices people would have to put up with if that argument was put into place.
In this case, If the law was changed to line up with the opposing arguments (mine and Dom’s), then gay marriage would be fully legal and you’d be free to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt or effect anyone else. The only stakes would be that most denominations of Christians would have officially recognized homosexuality as a sin, which as long as you aren’t running around church halls screaming “HEY LOOK AT ME, IM GAYYYYYY!”, shouldn’t effect you much other than occasionally having to hear people mention it as sinful.

Thirdly, I am not obligated to entertain and listen to the opinions of a 12 year old who's trying to tell me how to debate. I can choose to listen to or ignore anyone I feel like listening to or ignoring.

I’m 13, and yet I actually try to pay attention to other people’s arguments instead of just saying “Nope, this person disagrees with me, guess I don’t have to listen!”

You are not obligated to listen to me by any means, however, you probably should, or else you’re just going to end up arguing with yourself for entire debates.

Okay but seriously, you sound exactly like my 9-year-old brother. You plug your ears when people present a counter-argument, repeat the same things over and over again, and if you can’t debunk a point, you just shout something along the lines of “Uh huh, and I don’t care, so shut up!”.

Write up a decent argument without regurgitating the same points before calling my reaction unreasonable.

I wouldn’t have to regurgitate everything if you wouldn’t brush off arguments by saying “You’re not gay so therefore your opinion doesn’t matter” or “but other people have it worse so therefore none of your problems exist and you’re pathetic for complaining about them”. If you can write up a decent reason why Dom and I aren’t allowed to get involved in debates that technically involve us unless we agree on everything you say, then maybe I’d stop considering this reaction unreasonable.

(Sorry if I’m getting a little bit bitter here, I don’t know if you can tell but I don’t necessarily like it when people try and silence me for things I can’t change about myself.)

(Also, it’s far past my bedtime so… Goodnight fellow sentient beings made up of cells)

What I said was that for my mental health, I don't have to value a person's opinion. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black, look at your Pro-Life arguments from earlier to see an example of plugging your ears and not caring. And yes, in an argument involving gay rights, straight people's opinions don't matter because they don't experience what gay people do. They can have input, but at the end of the day, it's not nearly as important as the gay people's opinions on the subject. And I didn't say that your problems are invalid, everyone's issues are valid, but making it into 'SWM have it bad' is a dick move when we should be focusing on others who have it worse first.
Maybe you should let me have a philosophy without bitching about it.

Why don't we just move onto another topic before stuff gets more tense?

For the required reading one:
I think we should have it, but maybe not in the format it's in now, i.e. the 'read chapters and answer obscure questions' route.
As for books, I think there should be a good mix of classics/Shakespeare and more modern books, I know my school did this pretty well. We had things like The Giver, The Outsiders, and A Christmas Carol, but also Ella Enchanted and The False Prince.
I feel like the way we do RR right now is almost harmful, it's forcing kids into a book they maybe don't want to read and has that weird memory recall so you're encouraged to remember anything and everything you read for later. While I have found some of my all-time favorite books through RR, it's turned some of my friends off of reading entirely, some because they weren't into the books chosen and some who are just slow readers who couldn't enjoy reading several chapters every night.
As for graphic novels, I think there should be limits. You shouldn't be able to do Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Big Nate for all of them, but maybe for one a year, ending after middle school. But more teen/adult graphic novels (especially adaptations of classics in a more visual medium for people who have difficulty reading the more flowery words) should be fine. It reminds me of the whole 'Ebooks/audiobooks aren't real reading!!' debate…
Dom, you should pick up one I read last year called The House Of The Scorpion, it's a really good book with some neat themes/ideas, like the morals and ethics of cloning, what makes a person a person, etc. It's also just a good book overall, so yeah.

Because backing off of a subject when it gets hard is annoying and boring.

WELL YOU'RE THE ONE WHO TOLD ME TO BACK OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO…..

What I said was that for my mental health, I don't have to value a person's opinion. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black, look at your Pro-Life arguments from earlier to see an example of plugging your ears and not caring. And yes, in an argument involving gay rights, straight people's opinions don't matter because they don't experience what gay people do. They can have input, but at the end of the day, it's not nearly as important as the gay people's opinions on the subject. And I didn't say that your problems are invalid, everyone's issues are valid, but making it into 'SWM have it bad' is a dick move when we should be focusing on others who have it worse first.
Maybe you should let me have a philosophy without bitching about it.

No you don't.
Well Pro-lifers care quite a bit. That is not debatable. (Well I guess it is but…) It's whether or not they are wrong.
Only if it has to do with gay people only. It's about the relation of lgbt and Christianity.
I have repeatedly stated that that is not what I was saying.
We do. And will. But you entered into an argument. So you made the move to let us "question your philosophy".

It was for your sake only. If you are okay I want to continue. I just didn't want to do something that would hurt you.

Dom, you should pick up one I read last year called The House Of The Scorpion, it's a really good book with some neat themes/ideas, like the morals and ethics of cloning, what makes a person a person, etc. It's also just a good book overall, so yeah.

Ooooh! Wait. Was this a book you talked about in another chat?

Dom, you should pick up one I read last year called The House Of The Scorpion, it's a really good book with some neat themes/ideas, like the morals and ethics of cloning, what makes a person a person, etc. It's also just a good book overall, so yeah.

Ooooh! Wait. Was this a book you talked about in another chat?

I think so? It's about the clone of a drug dealer and there's a sequel called The Lord of Opium, which I haven't read bc honestly it worked fine as a standalone.

Personally I usually use it as an example of 'standalone that didn't need a sequel' because it really doesn't, and events at the end of the book make it hard for me to believe that a sequel could work….

Movie sequels though am I right?

True….
I feel like Divergent also would've worked as a standalone with a semi-open ending (Tris, Four, Christina, and Caleb alive and the Dauntless/Erudite stuff uncovered) because honestly I was bored out of my mind by Alligent.
Also…just look at all of the sequels coming out that don't need to for books this year, so many completed stories are just being dragged on and on, book deals are being extended, etc.
I mean, Sarah J. Maas published what was essentially a Christmas special in May, no less for her characters that was nothing but smut and fluff, E.L. James rewriting 50 Shades Of Emotional Abuse from Christian Titledrop's POV (sadly I can't take credit for that joke), Legend and The Darkest Minds getting more books….
Some I get, like how Three Dark Crowns was gonna be a duology but there ended up being too much, but others are clearly moneygrabs.
Also, sorry for going off earlier. Sometimes I just can't shut the fuck up

Movie sequels though am I right?

Especially when really good movies don't get sequels so that we can have Wreck It Ralph 2.
Frozen 2 actually looks okay, I probably won't see it though.
And if any movie is relevant/amazing enough to warrant a remake, it's A League Of Their Own.

True….
I feel like Divergent also would've worked as a standalone with a semi-open ending (Tris, Four, Christina, and Caleb alive and the Dauntless/Erudite stuff uncovered) because honestly I was bored out of my mind by Alligent.
Also…just look at all of the sequels coming out that don't need to for books this year, so many completed stories are just being dragged on and on, book deals are being extended, etc.
I mean, Sarah J. Maas published what was essentially a Christmas special in May, no less for her characters that was nothing but smut and fluff, E.L. James rewriting 50 Shades Of Emotional Abuse from Christian Titledrop's POV (sadly I can't take credit for that joke), Legend and The Darkest Minds getting more books….
Some I get, like how Three Dark Crowns was gonna be a duology but there ended up being too much, but others are clearly moneygrabs.
Also, sorry for going off earlier. Sometimes I just can't shut the fuck up

It's true. Divergent was good. Not Hunger Games good. But up there. The other two were just hard to get through Insurgent felt like it was just wandering around and Alligent was just meh. (Plus the ending. And the double POV thing.) Maybe it would have made a good duology. Idk.
I am no fan of Maas after what I have heard of her work. And fluff is great, I don't do smut because I am a good boy. but you can't build a solid body with it.
Oh jeez 50 Shades. When will it leave.
But it's totally about money. Instead of the art. You see it all the time with movies. Movies take more money and takes less emotional work to build them. Not to slight the industry (I plan on working there) but it takes a lot of money so it needs a lot of money. A series isn't affordable. And a book takes a lot more. Sure you can type anything without having to worry about set pieces or stunt doubles but it takes giving a soul to write a book. Movies don't need that. So they just hope it becomes a success and film a sequel hoping to cash in on all the hard work and get a good bonus.

Hey it's cool. We all get there sometimes. And what would we be without our passionate moralities?

Movie sequels though am I right?

Especially when really good movies don't get sequels so that we can have Wreck It Ralph 2.
Frozen 2 actually looks okay, I probably won't see it though.
And if any movie is relevant/amazing enough to warrant a remake, it's A League Of Their Own.

Do tell more. What is this movie?

True….
I feel like Divergent also would've worked as a standalone with a semi-open ending (Tris, Four, Christina, and Caleb alive and the Dauntless/Erudite stuff uncovered) because honestly I was bored out of my mind by Alligent.
Also…just look at all of the sequels coming out that don't need to for books this year, so many completed stories are just being dragged on and on, book deals are being extended, etc.
I mean, Sarah J. Maas published what was essentially a Christmas special in May, no less for her characters that was nothing but smut and fluff, E.L. James rewriting 50 Shades Of Emotional Abuse from Christian Titledrop's POV (sadly I can't take credit for that joke), Legend and The Darkest Minds getting more books….
Some I get, like how Three Dark Crowns was gonna be a duology but there ended up being too much, but others are clearly moneygrabs.
Also, sorry for going off earlier. Sometimes I just can't shut the fuck up

It's true. Divergent was good. Not Hunger Games good. But up there. The other two were just hard to get through Insurgent felt like it was just wandering around and Alligent was just meh. (Plus the ending. And the double POV thing.) Maybe it would have made a good duology. Idk.
I am no fan of Maas after what I have heard of her work. And fluff is great, I don't do smut because I am a good boy. but you can't build a solid body with it.
Oh jeez 50 Shades. When will it leave.
But it's totally about money. Instead of the art. You see it all the time with movies. Movies take more money and takes less emotional work to build them. Not to slight the industry (I plan on working there) but it takes a lot of money so it needs a lot of money. A series isn't affordable. And a book takes a lot more. Sure you can type anything without having to worry about set pieces or stunt doubles but it takes giving a soul to write a book. Movies don't need that. So they just hope it becomes a success and film a sequel hoping to cash in on all the hard work and get a good bonus.

Hey it's cool. We all get there sometimes. And what would we be without our passionate moralities?

The booktuber InsanseReader just did a really good video on the failure of the Divergent franchise (especially the films) that I recommend checking out. Divergent wasn't great by any means, but it was fun and if you just turn your brain off and read it, it's good, but doesn't have the nuance of the Hunger Games. Insurgent I skimmed most of (I liked the scene where Tris was high on the Kindness Serum in Amity) and I lost all hope for Alligent when they killed off Janine. And then I knew exactly what would happen when I saw the split perspectives. Speaking of which, they weren't even well-written split perspectives like Children of Blood and Bone, Four and Tris sounded the same.
I've read all of the ACOTAR books and the first TOG book (plus the novella bindup) and yeah….I don't like her books…
Not soon enough lol. On the plus side, it looks like she's not rewriting 50SF?
It's really weird how many books get picked up for movies with the time constraint, there really should be more book-to-tv adaptations instead.

Movie sequels though am I right?

Especially when really good movies don't get sequels so that we can have Wreck It Ralph 2.
Frozen 2 actually looks okay, I probably won't see it though.
And if any movie is relevant/amazing enough to warrant a remake, it's A League Of Their Own.

Do tell more. What is this movie?

It's a movie about the All-American Girl's Baseball League, it's a sports comedy but with some genuinely touching moments. Since everyone is clamoring for more female leads, it'd be a great one to revamp since all but 1 of the major characters are female.
If you haven't seen it I recommend it, it has an all-star cast (well, 90s era all-star)

waffles

Pancakes

"There's no crying in baseball."?

Wtf is going on I've been gone for 30 pages