"Mothers don't stop Getting angry with stupid bigots who (mess) with their children!"

[mhsjax]

Just because we disagree with you, doesn't mean you have to act like we're morons.

Not morons, just very gullible. No sex change= No spot on DWTS. But I can't prove or disprove and neither can anyone else. But again, look who is one these shows. People of controversy, for the most part, with a few legit celebs thrown in for good measure.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Old enough to remember and watch very week, Sonny and Cher. Again, this is all opinion about weather or not she/he is of interest because of the surg. The same could be true of and celeb. Enjoy the show.

PS, I also remember kindergarten 43 years ago, what does that prove.

My point was that she was very significant. Lots of child stars/actors that we hadn't heard from since childhood have been on these types of shows. People are just curious how they've grown up/turned out.

And, btw, I think his being transgender did help seal the decision to have him on. I'm sure they're thrilled about it. Still, I think he would have been chosen solely by his child star status.

 

[mhsjax]

My point was that she was very significant. Lots of child stars/actors that we hadn't heard from since childhood have been on these types of shows. People are just curious how they've grown up/turned out.

And, btw, I think his being transgender did help seal the decision to have him on. I'm sure they're thrilled about it. Still, I think he would have been chosen solely by his child star status.

I agree. Especially with the last part. And again, FWIW, I have no problem with him what so ever, I hope he does well, so the haters will really be pissed off, but then again, I love to aggravate things.

 

[PeterPan09]

I can't stand the sight of this person and will not watch the series this season. I actually get sick in the stomach.

And there it is-very simple. You don't like, so you don't watch.

It's when that simple choice crosses the line and says "because I don't like X, NOBODY can watch or be X" or "because I don't like X, the network is putting it on to harass me and the group I belong to" or "I don't like X, and anyone who does like X is a (add negative pejorative of your choice)"

 

[Nancyg56]

Old enough to remember and watch very week, Sonny and Cher. Again, this is all opinion about weather or not she/he is of interest because of the surg. The same could be true of and celeb. Enjoy the show.

PS, I also remember kindergarten 43 years ago, what does that prove.

I'm sorry. this is driving me crazy
Weather

Weather is usually a noun:

How's the weather?

The weather is always great this time of year

What's the weather like in Spain?

Weather is also a verb that means "to be affected by the weather":

That house is really weathered

Figuratively, weather means "to get/live through":

I know we can weather this crisis


Whether

Whether is a conjunction that introduces possibilities or alternatives:

Do you know whether he is coming?

You'll do it whether you like it or not

Whether you win or lose, you'll have done your best


The Bottom Line

The words weather and whether are pronounced identically, hence the confusion in spelling. Just remember that whether is more or less interchangeable with "if," while weather indicates the temperature and atmospheric conditions.

Not morons, just very gullible. No sex change= No spot on DWTS. But I can't prove or disprove and neither can anyone else. But again, look who is one these shows. People of controversy, for the most part, with a few legit celebs thrown in for good measure.

This is why you lose me. Your posts tend to be very condescending when you respond to those who do not agree with your POV.

 

[nmmom95]

And there it is-very simple. You don't like, so you don't watch.

It's when that simple choice crosses the line and says "because I don't like X, NOBODY can watch or be X" or "because I don't like X, the network is putting it on to harass me and the group I belong to" or "I don't like X, and anyone who does like X is a (add negative pejorative of your choice)"

 

[golfgal]

So, when is it ok to stand up to something that you find morally objectionable and not be called a bigot??? Isn't the ability to protest what we don't like/want the foundation of our country??

 

[tlbwriter]

I agree with this! I don't consider him a star, but I don't consider Bristol Palin a star either, and that's the precedent they've set. I guess if being the offspring of a politician makes you a "star", so does being the offspring of a star.

And Chaz is the offspring of a star who became a politician, so he's twice as qualified as Bristol Palin.

designation. Honestly, I think it should be called "Dancing with a Person who at Some Point was Vaguely in the Public Eye".

And why was he in the news? his sex change. Was well under the radar before this.

I guess it depends on your definition of "under the radar." I don't read tabloids or watch tabloid/entertainment news shows, but I remember little Chastity Bono on her parents' show, I remember her coming out of the closet and her mother's difficulty with that, I know she was on some other reality show fairly recently, I've seen her on The Dog Whisperer, and I remember her announcement that she was becoming Chaz. She (and now he) been in the public eye for decades. That doesn't make Chaz more "starlike" than anyone else in the show, but really, who the heck is Hope Solo? JR Martinez? I don't have a clue.

If Chaz didn't have celebrity parents, he would not be on this show, no one would have ever heard of him.

Right. Just like Bristol Palin would have been one more knocked-up teenager. But they do have celebrity parents, so there they are.

Same as Warren Beatty and Annette Benning's kid, who is arguably much more anonymous - Chaz used to be on television as a kid, he was a known entity, I don't think most people could name Beatty and Benning's kid and yet there are stories published and circulated.

No, I couldn't name their kid (do they only have one?) if you put a gun to my head, and know I'm wondering what he did!

So, when is it ok to stand up to something that you find morally objectionable and not be called a bigot??? Isn't the ability to protest what we don't like/want the foundation of our country??

Maybe around the time it becomes okay to stand up for something that you find morally objectionable and not be called a non-Christian.

 

[nmmom95]

So, when is it ok to stand up to something that you find morally objectionable and not be called a bigot??? Isn't the ability to protest what we don't like/want the foundation of our country??

I fail to see how someone else chooses to live his private life affects you at all.

 

[golfgal]

I fail to see how someone else chooses to live his private life affects you at all.

Well, considering that this person has been in the public eye since birth, not exactly private. How does their private life effect me, lots of ways, even simple things like the money spend on court cases to fight things someone may consider morally objectionable, that comes out of everyone's tax dollars.

Just asking the question--why is everyone considered a bigot if they don't agree with something they find morally objectionable???

 

[nmmom95]

Well, considering that this person has been in the public eye since birth, not exactly private. How does their private life effect me, lots of ways, even simple things like the money spend on court cases to fight things someone may consider morally objectionable, that comes out of everyone's tax dollars.

Just asking the question--why is everyone considered a bigot if they don't agree with something they find morally objectionable???

Honestly, and I'm not being snarky here, because no one has the right to dictate someone else's lifestyle choice. If no one is being hurt, it's no one else's business. You certainly have the right to disagree with someone's choices, just like I can disagree with you. Your morals are not necessarily the same as everyone else's.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

This is why you lose me. Your posts tend to be very condescending when you respond to those who do not agree with your POV.

But I was VERY relieved to see that I'm NOT a moron...that, in fact, I'm only "gullible".
Whew!

I can't stand the sight of this person and will not watch the series this season. I actually get sick in the stomach.

Seriously? Have you seen a doctor? Seems like you have an awful delicate stomach if you actually get sick.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

And, btw, I think his being transgender did help seal the decision to have him on. I'm sure they're thrilled about it. Still, I think he would have been chosen solely by his child star status.

I think it's both. A lot of these "stars" are not widely known. A non-transgendered Chastity Bono could easily have been on DWTS, simply because of her status as Sonny & Cher's child and her popularity on their old show. But the transition has put his name out there again and created some controversy.

 

[golfgal]

Honestly, and I'm not being snarky here, because no one has the right to dictate someone else's lifestyle choice. If no one is being hurt, it's no one else's business. You certainly have the right to disagree with someone's choices, just like I can disagree with you. Your morals are not necessarily the same as everyone else's.

Yep, and again, we live in the United States of America and it is our RIGHT to be able to protest that which we find objectionable. Along with this right, people also have the right to NOT be called a bigot because they don't agree with a lifestyle. You also have every right to fight for that lifestyle. Are you then a bigot because you want to live a gay lifestyle and not a straight lifestyle--bigoted against straight people? Somewhere along the road, people DO need to stand up for common moral beliefs or you see civilized societies fall...

Take the gay/straight/transexual issue off the table--how about if we had a large group of people in the US fighting for zero population growth. Overpopulation is a strain to our natural resources, usable water is slowing diminishing, fossil fuel production and use is killing our environment, etc. This group now wants to limit people to having one child and you can only have that child between the ages of 25 and 30... So, are you a bigot because you want to have 3 children or are you a bigot because you think that no one should have more than one child?

 

[Mrs.Toad]

Well, considering that this person has been in the public eye since birth, not exactly private. How does their private life effect me, lots of ways, even simple things like the money spend on court cases to fight things someone may consider morally objectionable, that comes out of everyone's tax dollars.

Just asking the question--why is everyone considered a bigot if they don't agree with something they find morally objectionable???

I think you answered your own question. You're not a bigot if you find something morally objectionable. You're a bigot if you try to stand in the way of other people living their lives, when they are hurting no one. It's very simple, give all people their civil rights, don't force them to go to court over it, and save millions of dollars. If you find what they are doing morally objectionable, don't join in.

 

[nmmom95]

Yep, and again, we live in the United States of America and it is our RIGHT to be able to protest that which we find objectionable. Along with this right, people also have the right to NOT be called a bigot because they don't agree with a lifestyle. You also have every right to fight for that lifestyle. Are you then a bigot because you want to live a gay lifestyle and not a straight lifestyle--bigoted against straight people? Somewhere along the road, people DO need to stand up for common moral beliefs or you see civilized societies fall...

Take the gay/straight/transexual issue off the table--how about if we had a large group of people in the US fighting for zero population growth. Overpopulation is a strain to our natural resources, usable water is slowing diminishing, fossil fuel production and use is killing our environment, etc. This group now wants to limit people to having one child and you can only have that child between the ages of 25 and 30... So, are you a bigot because you want to have 3 children or are you a bigot because you think that no one should have more than one child?

First of all, I'm actually not gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)
Secondly, your example of zero population growth does affect my life, so I would stand up and fight for what I believed in. How Cher's child chooses to live, be it as a man or a woman, does not. You really can't compare the two.
You (general you) would be a bigot for saying that everyone has to live his or her life in a way you find acceptable, especially since it will have no bearing whatsoever on you.

 

[FireDancer]

So, when is it ok to stand up to something that you find morally objectionable and not be called a bigot??? Isn't the ability to protest what we don't like/want the foundation of our country??

I think the bigot word is thrown around way too often.

I think there is a difference in saying "I don't approve of <whatever>" and in saying "I don't approve of <whatever> so I want to make <whatever> illegal or limit the rights of <whatevers>."

One is voicing your opinion and the other is limiting other's rights because of that opinion.

Just doing the first might make you closed-minded but I don't think it makes you a bigot.

 

[tlbwriter]

Yep, and again, we live in the United States of America and it is our RIGHT to be able to protest that which we find objectionable. Along with this right, people also have the right to NOT be called a bigot because they don't agree with a lifestyle. You also have every right to fight for that lifestyle. Are you then a bigot because you want to live a gay lifestyle and not a straight lifestyle--bigoted against straight people? Somewhere along the road, people DO need to stand up for common moral beliefs or you see civilized societies fall...

Only if you try to make it difficult or even illegal for straight people to live a "straight lifestyle."

 

[golfgal]

I think you answered your own question. You're not a bigot if you find something morally objectionable. You're a bigot if you try to stand in the way of other people living their lives, when they are hurting no one. It's very simple, give all people their civil rights, don't force them to go to court over it, and save millions of dollars. If you find what they are doing morally objectionable, don't join in.

No, I didn't answer my question. When do people that find things morally objectionable get to stop being called bigots? Where do MY rights start in this. What if I don't want to be exposed to the gay lifestyle? What if I want to be able to walk down the street and not see two men kissing? Where are my civil rights???


Keep in mind this is all for argument sake......it isn't as easy as you are making it out to be. We DO, as a country, need to define what is morally acceptable or eventually society will turn into chaos.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Yep, and again, we live in the United States of America and it is our RIGHT to be able to protest that which we find objectionable. Along with this right, people also have the right to NOT be called a bigot because they don't agree with a lifestyle. You also have every right to fight for that lifestyle. Are you then a bigot because you want to live a gay lifestyle and not a straight lifestyle--bigoted against straight people? Somewhere along the road, people DO need to stand up for common moral beliefs or you see civilized societies fall...

Take the gay/straight/transexual issue off the table--how about if we had a large group of people in the US fighting for zero population growth. Overpopulation is a strain to our natural resources, usable water is slowing diminishing, fossil fuel production and use is killing our environment, etc. This group now wants to limit people to having one child and you can only have that child between the ages of 25 and 30... So, are you a bigot because you want to have 3 children or are you a bigot because you think that no one should have more than one child?

What else would you call people who seek to oppress the civil liberties 'n rights of a particular segment of the tax payin', law bidin' American population?