kelel01 1 #51 June 16, 2005 Nobody fucking called anyone a homophobe! Although I did see Andy call someone an asshole. Listen, read her post: she referred to homophobes IN GENERAL. We refer tio everyone in general. Read it, then try to tell me that's a personal attack. It wasn't pointed at ANYONE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #52 June 16, 2005 QuoteIt means we don't agree with it....How hard is that? It's actually quite complex. Let me explain. The phrase "agree with" is very simple in the sentence: (A) "I don't agree with your opinion that chocolate is better than vanilla." but it's ambiguous in the sentence: (B) "I don't agree with your approach to life." The word that keys the difference is "... that ...." We can disagree that something is true or not. But it's very different when we're not marking a point of fact or opinion. For instance, does sentence (B) mean: (B1) I don't want to live that life myself. or: (B2) I don't think you should live that life. Those are both possible and INCREDIBLY different. So much so that the original poster who I brought the question up with argues that he meant (B1) but is so fixated and defensive about (B2) that I'm quite sure even he doesn't know which one he means. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #53 June 16, 2005 Actually, there's all kinds of phobias, and people who suffer from them are ****phobic. A phobia is a fear, typically an irrational fear. If I called someone arachnophobic, would THAT be derogatory? Now if I had used the term "gay basher" or "*** hater" or something along those lines, and then said you or another individual was one, that would probably be considered a personal attack. I did not. I stated that I had encountered homophobic skydivers and was surprised because I expected skydivers in general to be more tolerant than other groups of people. That was a naive expectation on my part. (I can't believe I have to clarify that!) And I made that comment in response to another post. Regardless, according to the rules here, we can call a group of people something bad/negative or derogatory and that's OK. We just can't refer to each other in those terms. That's been pointed out to me and others before! (but I don't have the time or motivation to find the post and copy it here.) Hope that clears things up! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #54 June 16, 2005 QuoteThere is a third option between your "love us or you are a homophobe". Oddly, even though you're responding to a post of mine where I offered two options, these aren't mine. I guess I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else above: Are you intentionally misunderstanding me or is it an accident? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RfukfreeflyingW 0 #55 June 16, 2005 Quote (B1) I don't want to live that life myself. or: (B2) I don't think you should live that life. I dont see how either of these matter... I would venture to say "I dont agree" means both and I dont see why a group as a whole cant accept this. If someone doesnt agree with it, they probably dont want it themselves, AND dont think that life should be lived. and in my opinion that is a perfectly valid feeling if someone is trying to stop it from happening well then that is a completly different battle. but how is it hatred or a "phobia" because someone doesnt think its right. IMO it becomes a phobia when someone try's to stop it. I personally dont agree with that life style, it would probably fit all the sub catagories that anyone can come up with. But I wouldnt try to stop it, mainly because no matter what I or anyone can and will do, it wont and cant be "stopped". I accept the fact that it happens and is going to be around in society.. but because I accept that its there doesnt mean I have to like it or agree with it, or (insert any postitive term here). Just as Im sure you probably wouldnt "agree" with many things I do.. but I do what I do, you do what you do, and stop trying to make everyone agree with it, cause I dont think thats a realistic idea..---- -God, you are the perfect amount of dumb... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #56 June 16, 2005 Quote[ (B1) I don't want to live that life myself. or: (B2) I don't think you should live that life. Those are nice distinctions in how different persons approache what a disagreement means on the subject. Intentions are important here. However, I still don't see how either equates to a "phobia". Both can happen and are unlikely to be fear based. One is being attracted to the opposite sex (which is natural and not fear based - at least until marriage has gone at least 10 years or more ) - the other is distaste with a touch of busybody mixed in (I consider it a waste of energy). I think the overall term is structured to belittle the B2's and that's a childish way to try and get people to discuss it rationally. But that does seem standard technique in the world today. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #57 June 16, 2005 Hitler is a dead horse. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #58 June 16, 2005 Tell you what . . . you create a new term for homophobia, I'll create one for racism, and we'll spread them throughout the world via the internet. Or we can just use the words in place. Whichever. The term probably originated from the fact that people thought a) that homosexuality was contagious, and would freak out if a gay person was near them, b) that all gay people went after EVERYONE of their own sex, and that they would constantly be fighting off unwanted advances, and c) that all gay people had AIDS, and if they touched them, they would get AIDS, too. Sounds like a reasonable term for the time it was derived. And maybe still not so far off, in some cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #59 June 16, 2005 QuoteSounds like a reasonable term for the time it was derived. And maybe still not so far off, in some cases. I think your analysis and speculation are right on the mark! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 June 16, 2005 QuoteTell you what . . . you create a new term for homophobia, I'll create one for racism, and we'll spread them throughout the world via the internet. How about "prorationatoranubiamopia" either that or "Waylon" What do you think? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #61 June 16, 2005 I like Waylon. I'm holding on my new word for racism, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #62 June 16, 2005 Bubba? Bubbaism? Bubbism? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #63 June 16, 2005 I think we have a winner! Waylon = homosexuality, and Bubba-ism = racism. Of course, I'm just a south-ist, so what do I know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #64 June 16, 2005 Those 'southists' are all the same. Cute, opinionated, skydives and always putting people into neat little preconceived buckets. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #65 June 16, 2005 I really only have one preconceived notion, and it's all about people in the south. And it's probably because I've lived here forever, and my ideals just don't fit in - never have. Unless I move to Midtown Atlanta . . . I'd get along well with most people there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #66 June 16, 2005 Try being a 10 or 11 year old "northerner" transplanted to Louisville, Kentucky during the Nixon McGovern presidential race and Nixon's impeachment! It felt like my parents (and us kids by osmosis) were the only democrats in the state! (not to mention the Bubba-ist remarks my friends and their parents made so casually all the time! Kind of tough when your parents have taught you certain words were wrong, but other parents used them regularly!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #67 June 16, 2005 Preconceptions are a tough thing to live with (having or receiving). They break down more than they don't when we talk and work with 'real life' individuals. It's hard to not have them (impossible really) even when they are mostly not applicable in any direct case. But it's easy to TRY to not have them - if you know what I mean. That said, I think there are 2 types of people - those with loads of generalizations about people who live by group identity, and those that are true individuals. It's a lot like type A and B's. They both have a place, but neither really ever understand the others. I think I want to see what's up on the Simpson's Quote thread. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #68 June 16, 2005 QuoteTry being a 10 or 11 year old "northerner" transplanted to Louisville, Kentucky during the Nixon McGovern presidential race and Nixon's impeachment! It felt like my parents (and us kids by osmosis) were the only democrats in the state! (not to mention the Bubba-ist remarks my friends and their parents made so casually all the time! Kind of tough when your parents have taught you certain words were wrong, but other parents used them regularly!) Something doesn't add up there. You say that you felt like the only democrats in the state and then you complain about the so called Bubba-ist remarks your freinds and their parents made. It kind of suggest that since you were the only Democrats all these so called Bubba-ist were Republicans. However, Lincoln was a Republican that fought Democrats to end slavery. And up until Kennedy the Democrat Mascot was not a Donkey but a Chicken with the words White Supremacy on it. As a matter of fact when enough Democrats started to dissent from the outright Bubba-ist attitudes that they have always had, many others broke away from the party and started the Dixiecrats. Judging from Hillary's "fucking Jewish bastard" comment and Roger Clinton (Bill's brother) being caught on tape saying the n-word repeatedly, well judging from that I think the biggest bubba-ists by far are Democrats. Well that seems obvious to me as they are the convienience oriented party, as opposed to the justice (whats right) oriented party, the Republicans. Cheers,If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #69 June 16, 2005 Nope- two separate issues! There are plenty of Bubbas and non- Bubbas in BOTH parties and on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line! But for me, prior to moving to Kentucky, I hadn't really been exposed to it much. My best friend and her parents were good people, but had no problem using the "n word" at the dinner table! If I used that word in my house, my mom would have washed my mouth out with soap! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #70 June 16, 2005 Quote* Promiscuous homosexuals * Promiscuous heterosexuals * Monogamous homosexuals * Monogamous heterosexuals I suspect we'd find sexually transmitted disease is highly correlated with promiscuity, not with homosexuality. But even if shown proof of that, we can all be sure the homophobes wouldn't change their opinions.True... Many would be surprised about how many off-the-grid gay couples there are, living in houses with their partners, over 15 years together, monogamous, and just having their regular neighbourhood BBQ's. Off-the-grid as in blending into mainstream instead of blending into a specific gay community. Not visible in the gay activism or the gay community, and do not even show up at the gay bars. And more often have straight friends rather than gay friends (because they relate more to their straight white-picket-fence neighbours than to the gays in the gay community) You wouldnt' be able to tell they were gays, since they don't flaunt it like you might see in photographs of your city's pride parade. Just look at same-sex marriage in Canada. Whether you agree with the concept of same-sex marriage, it is still pretty clear there are many monogamous gay couples in Canada. A lot of "off-the-grid" gay couples showed up to get married, the couples that blend in society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #71 June 16, 2005 Quote"off-the-grid" gay couples What a great term That's me and my guy! 6 years together. Haven't been in a gay bar in years, go to the gay pride parade only because my husband carries a flag in his old military uniform, and probably 80% of our friends are straight couples. We have a house, two cats, and no diseases. We definitely have more in common with the family-oriented straight world than the party-oriented gay world (or at least the ridiculous stereotype of it.) But like I said, that won't convince the homophobes who seem to get off obsessing about gay people getting it on with everything that moves. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 June 16, 2005 QuoteI think the overall term is structured to belittle the B2's and that's a childish way to try and get people to discuss it rationally. But that does seem standard technique in the world today. If rationality is supposed to be part of the conversation, then the people in B2 have to come up with a rational reason why they care what other men are doing. Even with religion, it's a stretch to figure out what happened to 'love thy neighbor.' It's not a long stretch to surmise that there is some fear beneath the mask. What else accounts for the significant resources the Mormons put into state legislation on gays? Despite being one of the longest standing democracies, we've lagged behind on slavery, women's suffrage, and now on gay rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #73 June 17, 2005 Quote From Bills post: "Personal attacks It is important to realize that a personal attack is any attack (slurs, insults, denigrations, implications about their mothers, etc) or threat against another poster. Any such attack is not permitted here. This is true even if you are absolutely, 100% sure that the poster is stupid, or ignorant, or childish, or an ass. It doesn't matter if you think it is true or not, or even if you can prove they are an ass. You can't post such messages here." http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1155892#1155892 By the definitions...Calling someone a Homophobe is an attack. gotta love definitions so broad that nearly anything can fit under them, and nearly anything can be avoided by a simple addition of "you are exihbiting {insert label of your choice} behavior... in fact, but the strict application of 'the definition' , iam about to commit a personal attack..... Ron... you are a SKYDIVER.... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #74 June 17, 2005 QuoteNobody fucking called anyone a homophobe! She said: "*Some* skydivers I know are extremely homophobic." I see it calling *some* people (skydivers is of no consequence) derogatory names. QuoteAlthough I did see Andy call someone an asshole. I said: "Taking the lower road... I do claim to be asshole-a-phobic. Bite me." I don't see any name calling here... Sorry, Kel...not valid.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #75 June 17, 2005 Quote.... Ron... you are a SKYDIVER.... <<>> My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
