The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 34

Apparently this confusion is about word useage, nothing more.  I NEVER said there was "gay text" that says to do harmful stuff to others.  Not ALL christians FEEL the same way about the bible as you seem to think either. 

You're assuming I mean something adversarial but I'm talking for and against, not gay vs. christian.  I did not realize you had to analyze every single letter I've typed to understand what I was saying.  Warb was the only one who actually got it.

Those texts were not written yesterday just to piss off gay people.  They obviously believed back then that being gay was not appropriate.  I cannot change what they said then.  I can ONLY help affect what is happening now.  It doesn't mean we have to go in to every old book and do a GL to them to help make a positive change now.

If you are telling me that gay people are innocent of any wrong doing in the name of acceptance I would have to call bull pucky on it because it has happened .... but I DON'T blame all gays for it.

I also don't think that every person who has issue with gay people is getting that hatred from the bible.  Maybe they just don't like gay people because they are gay, I cannot speak for them.  Bigotry IS everywhere as is discrimination.  I'd like to be able to eradicate it all right now if I could but as 1 person I can only do as much as I can.

I'm not assuming...I'm reading it that way because of your choice of words like "other side of the fence", which has a very specific adversarial meaning. And I have also acknowledge on multiple occasions that not all people of faith see things the same way (there wouldn't be so many schisms and denominations if they did). I have on multiple occasions pointed out where gay people are not necessarily perfect (i did it in my last post).

It is odd that Warb understands you BTW as he finds it generally a challenge to understand the most simple things.

What Lucas did to Star Wars was to alter the official canon (repeatedly) and delete the old (not many people have been killed in the name of the Yoda BTW).

What I'm suggesting is that churches (of all faiths) that wish to distance themselves from acts of violence based on the scripture prohibitions, should remove or adjust their 'official' versions to reflect their actual beliefs and practices.

The original versions would still be maintained in libraries and in the churches that refuse to change their scriptures and will probably be accused of hypocrisy when they condemn violence. But the official versions for worship would remove the call for violent acts.

I don't believe that all acts of violence against gay people are directly Bible based I've said this repeatedly on this thread and others too.

I believe the bigoted Bible text in question came from the human authors, translators and editors being bigoted in the first place.

On an animal level humans are threatened by the foreign or alien and tend to get angsty about sex generally.

However the Bible as a cultural artifact is so ingrained into all aspects of our lives and language that even atheist thugs will on some level be influenced by it. What was once a matter of faith has become a matter of tradition regardless of faith.

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

 it is unfair when you focus and complain about the evil in one religious book but don't say anything about the exact same evil in another religious book.

 Every time I eat at Del Taco, I get the worst diarrhea. It pissed me off because everyone always want to go and enjoy their bargain priced Mexican goodies, like the ChiliCheese Burrito, or the Double Del Combo.

My coworker today was all, "Hey, lets go to Del Taco and get some delicious Chili Nacho Tostadas"

I was all, "No way. I get mad diarrhea when I eat at Del Taco."

He was totally as like, "That's not fair. You would get the same diarrhea if you ate at Taco-Time, Del Taco's Northern California competitor. Why you be hating bro?"

That's probably true about Taco-Time, but I haven't been to a Taco-Time or gotten sick from their gooey "Mexi-Fries" in years, and there are no Taco-Times around me. 

Is it unfair of me to complain about Del Taco? Am I being unjust somehow? Should I always finish a complaint about Del Taco with a lengthy caveat about Taco-Time's menu, or how it might as well apply to many America Tex-Mex fast food establishments, possibly including but not limited to Moe's Southwest Grill, Nacho Harry's in Sacramento, or Taco Bell?

 Your comparison is bad.  You are comparing what you said one time to your coworker when he said you should go to Del Taco, to how Bingo complains all throughout the whole off topic section of the forum.  

Lets make another comparison.   Lets say both Taco-Time and Del Taco gave you "mad diarrhea".   Lets say every other day you complain about that time when  eating at Del Taco gave you "mad diarrhea", yet never talked about the time when eating at Taco-Time gave you "mad diarrhea".   Would your coworker be wrong in being curious why you always complain every other day about that time you ate at Del Taco but never talk about that time you ate at Taco-Time? 

If you haven't noticed Warb much of the Off-topic section is essentially the same thread.

Religion/Politics etc so it's only natural that the politics of sexuality or religious aspects of sexuality will cover the whole board.

Indeed I recommended this thread didn't exist as it's yet another thread saying the same thing but as always nobody listens.

If someone were to say something homophobic in the pictures of cats dressed as fish thread I would probably respond to it there too.

I would also point out the potential animal rights issues about dressing cats up as fish but then I would be accused of putting animals before people in every thread too thus illustrating my hatred for Christianity or America or babies or something...

It is odd that Warb understands you BTW as he finds it generally a challenge to understand the most simple things.

What is odd about this is that Silverwook doesn't mention "which" movie but because you "knew" what Silverwook meant you expected Warb to know as well because this is a Star Wars forum.  Silverwook could have been talking about any new movie because the new Star Wars movie has not even been finished and released yet.  The confusion is perfectly understandable yet you obviously feel that Warb is beneath you for not getting the same message you did.

You also expected me to know that you viewed my usage of the phrase "both sides of the fence" as an adversarial remark when I never made any comments about either side being against each other.  "both sides of the fence" is not strictly an adversarial remark but in your view it is.   

Semantics can be strange because it has such a wide scope.  We all have opinions, none of which are right or wrong here, as this is supposed to be a discussion.  Discussions are normally a platform for learning, not for chastising because some may not know the same things we know, but it always ends up that way.      

I'm going to say 2 simple things right now and we'll see how they are perceived .... an experiment if you will.

1.  Though I support equality for all I am confused as to how men & women can be intimately attracted to members of the same sex, especially when there is no chance for procreation from the love they share.

2.  If there is no bigotry or discrimination against straight people, why is there a "ladies night" at the bar and not a "men's night" as well?

RE: Warb, It's illustrative of his usual inability to follow a chain of evidence.

He is on a Star Wars board, someone comments how a recent film is creating more traffic on the board, the obvious assumption is he is talking about the new Star Wars film.

Elsewhere his asks what a easy to search for word means. He also doesn't understand the concept of the ignore button going by his ongoing quoting out of context of my words and his snide comments about me in his signature bar.

And yet to his credit he manages to deduce what you mean first time when it alludes people with a better track record.

"The other side of the fence" is an adversarial term as in "the grass is greener". It presents an image of two sides divided by a barrier. And to say that bigotry is on both sides of the fence you are suggesting parity of bigotry across an adversarial divide.  You do know what adversarial means?

On one side of the fence is a religion based on a largely peaceful, tolerant philosophy bolted onto a bronze age list of extreme punishments for often bizarre transgressions. Leading to 2000 years of repression in the name of the faith. On the other side you have people. No organisation, no credo, some are nice, some aren't the only thing they have in common is their sexual preference for members of the same gender and the oppression from the other side of the fence. Naturally they will gripe about the other side of the fence from time to time.

The words mean what they mean, if that's not what you meant to say that's no fault of mine is it?

You are sufferer from a rather nasty problem in current American English parlance.

In British English there are such things as wrong and right opinions because the word opinion means a conclusive position. If my opinion was that the world is made of sherry trifle it would be my opinion (possibly uniquely) but it would be a wrong opinion.

In current American parlance there seems to be no such thing as a wrong opinion which makes the word seem rather redundant.

RE: your experiment my responses to someone making those statements would be.

1) You need to read more about biology and sociology and talk to people with an open mind who feel the way that confuses you. Your support for equality would be enriched by more information and a greater understanding various minority groups that make up the population you wish to treat equally.

2) That's a problem you should take up with your bar or club manager. I agree that restrictive themed nights in a public place should be balanced with similar nights for the opposite gender. If one club or bar or what have you doesn't have a Men's night in your town, hire a space and start one. Private clubs are a different matter. If someone starts a private club or gym it's usually to help people perform an act which would not be possible in a public place. A woman's only gym for example would cater exclusively for women and offer creche facilities, baby changing areas and experts in women's fitness and would allow women to exercise without men snooping at their busty substances.

Regarding #2, it's not discrimination, it's economics.

Regarding #1, are you confused by a woman loving an infertile man despite no chance of procreation?

TV's Frink said:

Regarding #1, are you confused by a woman loving an infertile man despite no chance of procreation?

You completely missed the point.

:(

Are you saying you don't believe those two items and it was just to show we often misunderstand each other?

^thats how I understood it.

by his ongoing quoting out of context of my words and his snide comments about me in his signature bar.

You mean to tell me people quoting others out of context here actually happens or it only happens to you?

Your support for equality would be enriched by more information and a greater understanding various minority groups that make up the population you wish to treat equally.

My statement was very clear, I said I support equality for all, yet you find something else in it that wasn't there.

I also said that discussions were a learning platform yet you find a way to be condescending about it by giving me an English Language lesson?  

And yet to his credit he manages to deduce what you mean first time when it alludes people with a better track record.

Yet you consider yourself better yet again.  Why?  Because it's you talking?  You are the ONLY person on this site that is perfect in design and execution?  THIS is why people get discouraged.  Instead of you sharing your gifts of knowledge you quietly talk down to folks while assuming an innocent posture during the exchange.  I actually thought we could discuss but it seems I may have been wrong.  That is unfortunate.

And Frink ..... stuff a sock in it.  Aren't there better threads for you to manipulate people against each other?

TV's Frink said:

Are you saying you don't believe those two items and it was just to show we often misunderstand each other?

Since you misunderstood it but bingo got it, my answer would be yes.  I also believe that because bingo got it and you didn't that you are probably seen as lesser than him, by him, because he got it and you didn't.

Sorry to say.

To answer your other question ..... the 2 examples were honest statements made by me but it wouldn't have changed the results if they were just off the top of my head.   

Jetrell Fo said:

by his ongoing quoting out of context of my words and his snide comments about me in his signature bar.

You mean to tell me people quoting others out of context here actually happens or it only happens to you?

Your support for equality would be enriched by more information and a greater understanding various minority groups that make up the population you wish to treat equally.

My statement was very clear, I said I support equality for all, yet you find something else in it that wasn't there.

I also said that discussions were a learning platform yet you find a way to condescending about it by giving me an English Language lesson?  

And yet to his credit he manages to deduce what you mean first time when it alludes people with a better track record.

Yet you consider yourself better yet again.  Why?  Because it's you talking?  You are the ONLY person on this site that is perfect in design and execution?  THIS is why people get discouraged.  Instead of you sharing your gifts of knowledge you quietly talk down to folks while assuming an innocent posture during the exchange.  I actually thought we could discuss but it seems I may have been wrong.  That is unfortunate.

And Frink ..... stuff a sock in it.  Aren't there better threads for you to manipulate people against each other?

Yes I'm currently being quoted by Warb out of context (because he can only see the bits other people quote) and he his making snide remarks in his signature bar. Within the last few hours.

Yes your statement was clear, in the scenario you posited your hypothetical person fully supports equality but find certain aspects of same sex attraction confusing.

My response was that your hypothetical person's full support for equality would be better informed after reading books and talking to people.

If discussions are a learning platform what's wrong with you getting a lesson. Surely that's how people learn? I was explaining the difference between the uses of the word 'opinion' because it has caused friction in the past (I can't seem to find the instance at the moment).

My posting a position counter to your own doesn't automatically make me more correct or superior, that can only be a conclusion drawn by a personal reading of my words. It is however my position which I'm entitled to hold and state just as you are entitled to disagree and counter it.

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Are you saying you don't believe those two items and it was just to show we often misunderstand each other?

Since you misunderstood it but bingo got it, my answer would be yes.  I also believe that because bingo got it and you didn't that you are probably seen as lesser than him, by him, because he got it and you didn't.

Sorry to say.

To answer your other question ..... the 2 examples were honest statements made by me but it wouldn't have changed the results if they were just off the top of my head.   

 Would you care to explain the reasons if any for this ungraciousness?

Jetrell Fo said:

And Frink ..... stuff a sock in it.  Aren't there better threads for you to manipulate people against each other?

 Well I guess you'll have to explain this as well as I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Jetrell Fo said:

To answer your other question ..... the 2 examples were honest statements made by me but it wouldn't have changed the results if they were just off the top of my head.   

 Well, then I don't care what your point was because both statements are idiotic, and unfortunately a lot of people agree with them.

My posting a position counter to your own doesn't automatically make me more correct or superior, that can only be a conclusion drawn by a personal reading of my words. It is however my position which I'm entitled to hold and state just as you are entitled to disagree and counter it.

Sure it does.  You've shown it with Warb but apparently he isn't as equally entitled to disagree with you or honestly misunderstand something.

My response was that your hypothetical person's full support for equality would be better informed after reading books and talking to people.

I already support equality fully.  I do not understand the physical and emotional attraction of people who are like gender because there can be no generational fruition from that love.

  Yes I'm currently being quoted by Warb out of context (because he can only see the bits other people quote) and he his making snide remarks in his signature bar. Within the last few hours.

Why can only you make snide remarks at him?  You cannot take what you give?

If discussions are a learning platform what's wrong with you getting a lesson.

If the tone you used in that genuine learning lesson is how you teach I'm the son of a Lesbian Ant and a Gay Elephant.  You were letting me know you feel your command of language is better than mine, nothing more.

Jetrell Fo said:

My posting a position counter to your own doesn't automatically make me more correct or superior, that can only be a conclusion drawn by a personal reading of my words. It is however my position which I'm entitled to hold and state just as you are entitled to disagree and counter it.

Sure it does.  You've shown it with Warb but apparently he isn't as equally entitled to disagree with you or honestly misunderstand something.

My response was that your hypothetical person's full support for equality would be better informed after reading books and talking to people.

I already support equality fully.  I do not understand the physical and emotional attraction of people who are like gender because there can be no generational fruition from that love.

  Yes I'm currently being quoted by Warb out of context (because he can only see the bits other people quote) and he his making snide remarks in his signature bar. Within the last few hours.

Why can only you make snide remarks at him?  You cannot take what you give?

If discussions are a learning platform what's wrong with you getting a lesson.

If the tone you used in that genuine learning lesson is how you teach I'm the son of a Lesbian Ant and a Gay Elephant.  You were letting me know you feel your command of language is better than mine, nothing more.

Warb is perfectly entitled to disagree with me and indulges this entitlement with extreme regularity. It is also true that people in general are capable of being ignorant and otherwise engaged enough to not be bothered with investigating the holes in the their knowledge. Warb also indulges this entitlement with extreme regularity. He hasn't an entitlement to be petty and childish but he indulges the opportunity regardless.

So your hypothetical person is you.

Fair enough.

In which case my response would be the same.

Read some books about the biology of physical attraction, the instances of same sex attraction in the non-human world, the instances where people who are beyond the ability to reproduce (older people, infertile people) and consider people who chose not to have children and ask yourself if they are less able to experience sexual attraction or love because a baby is in any way less possible than someone where a baby is an end result.

With an open mind talk to members of the LGBT community (on-line if you find a face to face uncomfortable). You may encounter some intolerant gay people but you may also be pleasantly surprised and get answers to your questions which would broaden your perspective.

I would argue that while supporting equality is worthy investment of effort it's enriched by understanding what you are investing in.

If I make snide remarks towards Warb it's in response to something I have read him say. I don't have him on ignore. If I had him on ignore I would not comment on his words at all, understanding that I am missing a larger part of the discussion.

The tone was an inference on your part, the intention on my part is to explain the terms I would use. In the past respondents to my postings on the subject of opinion have been met with confusion because of the different readings of the word "opinion" across national boundaries.

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Are you saying you don't believe those two items and it was just to show we often misunderstand each other?

Since you misunderstood it but bingo got it, my answer would be yes.  I also believe that because bingo got it and you didn't that you are probably seen as lesser than him, by him, because he got it and you didn't.

Sorry to say.

To answer your other question ..... the 2 examples were honest statements made by me but it wouldn't have changed the results if they were just off the top of my head.   

 Would you care to explain the reasons if any for this ungraciousness?

You show it time and again with Warb and others during "discussions".  You obviously feel you are better informed than others so why be coy, own it? 

I'm totally capable of learning something new from people who are more schooled at some things than I am but your written tone suggests you WANT people to know you know more than they do.  You never seem to want to have just a normal average conversation.  You always seem to hang above folks with some scholarly and cold responses.  Your words never have any warmth to them and I wish I understood why.  Maybe we could communicate better if they did.      

TV's Frink said:

Regarding #2, it's not discrimination, it's economics.

 there maybe logical economic reasons behind it, but it is still technically  discrimnation. 

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Are you saying you don't believe those two items and it was just to show we often misunderstand each other?

Since you misunderstood it but bingo got it, my answer would be yes.  I also believe that because bingo got it and you didn't that you are probably seen as lesser than him, by him, because he got it and you didn't.

Sorry to say.

To answer your other question ..... the 2 examples were honest statements made by me but it wouldn't have changed the results if they were just off the top of my head.   

 Would you care to explain the reasons if any for this ungraciousness?

You show it time and again with Warb and others during "discussions".  You obviously feel you are better informed than others so why be coy, own it? 

I'm totally capable of learning something new from people who are more schooled at some things than I am but your written tone suggests you WANT people to know you know more than they do.  You never seem to want to have just a normal average conversation.  You always seem to hang above folks with some scholarly and cold responses.  Your words never have any warmth to them and I wish I understood why.  Maybe we could communicate better if they did.      

 I'm Scottish :-D

Jetrell Fo said:

It is odd that Warb understands you BTW as he finds it generally a challenge to understand the most simple things.

 

 I knew of course about the new Star Wars movie, but Silverwook was referring to a movie that would generate interest in this site.   I should have realized he was talking about the new Star Wars movie, but I just didn't see it generating interest in site about getting the original original trilogy released to DVD/bluray.   Yeah it wasn't one of my more intelligent moments, So shoot me.

Jetrell Fo said:

by his ongoing quoting out of context of my words and his snide comments about me in his signature bar.

you don't like it?  too bad.  I am past the point of caring about wheter or not you like what I do. 

And yet to his credit he manages to deduce what you mean first time when it alludes people with a better track record.

 what can I say?  sometimes I am able to figure things out, sometimes I am not.