Support NeoGAF

[duderon]

You're quite right. It's his fault he wasn't clear. I also said that he has a bad habit if baiting people and then going with their train of logic without sticking to his own However, at the same time he wasn't using the word to imply socially unacceptable behavior but merely behavior that deviates from the norm. The other folks associated "deviant" with its meaning that implies social acceptance. So in this case, both parties are wrong. It's more than enough reason to get off each other's back.



And akascream says they should be discriminated against? I don't see it.

He is NOT implying that it is better or worse but that it is not commonplace. You're implying that his opinion is that homosexuality is unacceptable or aberrant behavior when on the contrary he has not said so or implied it. Sure, you can say that he was implying we make a value judgment by repeating his point but that doesn't mean he's stated his opinion explicitly or implicitly.

Sure, normal has multiple meaning but so does many words. How do we decide what the word means? By reading it in the context of what was said. He said statistically, homosexuality is not normal. Normal means "commonplace" in this instance.

However, I do see where the confusion point is. akascream never stated what he meant by "statistically." He could mean statistics on opinions or, what I interpreted it to be, was statistics of the human population. Only akascream can clear that up and that is his fault.



Again, the connotations of deviant that you're thinking of doesn't apply because of the context in which he used it. I agree that he's being one hell of an ass (both in his attitude and how he's stating his attitude) but his original intent of the word has no venom.



He said he doesn't have a problem with gays having rights and in this case, marital rights which he said he supported in the thread earlier. His usage of "faggot" was in a questioning manner. Not as a discriminatory remark towards others (although that one about equal rights might cross the line ;p)

As for the first part of the quote.



He's annoyed at the thought of being expected to respect someone just because they're gay. I frankly agree with this idea. I'm not going to respect just because you're gay. I'll respect you for the person you are and not because of your sexual orientation or race or whatever it may be.

Again, I agree with both sides. You're all reading into his words so that it makes it seem like he's being flamatory when in reality he isn't. That's your bad. His bad is not being clear with what he said and how he said it which happens all the time, even to the best people. I do think he's being a troll but you're egging him on and reading his posts wrong as well.

You're giving him waaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit. He failed to back up one, ONE of his many posts in this thread with any sort of fact. I can't believe he hasn't been banned yet because EVERY post can be considered a troll. The whole discussion has degenerated and the same things have been repeated for a while now. He chose to come into this thread and fuck it up, no one invited him.

 

[Shouta]

Shouta, I suspect(and it seems you do as well), that he WANTS us to read a negative connotation into his posts. That being the case, who is at greater fault here?

I don't suspect that he specifically wants to use the word with a negative connotation. His way is latching on to folks is latching onto their train of thought and then weaseling around with it and driving you nuts by pressing your buttons all the while not specifically making himself look guilty of anything when you break down to readingi t carefully. In this case, both parties are guilty of latching on to each other and playing "leap frog" until you guys run into an argumentive wall.

In the case you state, it would be him. However, I don't think it is the case.

I haven't called him a bigot or ignorant. But he's certainly being an asshole, daring the mods to do something, while fastening the straps on his "disassociation from what I'm saying" Kevlar.

Oh I agree he's being an ass. That's just the akascream way. Daring the mods do to something isn't exactly new ground either. I'm not going to ban him for it because, frankly, us mods need someone to dare us with something that isn't asinine (like a fair amount of the other challenges we get from people) from time to time. It keeps us on our toes. ;p

I'll use my own power to kick his ass off the board by activating ignore.

That works.

You're giving him waaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit. He failed to back up one, ONE of his many posts in this thread with any sort of fact.

Neither have you guys in terms of arguments that you could possibly use evidence to support so he isn't exactly alone in that regard.

 

[videogamer]

Well there you go, a misunderstanding of the intended meaning. Now do you see what I mean?

No I don't. And it doesn't even look like you did a good job of explaining.

Neither have you guys in terms of arguments that you could possibly use evidence to support so he isn't exactly alone in that regard.

The earlier part of the thread had support. If he had looked there, maybe he would have found some of his answers.

 

[gofreak]

I'll use my own power to kick his ass off the board by activating ignore.

How do you do this? Can you filter out posts by people?

edit - nevermind, found it! Sweet option!

 

[Zaptruder]

Shouta. You preach one thing... then fail to practice it.

Where does it say a person should be given respect for been homosexual?

It's only been asked repeatedly to give the same respect to a homosexual person as you would for a straight person.

That is to say, you shouldn't find their sexual orientation a factor in treating them any differently, outside of sexual relations.

 

[Shouta]

No I don't. And it doesn't even look like you did a good job of explaining.

Hah.

You interpreted his intended meaning wrong and you got mad at him because of it. In the same regard, akascream interpreted the meaning of gay parades incorrectly and that lead to his distaste of said event. It's essentially the same thing, misunderstanding the situation and then making a judgment based on misinterpreted information.

 

[OmniGamer]

He's annoyed at the thought of being expected to respect someone just because they're gay. I frankly agree with this idea. I'm not going to respect just because you're gay. I'll respect you for the person you are and not because of your sexual orientation or race or whatever it may be.

I don't think any sane gay person says they want to be respected JUST BECAUSE they are gay, however it's quite clear many people are willing to DISrespect someone JUST BECAUSE they are gay. I, personally, just want the same basic HUMAN respect given as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America. Feel free to dislike me based on my words or actions. This is why I asked aka what I asked him regarding respect, which he still hasn't answered.

Open question, which is more "damaging" to society...an automatic and illogically justified prejudice against gay people and the resulting isolation and psychological rammifications to said people, or allowing gay couples the same(no more, no less) rights afforded to hetero couples(they can keep the word marriage for all i care)?

 

[videogamer]

Hah.

You interpreted his intended meaning wrong and you got mad at him because of it. In the same regard, akascream interpreted the meaning of gay parades incorrectly and that lead to his distaste of said event. It's essentially the same thing, misunderstanding the situation and then making a judgment based on misinterpreted information.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I talked about "rights" and "respect". His comments on gay parades shows that he does not give us equal respect.

 

[Goreomedy]

Shouta, okay, let me get this straight.

You agree he is trolling, which is against the TOS, but refuse to take action because his brand of trolling amuses you?

I think that's fucking shady.

 

[OmniGamer]

Neither have you guys in terms of arguments that you could possibly use evidence to support so he isn't exactly alone in that regard.

My Life, every waking moment of it, is my evidence....I said this earlier. I have a first-hand account on the matter, he does not.

 

[etiolate]

"Respect my religious beliefs" in regards to whether or not gay marriage is legal makes no sense. What two people do in their own private and spiritual life should have no bearing on yours. "Marriage" is not the exclusive province of Christianity. Jews get married; Muslims get married; Hindus get married. The word is universal, applied to all ceremonies in all different faiths that describe two people who love each other becoming "bound." One argument that no one can seem to come to terms with is "What if there were a religion where gay marriage was openly allowed, sometimes encouraged?" How would the U.S. handle that? What about more progressive clergy in established, non-hypothetical religions who decide to marry a gay couple? Denying those people the right to get married under the legal terms of the word would completely go against every statute on the books that defends and enforces the right to practice whichever religion you choose.

I personally know of jewish temples that perform marriage ceremonies of gay couples. It's their rite to do so if they wish. The issue is the Goverment making a blanket declaration of it. The rest of your text I'll get to in a bit.

"Its a choice" argument need only be silenced by asking "When did you DECIDE to be straight?"

Myself? Likely somewhere in my teenage years. Most people are very filled with hormones during those years and homosexual thoughts are common. I realized though "hey, I like girls!" and also realized my hormones were getting the better of me. I had friends in highschool who were bisexual for a week and then never again. Another friend who is homosexual, gradually grew away from it for awhile and then went back to I guess "full" homosexuality. He seems to forever hover between bi and gay and sometimes straight. The straight weeks were the oddest.

There are plenty of people who have homosexual urges or maybe tendecies who do not want to be gay. They want a heterosexual relationship. That is why there is orginizations like NARTH that are there for these people.

The thing is, marriage is not an inherently religious institution,

Well Hammy linked to some articles earlier about other marriage practices. I also found some of my own, ancient egyptian sort of marriages. Historically marriage is religious. In most of the non-jeudo-christian practices it 1. Has some sort of religious link, such as the couple being accepted by a God. 2. The pairing between a man and woman. 3. Some of them are not anything like our idea of marriage and are more an arrangement of finacial benefit. Which goes along more with the thought of a civil union.

 

[Shouta]

Shouta. You preach one thing... then fail to practice it.

Where does it say a person should be given respect for been homosexual?

It's said by akascream that he interprets parades to be events in which you are expected to respect homosexuals for being homosexual (a bit implicit here). It's not stated by anyone in this thread, it's his feelings about parades.

It's only been asked repeatedly to give the same respect to a homosexual person as you would for a straight person.

Actually, as much as I've read in the thread, it's been asked repeatedly to give the same rights as heterosexual person. Please do quote it if I missed something.

 

[duderon]

Neither have you guys in terms of arguments that you could possibly use evidence to support so he isn't exactly alone in that regard.

He was saying the same things over and over again, though, in response to others that shot down the statements about how homosexuality is an urge, and how it could somehow be related to pedophilia and bestiality.

He kept incinuating that homosexuality is a choice without backing it up. There is proof here in this thread that this is false, by gay members of the forum sharing how they experienced this and how it is anything but a choice. This is trolling.

 

[Shouta]

I'm going to go the bank and check out a gamestore. I'll be back later to respond some more.

 

[u_neek]

 

[Star Power]

Though I admire the effort, I cannot concieve the notion that this thread will do more good than harm.

 

[duderon]

I've read many helpful things *shrugs*

 

[Suerte]

God hates left handed fags the most

Anyway, this topic got.... gay.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Hah.

You interpreted his intended meaning wrong and you got mad at him because of it. In the same regard, akascream interpreted the meaning of gay parades incorrectly and that lead to his distaste of said event. It's essentially the same thing, misunderstanding the situation and then making a judgment based on misinterpreted information.

Come on. There's such a thing as context. If you have read any posts by akascream before, and just going by this thread alone, his provided a context for himself in which he attaches the notions of pedophilia and the spread of AIDS to homosexuality. In this case, it isn't someone else's fault for reading his use of the word "deviancy" as perversion or degerneracy. It's his fault for creating the context. Just because you're a mod doesn't make you more able to judge the situation, or in this case the context, accurately and tell everyone who took offense at his comments they're in the wrong. You're certainly in the minority here. And it's unsulting to people who took the time to write well-reasoned posts earlier in the thread to say that a one-word reply of "statistics" or any of the other repetitions of the term "deviants" are those argument's equivalents.

 

[yoshifumi]

i still haven't read most of this thread, but i'm still going to throw in my reasoning behind believing it is (mainly) a biological issue:

1) the majority of human females with congenital adrenal hyperplagia list their sexual orientation as lesbian...CAH is a genetic disorder in which the adrenal glands release excess male hormones.

2) females with androgen insensitivity are technically male, they have the male internal genitalia and lack female internal organs like ovaries, but because androgens (testosterone, etc) cannot bind to receptors in cells, they develop female external genetalia, breasts, etc. the vast vast majority still see themselves as heterosexual women, even though they are (technically from a genetic standpoint, they have a y chromosome), males.

3) experiments with rats have shown that preventing exposure to male hormones in development will cause male rats to show female sexual behavior, and exposing female rats to higher levels of male hormones will cause those rats to show male sexual behavior.

i still think that there is some aspect of choice involved in becoming homosexual, but i think that choice is heavily influenced by biological factors.

edit: well i guess some of this already got covered here...

 

[yoshifumi]

anyways i'd say the basis for homosexuality is laid down by what hormones people or animals receive in development.

 

[Iceman]

Okay, I wrote a whole lot in response.. but it is just a meandering mess that does little else but make me look bad so here are the high points:

1) my faith is everything to me

2) I didn't vote on any of the gay marriage ban ammendments and I have no idea really how I'd vote if given the opportunity (any kind of definition added to a constitution I think is usually a bad thing, limiting). I know I've probably mention in the past that I would but honestly I'm not 100% sure I could right now.

3) I may come off as having little sympathy for the plight of homosexuals because I was at Cal for 4 years and in the Young Republicans so it was I who felt like a second class citizen during the duration of my time there. Although, I will say some of the liberals I knew were pretty retarded when it came to homosexuality and that ticked me off.. they would point people out, mock/joke and be rude in general. If anything I almost felt a solidarity with homosexuals during my time there. It's only a little better here in Madison (the Berkeley of the Midwest).. and that's because people are known to be a lot less rude here.

4) Like I said before, the christian church is basically reacting right now as a result of the very aggressive push right now by the homosexual movement to impose MANY things (among them a REQUIREMENT to teach YOUNG kids homosexuality is good-not just acceptable- in public schools) The church is still trying to come to terms with it all and the homosexual movement is just barrelling along with no regard for anyone else's opinions. Even if the movement is 100% right, the movement is coming off as a one imposing its will onto others... WE don't even know if we will be affected but (1) the movement is not giving us time to figure it out and (2) the movement is DEFINITELY trying to bring the war to our faces.. engaging us on our turf... it feels more like a preemptive offensive than a legitimate fight against oppression (another reason why I am perplexed by the whole second class citizen talk). The way the movement is handling it has a direct effect on how the church is reacting. I wonder if most people realize that the movement is forcing our hand right now?

5) Basically I'll support anything that gets more people to turn their lives over to Christ.. if you can convince me that supporting gay marriages will do that I'll fight on your side.

I'd be very interested to hear from a christian homosexual if there are any here.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'd be very interested to hear from a christian homosexual if there are any here.

Protip: google "Christian Homosexual discussions" if you're interested in engaging this topic from a christian perspective. Try adding "understanding" as well if the results are too far off mark.

I know alot of people come of as too aggressive, on either side; but reacting to the extremeties with extreme reaction isn't the way to go about it.

 

[videogamer]

3) I may come off as having little sympathy for the plight of homosexuals because I was at Cal for 4 years and in the Young Republicans so it was I who felt like a second class citizen during the duration of my time there. Although, I will say some of the liberals I knew were pretty retarded when it came to homosexuality and that ticked me off.. they would point people out, mock/joke and be rude in general. If anything I almost felt a solidarity with homosexuals during my time there. It's only a little better here in Madison (the Berkeley of the Midwest).. and that's because people are known to be a lot less rude here.

Some of the things they've done aren't exactly the nicest things to do. Like the discriminatory bake sale. In fact, it's real-life trolling. And when the party wants to constitutionalize discrimination, I feel the same.

4) Like I said before, the christian church is basically reacting right now as a result of the very aggressive push right now by the homosexual movement to impose MANY things (among them a REQUIREMENT to teach YOUNG kids homosexuality is good-not just acceptable- in public schools)

link?

The church is still trying to come to terms with it all and the homosexual movement is just barrelling along with no regard for anyone else's opinions. Even if the movement is 100% right, the movement is coming off as a one imposing its will onto others... WE don't even know if we will be affected but (1) the movement is not giving us time to figure it out and (2) the movement is DEFINITELY trying to bring the war to our faces.. engaging us on our turf... it feels more like a preemptive offensive than a legitimate fight against oppression (another reason why I am perplexed by the whole second class citizen talk). The way the movement is handling it has a direct effect on how the church is reacting. I wonder if most people realize that the movement is forcing our hand right now?

Homosexuals have long been oppressed and treated like second class citizens and worse. Only recently have they spoken up. It's not our fault that the churches didn't accomodate or at least ignore us earlier.

5) Basically I'll support anything that gets more people to turn their lives over to Christ.. if you can convince me that supporting gay marriages will do that I'll fight on your side.

I've never understood that. Why there are many different religions and spiritual pathways. Why restrict oneself to just one?

 

[videogamer]

It's said by akascream that he interprets parades to be events in which you are expected to respect homosexuals for being homosexual (a bit implicit here). It's not stated by anyone in this thread, it's his feelings about parades.

Why doesn't take the opportunity to learn more during the parades then? He comes off as terribly uninformed. He should use the parades as learning opportunites instead of griping about them.

And why are you defending him like this? He got into the mess himself.

 

[Shouta]

This is why I asked aka what I asked him regarding respect, which he still hasn't answered.

It's up to aka to reply there .

Open question, which is more "damaging" to society...an automatic and illogically justified prejudice against gay people and the resulting isolation and psychological rammifications to said people, or allowing gay couples the same(no more, no less) rights afforded to hetero couples(they can keep the word marriage for all i care)?

Former.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I talked about "rights" and "respect". His comments on gay parades shows that he does not give us equal respect.

How so? I'd like to hear why you think so based on his comment from before.

Shouta, okay, let me get this straight.

You agree he is trolling, which is against the TOS, but refuse to take action because his brand of trolling amuses you?

I think that's fucking shady.

Ain't anything shady at all.

Yes, I agree he's trolling in the later parts of this thread. However, it wasn't aka that started the entire thing. He merely stated that what he thought and then everyone jumped on him. If anything, I should be banning ALL of you and not just akascream but that doesn't help the situation any so I won't ban anyone.

My Life, every waking moment of it, is my evidence....I said this earlier. I have a first-hand account on the matter, he does not.

You asked how do you prove it's by choice. Now, I ask you, How do you prove without a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is genetic? Sure, your homosexuality has been with you forever but does your experience extend to the entire homosexual community? I don't think it does. akascream posed the question earlier in the thread:

Has this argument ever really been proven though? I guess homosexuality could be a genetic mutation.. God only knows how complex we are at that level. But is there really any hard evidence?

He was saying the same things over and over again, though, in response to others that shot down the statements about how homosexuality is an urge, and how it could somehow be related to pedophilia and bestiality.

A) He did not say bestiality was related to homosexuality. he said,

Wouldn't you consider somebody that has sex with animals, or with members of the same sex to be more prone to participate in other forms of unusual sexual behavior?

If you're going to nail him for it, then at least read what he said. OmniGamer responded to him perfectly,

There are no kinky shops for straight people I guess right? Straight people don't have any fetishes, straight people don't participate in "deviant" sexual behavior? Do you believe these things?

As for pedophilia, he stated,

But some make the argument that homosexual males are predators of young boys. That they spread AIDS at a faster rate than heterosexuals. Is it possible, even if genetic, that homosexuality is destructive?

The first part is a dead giveaway. "But some make the argument." Is it akascream talking or is he stating an opinion commonly expressed by others? I don't see him making the connection that pedophilia and homosexuality are connected.

He kept incinuating that homosexuality is a choice without backing it up. There is proof here in this thread that this is false, by gay members of the forum sharing how they experienced this and how it is anything but a choice. This is trolling.

So taking the word of a few and broadening it to the community in question can be deemed as evidence that there is no possibility of it being choice? That makes no sense. You're saying that the few speak for the many. This is the same logic that caused so many problems throughout our history.

Come on. There's such a thing as context. If you have read any posts by akascream before, and just going by this thread alone, his provided a context for himself in which he attaches the notions of pedophilia and the spread of AIDS to homosexuality.

Uh no, he said that "some make the argument" not him. There is a BIG difference. See my above quotation for the exact words.

In this case, it isn't someone else's fault for reading his use of the word "deviancy" as perversion or degerneracy. It's his fault for creating the context.

Except he didn't create a context for himself, he posed the question(s) and people created the context for him.

Just because you're a mod doesn't make you more able to judge the situation, or in this case the context, accurately and tell everyone who took offense at his comments they're in the wrong.

Did I say that because I'm a mod that it makes me more fit to judge a situation or context? Hell no. I'd like to see you prove that. I'm coming into this thread as someone who sees exactly what went wrong and why it went wrong. I'm trying to rectify the entire situation by explaining the situation properly. I'm telling people they're wrong because they read what he said with an agenda instead of looking at EXACTLY what was written. If you can prove me wrong then do so but do it with the text that is written and properly interpreted because right now, you're not making your case against him by saying something like "He associated pedophilia, AIDs, and beastiality to homosexuality" when he clearly did not.

You're certainly in the minority here. And it's unsulting to people who took the time to write well-reasoned posts earlier in the thread to say that a one-word reply of "statistics" or any of the other repetitions of the term "deviants" are those argument's equivalents.

You know, I have a flamatory comment to this but I'll avoid that.

If you want to ignore him then do so but if you're going to argue with him, at least read what he is saying carefully and see what statements he is making and what statements is not making.

 

[Shouta]

Why doesn't take the opportunity to learn more during the parades then? He comes off as terribly uninformed. He should use the parades as learning opportunites instead of griping about them.

It's up to him. I'm not akascream so I can't answer for him. I've always known what parades (in general) are for.

And why are you defending him like this? He got into the mess himself.

He got himself into the mess, this is true. However, I finally felt that enough was enough and that someone needed to step in with some sort of voice outside the two parties quarreling. I wouldn't normally step in but this is a case where the poster is misinterpreted heavily and is being attacked for opinions that aren't actually his own but a product of the line of questioning he's pursued that was created by the others participating. That's an injustice I hate vehemently.

Mind you, I've been around this board for a long time now and I rememeber when discussions were more lengthy and less flamatory because every opinion was carefully looked at responded to. Mind you, these were the sane threads, not the infamous ones wehre people like Opa-Opa particiapted in =P. So you could say that it's a bit of nostalgia for me.

At any rate, I'd like to thank you guys for getting my brain going today

 

[brooklyngooner]

You know, I have a flamatory comment to this but I'll avoid that.

Either say it or don't. Don't raise the specter then run. That's the kind of shit akascream is pulling.

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

"But some make the argument that homosexual males are predators of young boys. That they spread AIDS at a faster rate than heterosexuals. Is it possible, even if genetic, that homosexuality is destructive?"

By bringing up pedophilia as an argument about why people are against homosexual rights, he is asking us to consider this as a reason why people are against gay rights. You can't bring up an argument and then hide behind a "devil's advocate" screen. Just because he generalized it does not mean he did not associate pedophilia and AIDS with gay people. I'll have to remember to preface everything I write with "some make the argument", since apparently this places your point above criticism. If you don't want to make such an association, you don't bring up a point unless you believe it could be true.

 

[Shouta]

Nah, I don't want more enemies.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Nah, I don't want more enemies.

Weak. Don't mention that you have certain thoughts if you are not going to say them at all.

 

[videogamer]

Certainly reasonable. I guess I just get annoyed with the parades ect, that I'm expected to respect homosexuals.

If you homosexuals want to be considered equal, then let people call you a faggot without expecting a fit of outrage.

It's not just about akascream. It's also about letting gays have respect. One of the ways of degrading us is to call us "evil" or "aberrant". Akascream thinks that, as of now, we don't deserve equal rights and respect. Refer to his remarks on gay parades and the word "faggot"

He's annoyed at the thought of being expected to respect someone just because they're gay. I frankly agree with this idea. I'm not going to respect just because you're gay. I'll respect you for the person you are and not because of your sexual orientation or race or whatever it may be.

If you notice from his words relating homosexuals to pedophiles and AIDS, I think that you will see that he doesn't have respect for us. Spreading AIDS and being pedophiles are two very negative things and he somehow is able to smear us with that. Furthermore, he thinks that using nasty terms like "faggot" should be OK. What kind of person would be fine with such degrading terms? That's right, akascream and people like him.

As for the gay parades,

Uh it's not our fault that he doesn't understand gay parades. It's not about being proud of our "gayness" despite what the slogans say. It's about acceptance of who we are as people, despite our differences. It's like saying that our "gayness" is just another part of our identity as people.

No body is telling him to respect us because we are gay. By implication, he resents having to be told to respect homosexuals. He already lacks a respect for them.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Nah, I don't want more enemies.

So if I understand you correctly, you're helping to argue his vague "some make the point" position and offering your own "I don't want more enemies." Gotcha.

 

[akascream]

This is precisely the behavior that I dislike. So I have a different understanding of parades than those that participate in them, so I don't look at the culture through rose tinted glasses and even bring up arguments from several perspectives (mine or not).. even *gasp* unpopular ones. I may even be in the wrong on one or more of those issues. But then the wagons get circled and the crosses built.

I don't like that I am not only EXPECTED to respect the culture/behavior above the individual, but when I discuss the culture/behavior in a non-Oprah approved manner, that people cry for a ban. Call me what you will, disagree with me.. but just flat out trying to invalidate my perspective, to be so against the rights of individuals to be and say what they will, stinks of the very individuals homosexuals are trying to 'educate' about thier culture.

Anyway, I was meaning to leave this thread cause it was clear to me that Shouta was trying to restore some order, and I didn't want to keep the negativity rolling despite that effort. But I just wanted to say that one thing. I apologize to those who feel unaddressed, perhaps a more civil discussion can arise in another thread in the future where we can discuss this topic like adults.

 

[Zaptruder]

with regards to gay parades; straight people get 364 days of the year to celebrate their heterosexuality. You would deny them the right to express themselves strongly once a year?

 

[videogamer]

I don't like that I am not only EXPECTED to respect the culture/behavior above the individual, but when I discuss the culture/behavior in a non-Oprah approved manner, that people cry for a ban. Call me what you will, disagree with me.. but just flat out trying to invalidate my perspective, to be so against the rights of individuals to be and say what they will, stinks of the very individuals homosexuals are trying to 'educate' about thier culture.

Link to the "culture/behavior above the individual" part. You need to back up that claim.

If you want to start a discussion, you should at least start it in a "Oprah approved manner". If you are going to talk to someone, you should at least talk to a manner that will not offend them. When you talk about homosexuals being pedophiles and AIDS carriers, YOU are putting up the wall. If you treated them like a normal human being, maybe they would open up and talk to you. Perhaps eliminate several of your misconceptions about homosexuality. However, you don't impress strangers with your overtly negative attitude about homosexuals, and thus they won't (or shouldn't) be willing to talk to you.

 

[Shouta]

Yay for Electric Sheep! *hugs Mega Man's Electric Sheep"

By bringing up pedophilia as an argument about why people are against homosexual rights, he is asking us to consider this as a reason why people are against gay rights. You can't bring up an argument and then hide behind a "devil's advocate" screen. Just because he generalized it does not mean he did not associate pedophilia and AIDS with gay people. I'll have to remember to preface everything I write with "some make the argument", since apparently this places your point above criticism. If you don't want to make such an association, you don't bring up a point unless you believe it could be true.

You could make an argument that way. I'd be more inclined to say that he's just using as an example of supposed destructive behavior then posing the question if homosexuality is destructive than yours because of the rest of his posts in the thread. I could say that "But some say dogs are the bane of the world and are disease-ridden, ball-licking, yapping, killing machines. Should we keep them as pets?" I actually don't think that (I love dogs) but some may do and this would be an example of what I think akascream is saying.

If you notice from his words relating homosexuals to pedophiles and AIDS, I think that you will see that he doesn't have respect for us. Spreading AIDS and being pedophiles are two very negative things and he somehow is able to smear us with that. Furthermore, he thinks that using nasty terms like "faggot" should be OK. What kind of person would be fine with such degrading terms? That's right, akascream and people like him.

I pointed the whole pedophile/AIDS thing earlier.

The whole "faggot" spiel I'm not sure about to be frank so I'll have to think about it.

I would advise you to be wary of what judgments you make about people and how you come to that judgment though. I learned that the hard way a long time ago.

So if I understand you correctly, you're helping to argue his vague "some make the point" position and offering your own "I don't want more enemies." Gotcha.

No.

 

[videogamer]

I pointed the whole pedophile/AIDS thing earlier.

It's part of the whole akascream identity and why he doesn't respect other humans like me.

The whole "faggot" spiel I'm not sure about to be frank so I'll have to think about it.

It's pretty clear that he thinks that the derogatory word "faggot" should be OK to use against homosexuals like me. I grew up with that word. He can't make it sudden turn it into a simple adjective.

I would advise you to be wary of what judgments you make about people and how you come to that judgment though. I learned that the hard way a long time ago.

Uh, he has left plenty of fodder in this thread, including the issues I have spoken about.

 

[Shouta]

It's part of the whole akascream identity.

Err, read what I said about those specific quotes.

It's pretty clear that he thinks that the word "faggot" should be OK to use.

I would not say that personally. There isn't enough evidence for that unless you like to make the logical connection (like Electric Sheep did, yay!) from that one quote (or any other quote I might've missed).

Uh, he has left plenty of fodder in this thread, including the issues I have spoken about.

I could argue that you left enough fodder for me to make a snap judgment about you but you don't see me doing that =P.

 

[Dilbert]

This is precisely the behavior that I dislike. So I have a different understanding of parades than those that participate in them, so I don't look at the culture through rose tinted glasses and even bring up arguments from several perspectives (mine or not).. even *gasp* unpopular ones. I may even be in the wrong on one or more of those issues. But then the wagons get circled and the crosses built.

I don't think we need you to be an advocate for positions that you personally don't believe in...especially because it gives you the easy out of, "oh, that's someone ELSE'S idea, I was just quoting it." The issue with you in this thread has always been your accountability -- or lack thereof -- to the statements you have been made.

I don't like that I am not only EXPECTED to respect the culture/behavior above the individual, but when I discuss the culture/behavior in a non-Oprah approved manner, that people cry for a ban. Call me what you will, disagree with me.. but just flat out trying to invalidate my perspective, to be so against the rights of individuals to be and say what they will, stinks of the very individuals homosexuals are trying to 'educate' about thier culture.

The issue is not "respect." The issue is, "get out of my face and stop trying to impinge upon the civil rights of others." At the end of the day, respect ain't worth a damn thing.

Furthermore, when you get through that mangled statement about "rights," what you're claiming is that people have been attacking you from an ad hominem point of view. I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, the issue has been with the lack of credible support -- or consistency -- in your arguments.

Shouta has been defending your intentions, and I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's clear that you've been trying to provoke people. It's a shame, too, since the first couple pages of this thread were actually interesting.

 

[Shouta]

Shall we close the thread and pass out bans for everyone jinx?

 

[akascream]

It's pretty clear that he thinks that the derogatory word "faggot" should be OK to use against homosexuals like me.

Again, sorry to keep this happy ball of fluff going, but that is definately not what I was saying. Read it in the context of my last post. There's nothing wrong with allowing people to speak thier mind, then putting that person into whatever social contexts you've got organized in your reality. If somebody uses words like 'faggot' or 'nigger', that definately tells me about that person, I'm speaking more to the hypocrisy of wanting to oust those individuals.. to stifle thier right to exist as who they are.

Then again, you aren't interested in understanding, but already tied yourself a nifty hangman's noose and need to fill as an example to all other unbelievers, or whatever.

The issue with you in this thread has always been your accountability -- or lack thereof -- to the statements you have been made.

I see, so I can't discuss a pov unless it is my own. I have quite a few, but jeez, there's so much to talk about out there.

The issue is not "respect." The issue is, "get out of my face and stop trying to impinge upon the civil rights of others." At the end of the day, respect ain't worth a damn thing.

Am I in your face or impinging on your civil rights? I'd argue that I'm the one who's civil rights are in danger. Ironic.

Furthermore, when you get through that mangled statement about "rights," what you're claiming is that people have been attacking you from an ad hominem point of view. I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, the issue has been with the lack of credible support -- or consistency -- in your arguments.

I fail to see your critisizm on the other side of this argument, as there hasn't been a whole lot of credible support or consistency there either. Kind of questions your objectivity a bit.

Shouta has been defending your intentions, and I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's clear that you've been trying to provoke people. It's a shame, too, since the first couple pages of this thread were actually interesting.

I can't help if you find my part of the discussion provokative. But my pov and those that I felt were relevant enough to share aren't especially unique. I'm sorry if you feel I ruined what was a better discussion, but am I supposed to simply ignore everyone?.. then I am scrutinized for not addressing everyone. I guess I'm just supposed to not have opinions or discussions on the matter and simply 'understand homosexuality'.

 

[videogamer]

Err, read what I said about those specific quotes.

In other words, he can hide behind the devil's advocate screen and say whatever he wants.

I would not say that personally. There isn't enough evidence for that unless you like to make the logical connection (like Electric Sheep did, yay!) from that one quote (or any other quote I might've missed).

If you homosexuals want to be considered equal, then let people call you a faggot without expecting a fit of outrage.

Uh.... akascream is pretty clear about the word "faggot" being unworthy of outrage. Thus, it would not be an inflammatory/bad word. Then the word would be OK to use.

I could argue that you left enough fodder for me to make a snap judgment about you but you don't see me doing that =P.

Please quote

 

[Shouta]

Please quote

I've stated already that I'm here to clear things up and not to make enemies (or insult anyone). If you think that's a cop-out for speaking my mind, then so be it.

 

[videogamer]

Again, sorry to keep this happy ball of fluff going, but that is definately not what I was saying. Read it in the context of my last post.

unfortunately, I've had to read it many times. In fact, I've already responded to the first part of your post earlier in this thread. I don't think you replied.

There's nothing wrong with allowing people to speak thier mind, then putting that person into whatever social contexts you've got organized in your reality. If somebody uses words like 'faggot' or 'nigger', that definately tells me about that person, I'm speaking more to the hypocrisy of wanting to oust those individuals.. to stifle thier right to exist as who they are.

Freedom to speak one's mind does not mean that one should attack and demean others. Take the fire-in-a-theatre example. It's an unproductive thing and it HURTS people.

 

[etiolate]

Can we stop trying to hang aka and get back to the topic. On one hand he riled people up, but on the other hand half the people here had their pitchforks ready anyways. It was eventual. Can we go on now that it has happened?

 

[Goreomedy]

Shouta has been defending your intentions, and I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's clear that you've been trying to provoke people. It's a shame, too, since the first couple pages of this thread were actually interesting.

I agree.

Call me what you will, disagree with me.. but just flat out trying to invalidate my perspective, to be so against the rights of individuals to be and say what they will, stinks of the very individuals homosexuals are trying to 'educate' about thier culture.

How could your perspective have been invalidated, when you refused to claim anything you said as your own? I think you're bright enough to know why people were "overreacting" to your carefully constructed replies.

 

[akascream]

Freedom to speak one's mind does not mean that one should attack and demean others. Take the fire-in-a-theatre example. It's an unproductive thing and it HURTS people.

Don't you think you are on pretty thin ice here? Shouting fire in a theater is a safety issue, not a question of hurt feelings. The first ammendment would be worthless given your interpretation.

 

[videogamer]

Don't you think you are on pretty thin ice here? Shouting fire in a theater is a safety issue, not a question of hurt feelings. The first ammendment would be worthless given your interpretation.

Uh first of all, the first admendment applies to the government, not to personal conversation. Second of all, it was a comparison, not a direct application of the Schenck v. U.S case.

 

[akascream]

Uh first of all, the first admendment applies to the government, not to personal conversation. Second of all, it was a comparison, not a direct application of the Schenck v. U.S case.

Then why bring up the fire-in-a-theater example at all?