That's so gay.

[MaryContrary]

I'm not offended by people who say, "That's so gay".

How could I be offended by someone who shows that level of intelligence?

It would be like being offended by a child who doesn't know any better.

People are entitled to be ignorant if they want, and I'm entitled to laugh at them when they are.

Just as people are entitled not to care when arrogant snobs hike their noses at them.

 

[Egbert]

Ok. It´s time to let you off the hook. My original post was pure sarcasm. I want to do absolutely nothing to elevate the moral status of homosexuality.

It's funny how you choose to backtrack only after the folly of your statement is demonstrated.

Only if it´s not true. :think:

No, the truth or falsehood of it is irrelevant to the fact that the accusation is irrelevant to our discussion. Obviously you cannot prove that it is true anymore than I can prove that it is not, so it remains a pointless comment.

Sorry, but they started it, so they now have to deal with the consequences.

Consequences? Please. If homosexuals had not started calling themselves gays, modern teenagers likely would have taken to calling things "so homo." The origin of the new usage was not nearly as sophisticated as your defense of "consequences" suggests.

Who cares if it's considered bigotry? You'll never do away with that. People are entitled (yes, have a right) to their thoughts and opinions.

Bigotry begets bigotry, and I doubt that vicious circle helps anyone. It will never be eradicated (though it has dipped to remarkably low levels in parts of Europe), but that does not mean it should be encouraged.

When I was a kid, there was a saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

That is a stupid saying, properly reserved as a playground chant. If words cannot hurt, then logically they should not be able to help, either, correct? (I am speaking of emotions here.) If words can neither help nor hurt, then what is the point of speaking with any flair or style?

 

[logan.fb]

You ask who cares.....

You ask who cares.....

>>> Who cares if it's considered bigotry? You'll never do away with that.<<<

Yes, but you people claim to be Christians.... Christianity was founded on the teachings of Jesus who was, by all accounts, the most tolerant and accepting person to ever live.
Do you not think that calling yourself a follower of this man that perhaps you should, in fact, FOLLOW HIS LEAD?
Do you not understand that calling yourselves Christians and then spewing hatred toward or about ANYONE just gives ALL Christians a bad name.
Gee.... sorta like the fundamentalist Muslims give all Muslims a bad name.
But then, you probably hate Muslims, too.... so I'm probably wasting my time even typing this.

 

[Servo]

I'm not offended by people who say, "That's so gay".

How could I be offended by someone who shows that level of intelligence?

It would be like being offended by a child who doesn't know any better.

People are entitled to be ignorant if they want, and I'm entitled to laugh at them when they are.

:flamer: GPOTD! :flamer: :first:

 

[koban]

>>> Who cares if it's considered bigotry? You'll never do away with that.<<<

Yes, but you people claim to be Christians.... Christianity was founded on the teachings of Jesus who was, by all accounts, the most tolerant and accepting person to ever live.
Do you not think that calling yourself a follower of this man that perhaps you should, in fact, FOLLOW HIS LEAD?
Do you not understand that calling yourselves Christians and then spewing hatred toward or about ANYONE just gives ALL Christians a bad name.
Gee.... sorta like the fundamentalist Muslims give all Muslims a bad name.
But then, you probably hate Muslims, too.... so I'm probably wasting my time even typing this.

Logan - do you know what the Bible has to say about homosexuality?

 

[Egbert]

Logan - do you know what the Bible has to say about homosexuality?

Aye, it's tantamount to wearing a wool coat and cotton underpants simultaneously.

 

[koban]

Aye, it's tantamount to wearing a wool coat and cotton underpants simultaneously.

Is Logan one of your mulnics?

 

[Egbert]

Is Logan one of your mulnics?

Define?

 

[koban]

My comment was directed at Logan.

Unless Logan is one of your multiple nicknames, flake off.

 

[Tico]

It's funny how you choose to backtrack only after the folly of your statement is demonstrated.

:bang:

You´re going to have a miserable time at TOL if you can´t figure out sarcasm.:chuckle:

Still, you´re just a little too sensitive about this whole "gay" thing. :think:

 

[Servo]

>>> Who cares if it's considered bigotry? You'll never do away with that.<<<

Yes, but you people claim to be Christians.... Christianity was founded on the teachings of Jesus who was, by all accounts, the most tolerant and accepting person to ever live.
Do you not think that calling yourself a follower of this man that perhaps you should, in fact, FOLLOW HIS LEAD?
Do you not understand that calling yourselves Christians and then spewing hatred toward or about ANYONE just gives ALL Christians a bad name.
Gee.... sorta like the fundamentalist Muslims give all Muslims a bad name.
But then, you probably hate Muslims, too.... so I'm probably wasting my time even typing this.

Jesus was the most tolerant person that ever lived? Do you believe that Christ rebelled against His Father and disagreed with Him about homosexuality?

 

[Revelation]

Poor logan. How dare he have an interpretation of Scripture that differs from the fire and brimstone loving, righty, tighty Christians.

 

[koban]

Poor logan. How dare he have an interpretation of Scripture that differs from the fire and brimstone loving, righty, tighty Christians.

:idunno: Don't know about all that gay righty, tighty stuff, and the uber-gay "how dare he..." part, but scripture seems pretty clear on boys who do with boys.

 

[Revelation]

:idunno: Don't know about all that gay righty, tighty stuff, and the uber-gay "how dare he..." part, but scripture seems pretty clear on boys who do with boys.

Maybe to someone who is ignorant of the history and philosophy of the Bible and thus can't read it in context.

 

[koban]

Yeah.

That must be it.

 

[MrRadish]

Correct, apathy is a form of hate. If you don't care if your neighbors are destroying themselves, that is a form of hate.

Apathy can be a form of hate, contingent on whether your absence of a reaction is deliberately based on the emotion of hatred.

If I saw a man walking blindfolded toward a cliff and decided not to stop him because I actively wanted him to die, that would presumably be motivated by hatred (though not necessarily).

If I saw a man walking toward a cliff blindfolded and failed to speak out because I thought the cliff was only 5 feet high, that would not be motivated by hatred. Indeed, even if I knew the cliff was higher but failed to stop the man because I assumed he knew what he was doing and didn't want to embarrass him, that too would be non-hateful. Imprudent, perhaps. Careless, probably. But not hateful.

If you don't react to a neighbour engaging in a particular activity because you don't believe it to be harmful, then it's clearly not a hateful act. In fact, it is not hateful unless your lack of action is deliberately undetaken to sabotage them, due to your own dislike of them.

Very few people who favour tolerating homosexuals view homosexuality as harmful, and I would venture to suggest that even among those that do, reluctance to actively discourage it isn't based in the intent to bring harm to people out of personal dislike.

 

[DocJohnson]

Apathy can be a form of hate, contingent on whether your absence of a reaction is based on a deliberate reaction to the emotion of hatred.

If I saw a man walking blindfolded toward a cliff and decided not to stop him because I actively wanted him to die, that would presumably be motivated by hatred (though not necessarily).

So, indifference (apathy) is now equal to hatred? The distortion of the English language has no boundaries.

 

[DocJohnson]

Consequences? Please. If homosexuals had not started calling themselves gays, modern teenagers likely would have taken to calling things "so homo."

What a travesty!

Bigotry begets bigotry, and I doubt that vicious circle helps anyone. It will never be eradicated (though it has dipped to remarkably low levels in parts of Europe), but that does not mean it should be encouraged.

Bigotry in and of itself is harmless. It's a thought that cannot be controlled or legislated or even measured since it's intangible like freedom of speech.

That is a stupid saying, properly reserved as a playground chant.

That "playground chant" you refer to instilled the value of having a spine... something your generation is apparently lacking.

If words cannot hurt, then logically they should not be able to help, either, correct?

On both ends of the spectrum, words are only effective if you personally allow them to be.

 

[DocJohnson]

>>> Who cares if it's considered bigotry? You'll never do away with that.<<<

Yes, but you people claim to be Christians.... Christianity was founded on the teachings of Jesus who was, by all accounts, the most tolerant and accepting person to ever live.
Do you not think that calling yourself a follower of this man that perhaps you should, in fact, FOLLOW HIS LEAD?
Do you not understand that calling yourselves Christians and then spewing hatred toward or about ANYONE just gives ALL Christians a bad name.
Gee.... sorta like the fundamentalist Muslims give all Muslims a bad name.
But then, you probably hate Muslims, too.... so I'm probably wasting my time even typing this.

Good grief... what has happened to this world? There used to be something called a spine that prevented people from getting offended by anything and everything.

Now all I see is spineless, gutless whimps who can't handle being looked at a certain way let alone (gasp!) being called a name!

Grow some skin, people.

Better yet, just grow up.

 

[Egbert]

My comment was directed at Logan.

Unless Logan is one of your multiple nicknames, flake off.

The nice thing about forum discussions is that they are visible to all, and any member can reply to any other, regardless of to whom the original comment was directed. When I want to comment on another's post, I have no qualms about it, even if in real-life conversation it would constitute an interruption. It's all in text, so it's no issue.

:bang:

You´re going to have a miserable time at TOL if you can´t figure out sarcasm.:chuckle:

In case it's any consolation, I did laugh out loud at your defense, because it would have made funny satire. But considering your affiliation and the setting, I figured you were being serious. (Look up Poe's Law before criticizing others' misinterpretation of sarcasm.)
And I'm having a fine time here, btw.

Still, you´re just a little too sensitive about this whole "gay" thing. :think:

Again, you don't even know how (in)sensitive I am, and "too sensitive" is only a subjective value (wherever you place it). Even I cannot know if I am "too sensitive" according to your standards, since your standards are yours, not mine.
That's all irrelevant, anyway, and I don't know what you hope to gain by bringing it up.

What a travesty!

I can't tell if you are being obtuse, or just evasive. My point was that the usage of a homosexual-related term as a mild insult/scoff was not related to the corruption of "gay," so it does not make sense to regard it as a "consequence."

Bigotry in and of itself is harmless. It's a thought that cannot be controlled or legislated or even measured since it's intangible like freedom of speech.

If you could separate bigotry from all the actions that it encourages, then sure, you could call it harmless (except perhaps to the individual who harbors it). That is not how people work, however. Thoughts translate to actions. Where people feel bigotry towards one another, there will be more conflict and less efficiency.

That "playground chant" you refer to instilled the value of having a spine...

Not so. "Having a spine" means having strong character, and channeling and controlling your emotions for good, not denying their existence.

On both ends of the spectrum, words are only effective if you personally allow them to be.

And how exactly would you disallow them?