Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Straight Guys Getting Married

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    The other thing about the use of 'homophobic' is that it's usually meant to somehow invalidate what the 'homophobe' has said - by the very use it (apparently) indicates that the arguments or position of the accused are wrong and can be disregarded.

    But clearly, logically speaking, this doesn't follow. Homophobia = "Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people” (Tassman's supplied definition). But not liking, or even hating, a person, or people doesn't mean that your arguments against their position are therefore logically wrong or invalid.

    Put another way, the accusation of "homophobia" is a resort to a childlike way of thinking : 'You don't like me, so you're wrong, and I'm not going to listen to you any more'. Simple rational disagreement is converted into 'You hate me and you're a bad person.'
    It does when, according to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States were motivated by a negative sexual orientation bias - Wiki. Hence, as previously said, “Homophobia” by definition implies irrational negative connotations which can result in discrimination and persecution in much the same way the ”N” word can.
    Last edited by Tassman; 09-20-2014, 12:30 AM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      So is the word "unicorn". But that doesn't mean that it describes anything in reality.
      The word “unicorn” nevertheless describes a particular concept which is real enough; just as “homophobia” describes very real “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality” - Dictionary.com

      I wouldn't go that far. I am simply amused at the fact that the left loves to drag out the APA in support of homosexual behavior being a "normal" expression of human sexuality,
      One normally turns to those who specialize in a given area for expert, professional advice regarding their field of expertise. This is the sensible approach. And the professional opinion of the APA, along with virtually every other equivalent body worldwide and virtually all the related Health Care disciplines, is that “homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality”. Any alternate opinion can only be regarded as bigotry or religion-based antipathy - neither of which is acceptable if they result in denying full civil rights for all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.

      yet they also love to use such a terribly misnamed term that the very same APA does not support as an actual clinical diagnosis. It's simply a slanderous and bigoted term used to stamp out the opposition.
      The term was in fact coined by a psychologist and while it’s not technically a clinical phobia, it’s not as “terribly misnamed” as you claim. It actually has several features of clinical phobias in that it can be described as a persistent, irrational fear and/or dislike of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding and which are typically disproportional to the actual danger posed.
      Last edited by Tassman; 09-20-2014, 05:45 AM.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        It does when, according to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States were motivated by a negative sexual orientation bias - Wiki. Hence, as previously said, “Homophobia” by definition implies irrational negative connotations which can result in discrimination and persecution in much the same way the ”N” word can.
        What's so irrational about limiting disease vectors?
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          It does when, according to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States were motivated by a negative sexual orientation bias - Wiki. Hence, as previously said, “Homophobia” by definition implies irrational negative connotations which can result in discrimination and persecution in much the same way the ”N” word can.
          You actually think that not liking someone, or even hating them, therefore makes your arguments against their position logically invalid??

          That explains a lot.

          Thanks for the textbook examples of logical fallacies, BTW. You've just about got the full set! Only a few more, I'm sure you can do it.
          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            What's so irrational about limiting disease vectors?
            Not irrational at all; essential in the case of Ebola for example. But to categorize homosexuality as a disease, which is presumably your point, is not supported by the people in a position to know – namely health care professionals worldwide. Any alternate viewpoint can only be considered bigotry or religion-based antipathy - neither of which is acceptable if they result in denying equal civil rights for all citizens.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              You actually think that not liking someone, or even hating them, therefore makes your arguments against their position logically invalid??
              If there’s no good reason for hating people then it’s irrational. And if such irrational hatred is acted upon (as per the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics in the previous link) then it becomes a criminal offence. It's as simple as that.

              That explains a lot.
              Yes, I think so.

              Thanks for the textbook examples of logical fallacies, BTW. You've just about got the full set! Only a few more, I'm sure you can do it.
              No logical fallacy and no effective argumentation from you.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • The beliefs of a so called "homophobe" about homosexuality may or may not be irrational. But somone allegedly being a "homophobe" doesn't invalidate their beliefs about anything in particular. Certainly not when their status as a "homophobe" is in dispute. It is like calling someone a "Christophobe" and preceding to claim that everything they say about Christianity, Christians, Christ or the Bible is wrong and invalid on that basis alone.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  If there’s no good reason for hating people then it’s irrational. And if such irrational hatred is acted upon (as per the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics in the previous link) then it becomes a criminal offence. It's as simple as that.
                  Irrelevant to the point being discussed.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View Post
                    The beliefs of a so called "homophobe" about homosexuality may or may not be irrational. But somone allegedly being a "homophobe" doesn't invalidate their beliefs about anything in particular. Certainly not when their status as a "homophobe" is in dispute. It is like calling someone a "Christophobe" and preceding to claim that everything they say about Christianity, Christians, Christ or the Bible is wrong and invalid on that basis alone.
                    Amen button.
                    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Not irrational at all; essential in the case of Ebola for example. But to categorize homosexuality as a disease, which is presumably your point,
                      Do you know what a disease vector is, idiot? I'm not talking about transmitting homosexuality (), I'm talking about transmitting other diseases via a combination of gay sex and massive gay promiscuity rates.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • Edited by a Moderator

                        Moderated By: QuantaFille

                        Post removed.

                        ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                        Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                        Last edited by QuantaFille; 10-07-2014, 03:58 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          Do you know what a disease vector is, idiot? I'm not talking about transmitting homosexuality (), I'm talking about transmitting other diseases via a combination of gay sex and massive gay promiscuity rates.
                          Don't rule out transmitting homosexuality itself just yet:

                          Originally posted by Jayman
                          The case for the gay germ is somewhat indirect, but very strong. Critics often level the charge that there is “no evidence” for Cochran’s hypothesis – i.e., that the offending pathogen has yet to be identified. But the claim that there is “no evidence” isn’t really true; there is in fact plenty of evidence. The facts are certainly consistent with a pathogenic explanation, even if we don’t have the pathogen itself nailed down. But, the most compelling evidence comes in the form of ruling out potential alternative explanations. This itself is a form of evidence. The Sherlock Holmes quote, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,” is an excellent guiding principle, and is certainly valid here. As I’ve said before, there is something to be said for explanations, that, while maybe not conclusively proven, have the virtue in that they lack meaningful competition. This perhaps one of the clearest examples.
                          I still learn toward the chimera hypothesis as the most likely and consistent explanation, but let's be fair to actual scientists and university professors here

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View Post
                            The beliefs of a so called "homophobe" about homosexuality may or may not be irrational. But somone allegedly being a "homophobe" doesn't invalidate their beliefs about anything in particular. Certainly not when their status as a "homophobe" is in dispute. It is like calling someone a "Christophobe" and preceding to claim that everything they say about Christianity, Christians, Christ or the Bible is wrong and invalid on that basis alone.
                            The key word in both instances is: “irrational”.

                            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                            Do you know what a disease vector is, idiot? I'm not talking about transmitting homosexuality (), I'm talking about transmitting other diseases via a combination of gay sex and massive gay promiscuity rates.
                            Your flippant comment: “What's so irrational about limiting disease vectors?” was your direct response to my citing of the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, whereby 19.3 % of hate crimes across the United States were motivated by a negative sexual orientation bias. So, in this context you were talking about eliminating homosexuals (seen by you as disease carriers) with apparent approval.

                            Do you stand by this?
                            Last edited by Tassman; 09-21-2014, 01:39 AM.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • I have a question. When do I get to marry my toaster?
                              "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                                I have a question. When do I get to marry my toaster?
                                Right around the time Al-Muqtab gets his child brides recognized.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 01:13 PM
                                17 responses
                                79 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by whag, Today, 10:42 AM
                                48 responses
                                202 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 08:45 AM
                                12 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 09:29 PM
                                11 responses
                                77 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 04:14 PM
                                39 responses
                                209 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post myth
                                by myth
                                 
                                Working...
                                X