Now you're just being evasive. You've yet to answer any criticism directed at your ludicrous statement. However, for the sake of precision, I'll fix it for you:
quote:Which is why I think speculations like "I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction" are oversimplified hogwash. People are people, regardless of religion, and they are all complex and all have their own reasons for what they do. No doubt there are a lot of Christians who oppose gay marriage out of hatred. (Westboro Baptist comes to mind) No doubt some of those people are also gay, and some of their hatred is derived from their own, intense self hatred. But I'm willing to accept that what a person says about their beliefs (i.e, "I believe homosexuality is wrong because my church tells me so") at face value unless something strongly indicates otherwise.
Fixed. Now do you care to defend your statement, good man?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to the 0.3%, well, that's basically a guesstimate. When I first saw the movie Troy and Brad Pitt stripped off his armor after the beach landing, his abs were killer and I thought, "Nice!"...but I didn't want to touch his penis, or have him touch mine.
I say you should apply some rigorous experimentation to this to get a more accurate statistic. It may be hard on your wife, but I'm sure she'll be accepting if you explain that it's all in the name of science. Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Since this is what we're going by-you saw a part of the male anatomy and thought it was nice. Anyway, I could think of something less compelling than 'I felt something when I saw a movie once' but it would take some thought. It is-for the purposes of accuracy and conversation, I don't mean this morally or anything-a worthless guess. It has so little substance with regards to your broader claim as to have no value.
That was simply a demonstration of the level of attraction which causes me to guesstimate at 0.3%, and not the only thing I based it on, nor what I based my "broader claims" on.
quote:You've called me a bully as well.
If so, I don't recall it, do you remember which thread it was in?
quote:In fact the rant came shortly after declaring your intent to be pacifistic towards me. Anyway, it's not like shoving. Words aren't pushes
My declared intent was to not speak to you, which I obviously went against. Words can be very much like pushes, in that pushes can be intended to start a fight or show dominance and intimidate and harsh words can have the exact same purpose/effect. I extremely doubt you are trying to make the point that written words are not the same as physical actions, as that point is beyond obvious, so I question what exactly is your point?
quote:So now he is, in your posts, not just a bully but a Batman villain. That is...well, it strikes me as very unreasonable, making that comparison, and more than a little silly. I mean, has he poisoned Hatrack's water supply with a laughing chemical? Has he staged a bird-themed robbery of Hatrack's zoo? Flipped a scarred coin to determine whether or not Hatrack posters live or die? It's also difficult to believe you when you say you don't care whether he believes it or not, when you by now frequently tell him all about it in detail after saying you've declared you're going to ignore him.
I think perhaps you should reread what I said, as I was comparing his last post to him saying he is batman and his aggression is vigilance against my faults which are causing harm, much like a comic book villain.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath : Now you're just being evasive. You've yet to answer any criticism directed at your ludicrous statement.
Um, no I wasn't being evasive at all. I say one thing is possible and you put a whole lot of words in my mouth, which sounds similar but are very a different message. As to answering criticism...how about: what I said isn't hogwash? That's should address all the "criticism" I've seen. Oh, here's another...it's not ludicrous either. In all seriousness, saying that A) A small (so small it would likely never be acted upon) level of attraction to members of the same gender is very common, B) People who believe that God says homosexuality is a sin, might feel that same common feeling and C) The presence of that feeling might be a factor in their discomfort with making same gender marriage commonly acceptable, seems very reasonable and not at all condemning or judgmental on my part.
quote:I say you should apply some rigorous experimentation to this to get a more accurate statistic. It may be hard on your wife, but I'm sure she'll be accepting if you explain that it's all in the name of science. [Smile]
I do hope this is a joke, but either way it is not very funny nor appropriate.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Um, no I wasn't being evasive at all. I say one thing is possible and you put a whole lot of words in my mouth, which sounds similar but are very a different message. As to answering criticism...how about: what I said isn't hogwash? That's should address all the "criticism" I've seen.
My criticism is that it's nonsensical to assume that the views held by a huge group of people (many of who differ greatly in those beliefs) are caused by a tension between their beliefs and their own homosexual desires. I don't even really think you'd be in the right to assume that about a single person, unless you had substantial evidence to indicate it.
quote:Oh, here's another...it's not ludicrous either. In all seriousness, saying that A) A small (so small it would likely never be acted upon) level of attraction to members of the same gender is very common, B) People who believe that God says homosexuality is a sin, might feel that same common feeling and C) The presence of that feeling might be a factor in their discomfort with making same gender marriage commonly acceptable, seems very reasonable and not at all condemning or judgmental on my part.
How common, exactly? Maybe 0.3% of all males? Oh wait, we've already used that statistic once in this thread.
Either these homosexual desires are strong enough to cause actual emotional turmoil - enough turmoil to drive a political movement, mind you! - or they're "small", and can consequentially be ignored, or even explained away, if noticed at all. You can't have it both ways, a slight discomfort doesn't motivate millions of people to actively try and disenfranchise their fellow man. Sincerely believing that it's the will of their God might. I realize that it's natural for you, as a human, to assume everyone else is like you, but just because you are bisexual and can *conceive* of a world where everyone is a hypocrite and is driven by their hidden sexuality, doesn't mean it's actually true. Or even plausible.
I know from reading this thread alone you would despise it if I were to use the same type of pseudo-psychology to examine your motives and totally ignore what you actually claim to be true about yourself. But you seem incapable of seeing just how arrogant and condescending (and untenable) your own argument is.
quote:I do hope this is a joke, but either way it is not very funny nor appropriate.
It's my way of lightly poking fun at your use of an exact percentage to describe feeling horny while watching a hot dude in a movie, as well as trying to lighten the mood. Yes, it's a joke.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where the communication seems to break down between us is that you seem to think I'm saying that this is the one and only true answer, and all I'm saying (in a direct answer to the question in the OP) is this -might- be a -contributing factor-.
You're military, so let me ask you, how much goofing around about being gay and wanting each other is there among men by your experience? Would you say it is rare, uncommon, common or very common?
Have you ever seen a particularly attractive male and been appreciative of their physicality?
quote:...but just because you are bisexual...
I believe this monicker is reserved for people who have sex with both men and women and is truly not applicable to me.
It doesn't make people into hypocrites to have a very small part of them be attracted to the same gender and be against gay marriage. By Christian standards homosexuality is a sin, and so is adultery. By your standards every Christian male that admired someone who he wasn't married to physically but never said or did anything about it but is pro marriage is a hypocrite.
You can disagree with me that it is common for people to be a tiny bit attracted to members of their own gender, you can disagree with me that that if present may make people feel even more uncomfortable with common homosexuality, but I tend to think this conversation has a lot more then simple disagreement, but that perhaps you feel I'm saying that there is something wrong with anyone who feels the way I'm suggesting as a possibility.
I don't see it that way. You can have someone who thinks that getting drunk is bad and should be banned and still struggles with wanting to drink a beer or two at a party and they are not evil hypocrites.
Oh, and here is a hint, including people's wives in jokes about how they are gay doesn't actually lighten the mood.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You're military, so let me ask you, how much goofing around about being gay and wanting each other is there among men by your experience? Would you say it is rare, uncommon, common or very common?
Just about every day, I walk past a Recon Marine (always topless, for some god forsaken reason) who winks and smiles at me and says "come on baby, you know you want it! You gonna come back to my place tonight?" or something to that effect.
The Marine Corps is well noted for it's homoerotic humor, this comic expresses the irony rather succinctly.
quote:Have you ever seen a particularly attractive male and been appreciative of their physicality?
Aesthetically, yes. Sexually, no.
quote:I believe this monicker is reserved for people who have sex with both men and women and is truly not applicable to me.
According to whom? I've always seen it used to refer to attraction, and I believe it's the appropriate word. Dictionary.com and Wikipedia back me on that.
quote:It doesn't make people into hypocrites to have a very small part of them be attracted to the same gender and be against gay marriage. By Christian standards homosexuality is a sin, and so is adultery. By your standards every Christian male that admired someone who he wasn't married to physically but never said or did anything about it but is pro marriage is a hypocrite.
You can disagree with me that it is common for people to be a tiny bit attracted to members of their own gender, you can disagree with me that that if present may make people feel even more uncomfortable with common homosexuality, but I tend to think this conversation has a lot more then simple disagreement, but that perhaps you feel I'm saying that there is something wrong with anyone who feels the way I'm suggesting as a possibility.
I don't see it that way. You can have someone who thinks that getting drunk is bad and should be banned and still struggles with wanting to drink a beer or two at a party and they are not evil hypocrites.
You're getting all twisted up here. I'm not sure if you're switching your positions intentionally, or if you really don't notice it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
You claimed that the struggle with homosexual feelings was the *reason* (or part of it) that these Christians are advocating anti gay legislation. Now you're claiming they're only incidental. Which is it?
quote:Oh, and here is a hint, including people's wives in jokes about how they are gay doesn't actually lighten the mood.
You have my humble apologies.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
**Note the link to the comic has graphic language.**
Aesthetically vs sexual attraction is an interesting delineation. Please define parameters.
I'm still claiming it it is a possible reason, notice not "the reason". People are, as you pointed out, complicated and multifaceted. I do not think that such complex creatures as us do things for only one reason most of the time.
I don't understand exactly what position you are claiming I unintentionally (thanks for the benefit of the doubt ) changing from...considering I disagreed about your interpretation of my initial opinion.
While the dictionary may define "bisexual" as simply attracted to either gender, I don't think that the common usage is that literal and I definitely do not count myself as bisexual.
quote:You have my humble apologies.
Thank you kindly Sir. Your attempt to lighten the mood have worked and I officially declare the mood to be at least two shades lighter.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a difference between people who, when pressed, feel (rightly or wrongly) obliged to follow religious teaching and those who make being anti-gay a personal crusade. In the latter case, the behaviour is so irrantional and so passionate that we search for reasons. When it isn't obvious pandering for political gain, of course. Also, fear of the "other" is easy to fan into a flame.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aesthetically vs sexual attraction is an interesting delineation. Please define parameters.
Really?
quote:considering I disagreed about your interpretation of my initial opinion.
Yeah, that's the thing. There's no possible interpretation of your initial post (other than opposite day, perhaps) that matches what you are claiming now. Either the homosexual desires are part of the reason for their actions, as you originally claimed, and therefore they're hypocrites because they claim one reason (religion) when really having another (shame), or those desires (present or not) are not a contributing factor - which you seem to be claiming in that last post. In that case, it completely nullifies your original statement. Now apparently you want to have it both ways - you want to believe most Americans are secretly gay and ashamed of it, but also think it's not hypocritical for them to claim otherwise. A more cynical man would assume dishonesty on your part.
Let's note, of course, there *are* some Christians who are supporting anti gay legislation, like Richard Cohen, who themselves are or were gay, and are so deeply disgusted with themselves that they oppose social acceptance of homosexuality. Richard Cohen is quite honest about this, talking about how wretched he felt when he was with men, and how pure and clean he felt with his wife. Of course, it didn't stop him from cheating on her multiple times with other men.
The second part was to steven, going on about these craaazy ignorant fundamentalists, and being quite holier-than-thou about it.
I'm not at all being holier-than-thou. I fully admit my rudeness. A certain degree of rudeness is necessary when valuing fact/truth over belief.
As for what I believe...I think it's funny that you think you know me at all. I intentionally misrepresent myself as a person, here. I do speak the direct and total truth about health and diet issues, as per my experience. Everything else is carefully painted so as to mislead people like you. It's not that I lie about the other stuff...I just present only the truths that I choose.
And by the way, there's nothing remotely odd about believing that a Paleolithic-style diet is a good reference point when trying to eat healthy. I admit to being quite a fanatic about trying to find the perfect diet, and about finding safe, reliable methods for improving health and longevity. I'm pretty evidence-based in that search, though. If you don't believe that, you don't understand the reasons for my switching from raw veganism to a raw Paleo-style diet. I switched because, you know, there's good evidence that veganism is not as ideal for humans as omnivory.
I'm not about to be drawn into another discussion about diet here, though. I'd rather preach to the choir at the raw websites that I moderate. My ideas get waaaaay more traction with those folks. Shocking, that.
But, back to my original point.
I asked a VERY good question. Here is is again, paraphrased:
How many prominent anti-gay ministers/activists/politicians will have to accidentally fall out of the closet before Scott, or any other person on that side of the argument, hushes out of shame?
Yes, I admit that's a rude question. A certain amount of rudeness is necessary, when valuing truth/fact over belief.
It might also be rude to show 15-year-olds in Driver's Ed grisly footage like "Red Asphalt"...but it also might be useful.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read someone arguing against ssm on the argument that without societal pressure very few people would have heterosexual marriages. I'll admit, reading that I thought, closeted gay man. It is hard to believe that someone without homosexual desires would believe that for the vast majority of individuals, it is just society that keeps them in a straight relationship. If Stone wolf has read a lot of statements like that, I can see why he thinks closeted homosexuality is part of the motivator in the movement. I am not saying he is right, I just can see how selective reading of anti-ssm propaganda could lead to that belief.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I read someone arguing against ssm on the argument that without societal pressure very few people would have heterosexual marriages. I'll admit, reading that I thought, closeted gay man.
perhaps he was saying that you have to keep social pressure to marry, not to keep people straight, but to keep people marrying as opposed to just having heterosexual relations outside of marriage, and marrying more and more seldomly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aesthetically vs sexual attraction is an interesting delineation. Please define parameters.
Really?
Really really.
Dude, really...one can have a feeling of attraction, and not be "gay". If one also has a strong and convicted belief that the the act of homosexual sex is a sin, then it does not make them hypocrites to want gay marriage illegal. It makes them pro theocracy and therefore in my opinion at least, silly in the head, cause you know, those work out so well.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Really really.
All right. Aesthetic admiration implies one admires something for it's beauty. I might find a deer or a house aesthetically pleasing. Sexual attraction implies sexual desire. i.e, it makes you randy, gives you wood, starts a series of processes in your body to prepare you for intercourse. I find it difficult to believe you really don't understand the difference.
quote:Dude, really...one can have a feeling of attraction, and not be "gay".
Again, you seem to use a series of definitions foreign to the English language. If you are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, you are, by definition, homosexual. Colloquially, when coupled with an attraction to the opposite sex, it's often called being bisexual. This is getting pretty ridiculous.
quote:If one also has a strong and convicted belief that the the act of homosexual sex is a sin, then it does not make them hypocrites to want gay marriage illegal. It makes them pro theocracy and therefore in my opinion at least, silly in the head, cause you know, those work out so well.
So you agree that their sexuality has nothing to do with their decision to oppose ssm then? You seem to be purposely obfuscating your own opinion every time you're pressed to answer this.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you are saying that since I did -not- pitch a tent or want to engage in hot man on man love when looking Mr. Pitt's abs, I was only aesthetically attracted to him?
Okay...maybe this will help you then. A contributing factor which might cause Christians to want to ban same gender marriages is that if they find the same gender aesthetically pleasing that it worries them that they might be lead down the path of sin.
Does that statement seem like a plausible possibility?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, you are saying that since I did -not- pitch a tent or want to engage in hot man on man love when looking Mr. Pitt's abs, I was only aesthetically attracted to him?
That's for you to decide, though seeing as you used it as an example to show how you're partially gay, I assume it was a sexual desire. You're a married man, despite your feigned ignorance I'm sure you understand what constitutes sexual attraction.
quote:Okay...maybe this will help you then. A contributing factor which might cause Christians to want to ban same gender marriages is that if they find the same gender aesthetically pleasing that it worries them that they might be lead down the path of sin.
Does that statement seem like a plausible possibility?
That makes as much sense as a group of people tearing down old estates to throw up drab cookie cutter houses because they find beautiful old mansions appealing. Or, to quote C.S. Lewis, "stop talking damn nonsense."
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been informative, though in an unexpected way. The next time I wish to comment on motives that I feel follow obviously from your expressed thoughts, Stone_Wolf, I'll throw in a little qualifier, 'Just a guess' or 'might be', and that will-by the standards you're using-be both unobjectionable and reasonable.
Perhaps that'll be a way to avoid your not uncommon 'I'm not going to talk about this with you' response (if I'm understanding your last post about 'stop talking' correctly), but it might not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if you mean this as simply info, or as a point of some hypocrisy on my part. If the former...yes indeed, that will work for me.
I don't personally find speculation to be rude, as long as you make it clear that it is only that...speculation. What I mind is when people assign me (or anyone else for that matter) an arbitrary (especially negative) motivation.
When it comes to DB, I'm in no way saying I won't talk to him, just that this particular topic is played out, and we disagree so thoroughly, and on so many levels that further discussion seems pointless.
I don't have any problem with DB. This is a particularly sensitive subject and when one speculates on a particularly sensitive subject, sometimes people's dander will go up a bit. Par for the course.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the best things about the internet is that it allows you to go back and read things you've written in the past. I've been posting quite actively on forums and usenet for the past 10 years now, and it's amazing to see just how much I've changed. Just recently, I went back to read some posts by my old arch-nemesis and was rather shocked to see how I've changed in rhetoric and writing style in just the past 2 years.
I think humility and introspection are very painful things to learn, but in the end they're what allow us to mature. More times than I would like to remember I've made stupid or poorly thought out comments online. Heck, if you want to search my posting history, I've made a few really dumb posts here on Hatrack. I can't say I enjoyed having my arguments torn to pieces, but it's helped me see and excise the weaknesses from my writing and grow as a person. I hope this is true for most of the posters here.
I think that, at some point in Stone Wolf's life, he decided that that sort of growth was too painful to bear. When he makes illogical or poorly thought out posts, and is vociferously opposed and clearly shown the flaws in his argument, he never stops to consider "maybe there is something wrong me. Maybe I need to accept their advice and be more careful about how I word my statements. Maybe, if I do make a ridiculous statement, I should retract it and apologize, find out what I said that is wrong or illogical, and come back with a revised argument."
No, everyone who persistently opposes him is a bully. For some reason, they're all out to get him. It makes him a victim, and therefore exonerates him of any wrong doing. Because presumptuous arrogance and rudeness, which he so despises in Orincoro, are perfectly acceptable for him when he's sticking it to the man.
Which is disappointing, because in 9 years of moderating a forum, I've seen this attitude many many times (though usually from 12-14 year old young men), and it always plays out the same. I've tried to be polite, though direct and to the point, in this argument out of hopes I could lead him to see where he went wrong. Instead, I was rebuffed with evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. Which is sad, he'd rather lose my respect and tarnish his own integrity than admit error.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath, I don't agree with your conclusions, and I am willing to take some time to point out each and every time I do disagree and why. But I do wonder why you would draw such sweeping and negative conclusions of my character based on very little interaction. If your respect is that easy to loose then I doubt many hold it for long.
quote:When he makes illogical or poorly thought out posts, and is vociferously opposed and clearly shown the flaws in his argument, he never stops to consider "maybe there is something wrong me.
I admit to not always having a full and complete understanding of topics I comment on, but that is part of what I come here for, to get perspective on my ideas and see if they hold up in a community I respect. There have been several large issues that I completely changed my mind and my approach about after discussions here, which include but are not limited to: Women have worse situational awareness then men, 911 was a conspiracy, all violent crime should be punished by death, that rape is solely determined by the intent of perpetrator and that literally everyone should carry pepper spray.
quote:Maybe I need to accept their advice and be more careful about how I word my statements. Maybe, if I do make a ridiculous statement, I should retract it and apologize, find out what I said that is wrong or illogical, and come back with a revised argument.
I literally did that in this thread when Scott said my initial post was detrimental to civil discussion.
quote:No, everyone who persistently opposes him is a bully. For some reason, they're all out to get him. It makes him a victim, and therefore exonerates him of any wrong doing. Because presumptuous arrogance and rudeness, which he so despises in Orincoro, are perfectly acceptable for him when he's sticking it to the man.
I have called exactly one person a bully. How you can then make that into everyone I find astonishing. I do not assume that everyone is out to get me, I mostly attempt to assume that people are honest and forthright about believing what they say they do and try and give the benefit of the doubt. When it comes to Orincoro, he has made special effort to be aggressive and rude to me, even going so far as to make a thread solely for the purpose of mocking me, and then let me know he was enjoying it and glad I knew it. The benefit of the doubt only goes so far. It went pretty far with you. I was polite and thanked you when you did give me the benefit of the doubt, and didn't mention it all when you did not, and in no way shape or form declared you a villain or refused to speak to you in the future. I did let you know when my toes felt stepped on, but not in an angry way, and thanked you when you apologized and tried to keep things light as you said was your goal. Even with Orincoro I have attempted to be polite.
quote:I think that, at some point in Stone Wolf's life, he decided that that sort of growth was too painful to bear.
quote:I've tried to be polite, though direct and to the point, in this argument out of hopes I could lead him to see where he went wrong. Instead, I was rebuffed with evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. Which is sad, he'd rather lose my respect and tarnish his own integrity than admit error.
Here you are preaching about how I have decided in my life (not just internet discussion boards mind you) to stop growing as it is too painful, and how it is so wrong of me to be a presumptions, arrogant and rude, but it is you who are offering unasked for advice and then assuming that instead of the possibility that you don't understand my point, that I am evasive and dishonest. Take your own advise here. Look at what my message is.
Was the question of aesthetic or sexual attraction really an evasion, or actually a real point of interest to my overall point? In my original post I say I find the abs attractive, but not so that I would want to have sex with a man. Does that not exactly fit your definition of aesthetic enjoyment? Is it not pertinent?
And saying that this one factor may be a contributing factor makes me intellectually dishonest because I won't admit that "religious people hate gays because they gay themselves". Or that they are hypocrites. Or that this is "the reason" for "all religious people" to believe this. All these things are words you put in my mouth, and I'd like to note, in a very confrontational and rude way. ("So either stand behind your statement, or admit it was incorrect." "Now you're just being evasive. You've yet to answer any criticism directed at your ludicrous statement." "How common, exactly? Maybe 0.3% of all males? Oh wait, we've already used that statistic once in this thread." "This is getting pretty ridiculous." "Or, to quote C.S. Lewis, "stop talking damn nonsense." ) None of which I took umbrage at, or tried to claim victim status for, or called you a bully for.
Please turn that analytical eye of yours inward, as your last post was largely hypocritical.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, you are saying that since I did -not- pitch a tent or want to engage in hot man on man love when looking Mr. Pitt's abs, I was only aesthetically attracted to him?
Dude, read. He's saying aesthetically admiring of, not attracted to. The problem is you're not keying on the different meanings of attraction and admiration.
You can aesthetically admire that which does not sexually attract you. Aesthetic attraction is also possible, and is not sexual. One wouldn't typically apply that type of feeling to a human form- more to an object of craft. I am aesthetically attracted to cherrywood, and I admire certain human forms in an aesthetic sense. It's not so complicated.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yep, I said it. I'm the one. Like a comedian making a Marv Albert reference in 1998. Didn't feel like being actually witty. Went for the easy joke. Don't like it? I left my caring in my straight-leg pants. *slaps knee* C'mon now, at one was a double pun. You didn't think of it.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Dude, read. He's saying aesthetically admiring of, not attracted to. The problem is you're not keying on the different meanings of attraction and admiration.
You can aesthetically admire that which does not sexually attract you. Aesthetic attraction is also possible, and is not sexual. One wouldn't typically apply that type of feeling to a human form- more to an object of craft. I am aesthetically attracted to cherrywood, and I admire certain human forms in an aesthetic sense. It's not so complicated.
Dude, don't make me flex. I'll do it. You'll aesthetic all over the place.
(BTW, i was trying hard [no pun] not to read this thread, but I accidentally read your post. If I'm reading it correctly, i agree. Not sure the context, but I agree. It is clearly possibly to admire someone's attributes without being attracted to them. Now, if you're admiring their assets, you're just all kinds of gay and junk.)
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dogbreath, I don't agree with your conclusions, and I am willing to take some time to point out each and every time I do disagree and why. But I do wonder why you would draw such sweeping and negative conclusions of my character based on very little interaction.
I'll admit it's a little unfair that I know you far, far better than you know me. The demanding nature of my career means I often go weeks or months without being able to post on Hatrack, so I've never been able to stick around for a long enough period to establish myself. I have, however, been reading this forum for 8 years now, and have read the majority of your posts. I'd wager for every post you make that someone replies to, there are at least 5 or 6 who read it and don't reply.
quote:If your respect is that easy to loose then I doubt many hold it for long.
Actually, so far you're the only person who has managed to provoke such a reaction from me. There are other people on this forum who annoy me (I tease Blayne sometimes because he seems to try and absorb every fan boy stereotype in existence and make it part of his personality), but your apparent inability to accept basic logic or formulate sound arguments disturbs me, not because it implies ignorance, but because, thanks to your otherwise formidable intellect, implies that you *know* what's wrong with what you're saying and yet think it's all right to do it anyway, that you should be able to get away with it.
quote:When it comes to Orincoro, he has made special effort to be aggressive and rude to me
Because Orincoro is otherwise well known for his gentle demeanor and kindness and spontaneous hugs, right?
quote:Here you are preaching about how I have decided in my life
TBH, it was mostly just to get a reaction from you. I'm sorry if I got a little carried away, I have a habit of doing that for dramatic effect.
quote:All these things are words you put in my mouth, and I'd like to note, in a very confrontational and rude way. ("So either stand behind your statement, or admit it was incorrect." "Now you're just being evasive. You've yet to answer any criticism directed at your ludicrous statement." "How common, exactly? Maybe 0.3% of all males? Oh wait, we've already used that statistic once in this thread." "This is getting pretty ridiculous." "Or, to quote C.S. Lewis, "stop talking damn nonsense." )
Except for one of those, they're all rather stylized versions of "cut the crap." I try hard to make my posts as short and to the point as possible; because I view every unnecessary word as distracting baggage, and because you have a penchant for seizing upon every slightly tangential statement I make in a desperate attempt to turn the conversation away from it's inevitable conclusion. I realize you may misconstrue this brevity as rudeness, feel free to mentally add whatever honorifics and polite disclaimers are necessary to alleviate this.
The "How common, exactly?" comment, on the other hand, is well deserved ridicule for blatantly making things up and trying to pass them off as fact. It was very, very mild. I have been part of some boards that would eat you alive for posting such rubbish.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many prominent anti-gay ministers/activists/politicians will have to accidentally fall out of the closet before Scott, or any other person on that side of the argument, hushes out of shame?
I'm not sure how this follows with anything that's being discussed. What exactly am I supposed to be ashamed of?
I haven't been leading a dual life, for example.
In this discussion, I've limited my comments to criticizing the practice of posting guesses at others' motives.
Thank you for elaborating yours, steven. I appreciate your...er...candor?
quote:I think it's funny that you think you know me at all. I intentionally misrepresent myself as a person, here. I do speak the direct and total truth about health and diet issues, as per my experience. Everything else is carefully painted so as to mislead people like you. It's not that I lie about the other stuff...I just present only the truths that I choose.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ...but your apparent inability to accept basic logic or formulate sound arguments disturbs me, not because it implies ignorance, but because, thanks to your otherwise formidable intellect, implies that you *know* what's wrong with what you're saying and yet think it's all right to do it anyway, that you should be able to get away with it.
I honestly don't know what to say to this. The first part is so cringe worthy...and yet the second so backhandedly complimentary, like saying, "You are such an idiot, but so smart it can't be unintentional." I don't agree with either part really. What I am is stubborn and prickly and not a fan of being told I'm wrong. But who is? I'm convincable. What you did in this thread was shout about how wrong I am and demand surrender, and very very little convincing with logical or any kind of argument. Maybe it says something about me that my default opinion is that I'm right, but one can hardly go around assuming they are wrong all the time.
quote:Because Orincoro is otherwise well known for his gentle demeanor and kindness and spontaneous hugs, right?
You miss the point. It isn't that Orin is such a teddy bear to everyone else, it's that my claims of his assbagery are accurate and I'm not just a giant throbbing victim begging for an excuse to steal the high ground because my arguments are so weak I need any excuse to break off communications as you accused me of.
quote:TBH, it was mostly just to get a reaction from you. I'm sorry if I got a little carried away, I have a habit of doing that for dramatic effect.
Well thanks for that (no sarcasm). Despite your "dramatic effect" I do put a lot of effort into being open minded and willing to listen to other view points then my own and change and grow. There is nothing bad about being wrong if you can learn from it.
quote:I realize you may misconstrue this brevity as rudeness, feel free to mentally add whatever honorifics and polite disclaimers are necessary to alleviate this.
I didn't complain about the "brevity" of your comments at the time as I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and not take it personally. In all honesty this topic is one that is very close to people's hearts and can cause thermostats to rise, so if one is going to wade into this topic, one should allow for some heat without being burned.
Although I would point out that as you are the one who claimed I was rude, and this is a sensitive topic that you might try to speak with a little less brevity and not rely on people's imagination to make your posts polite.
Scott and I have gone several rounds on the other side thread "OSC and the criminalization of homosexuals" and while we almost never agree we are almost always polite and respectful of each other, and because of this I will usually go out of my way to ensure that though our conversations rarely end in agreement, they always end with out hurt feelings.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott and I have gone several rounds on the other side thread "OSC and the criminalization of homosexuals" and while we almost never agree we are almost always polite and respectful of each other, and because of this I will usually go out of my way to ensure that though our conversations rarely end in agreement, they always end with out hurt feelings.
I had to go look up what you were talking about. I don't think that discussion qualifies as "going a few rounds."
Keep in mind that I am not Scooter. (Not on this forum, anyway)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I had to go look up what you were talking about. I don't think that discussion qualifies as "going a few rounds."
Keep in mind that I am not Scooter. (Not on this forum, anyway)
*shrug* I remember we discussed things that we disagreed about quite a bit but where always friendly about it...perhaps my memory of it is wrong. And I was only referring to you, I don't actually remember a "Scooter".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not an unreasonable stance, I just meant that our interactions, unlike Dog's and my own, were peaceable while disagreeing and that is admirable.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think divorce is worse than homosexuality. But divorce to be homosexual is worser.
My favorite reply so far. If decorum wasn't a factor, I could make it even more hilarious by editing two words. But alas, you'll simply have to speculate.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: My criticism is that it's nonsensical to assume that the views held by a huge group of people (many of who differ greatly in those beliefs) are caused by a tension between their beliefs and their own homosexual desires. I don't even really think you'd be in the right to assume that about a single person, unless you had substantial evidence to indicate it.
Again, I would differentiate between casual, armchair anti-gay people and those who seem to want to make it their life's work.
Also, I find that conservatives often will complain about people being rude to them regarding their beliefs on homosexuality. I would point out that denying a consenting adult the same rights that you have is (in addition to being wrongheaded and cruel and unjust) rude.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What you did in this thread was shout about how wrong I am and demand surrender, and very very little convincing with logical or any kind of argument.
I did provide logical argument... every time I showed you why your position was incorrect, however, you changed it, claiming I was simply misinterpreting your original post.
This may, in fact, be true. I may not understand what you're actually trying to say, but so far your argument has been entirely negative: "no, that's not what I meant!" without much extrapolation on what you *do* mean. You have to understand, this sort of strategy - constantly going off on semantics and seemingly changing your position - is generally used by liars and politicians. Anyone who is used to regular informal debate recognizes this and it's very easy to assume that *you* are being dishonest, because we conflate that sort of argument with dishonest people.
I know that I'm not the first person on this forum to mention this to you, and your last few posts have made me realize you may in fact have perfectly honest intentions. If that's the case, I sincerely apologize for being rude, but I'd also suggest looking at the way you post and seeing that some of the things you say may inspire a strong reaction.
Now, to the argument. I'll compile my position into one post to make it easier to understand:
quote:I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction.
This statement implies two things:
A) that "religious people" (conservative Christians in this context, we can add Muslims to this as well if you want) for the most part, have a part of themselves "which understands, empathizes, and shares the attraction." I assume that "attraction" to be, due to the context, an attraction to one's own sex. I also assume that attraction to be sexual in nature, since it's "shared" with gays. Or, in other words, that these religious people have a part of themselves that is gay. If this is not the case (i.e, the religious people, in fact, share an attraction for designer clothes) I'll accept it, so long as you define clearly (and using standard English words, not your own interpretation of them) what you *do* mean by this.
Implication A could definitely be true. I've seen plenty of studies that say "most people are bisexual" or "sexuality is a sliding scale." I've never felt any homosexual desires myself, but maybe I'm an anomaly. In itself, this is a perfectly reasonable argument.
B) That "part of the problem that religious people have with the gays" is that "they can not accept that part of themselves" that is gay. This is making three *huge* assumptions: 1) that these religious people actually aware of their partial gayness 2) that their inability to accept their partial gayness is a non-negligible part of their decision to oppose ssm and cultural acceptance of homosexuality 3)that that are being dishonest about their motives, because the vast majority of Christians *will* tell you their exact motivation, and that motivation is their belief in a religion that condemns homosexuality as a sin.
Implication B is what I called hogwash. Here's why: to prove the first two assumptions, you'd have to gather evidence. i.e, do a poll asking Christians if the are partially gay, and if that is the reason for their opposition to ssm and homosexuality. However, because the first two assumptions apparently contradict reality, the only way for them to be true is assumption three. But the existence of assumption three makes assumption one and two impossible to prove! It's a self defeating argument, and therefore nonsensical.
So you need to either retract the argument, or adjust the parameters to make it logical.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, because the first two assumptions apparently contradict reality, the only way for them to be true is assumption three. But the existence of assumption three makes assumption one and two impossible to prove!
I wouldn't say that. There are a number of established ways to test people for beliefs and preferences that they would deny having.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many prominent anti-gay ministers/activists/politicians will have to accidentally fall out of the closet before Scott, or any other person on that side of the argument, hushes out of shame?
I'm not sure how this follows with anything that's being discussed. What exactly am I supposed to be ashamed of?
Scott, all the most vocal and public anti-gay activists are being forced out of the closed by their own out-of-control desires. At some point, it becomes too embarrassing to continue to associate yourself with such a movement. It's becoming more and more true that the only people who have real problems with gay folks are, themselves, gay.
The fact of the matter is, there's two groups of men that are REALLY likely to be gay...swishy men, and anti-gay activists. Find a swishy anti-gay activist, and you can bet your next paycheck he's craving some man love.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: (and using standard English words, not your own interpretation of them)
Pull over, word police.
Don't go down this road. You don't know where it leads. Not everybody agrees on the meanings of words, and everybody has a right to define his own terms in a discussion, though he doesn't have a right to arbitrarily define the terms of others, and he doesn't have a right to intentionally mislead in defining terms, but instead has a right to define them in such a way as to make himself better understood.
Better accept that, or you won't get anywhere.
And when I say: "Define his own terms," I do not mean, as someone here once claimed I meant: "invent new words or definitions." I mean to clarify and make precise for the purposes of expressing a particular point, the meaning of a particular word as it is meant by the speaker in the context of one's own argument. That is perfectly acceptable in debate.
You see? I just "defined my terms" and now you will understand them better.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wouldn't say that. There are a number of established ways to test people for beliefs and preferences that they would deny having.
On an individual basis, yes. Nationwide, though? It'd be practically impossible for individualized tests, and I don't know how much you can really draw from polls. I don't know how accurate any data derived that way would be.
Orincoro: Thanks! I was wrong to make such a general statement - it'll probably come back to bite me in the ass soon. I should have said "if you're going to be using an interpretation not common to most English speakers, clarify what you mean by it from the get go, don't change your definitions every time the one you were using becomes inconvenient."
I generally have no problem with people using strange or unusual definitions of a word. When "well I don't interpret it that way" is used to avoid answering criticism, but no concrete interpretation is actually established, it starts to annoy me.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Confirmation bias, maybe? It does seem like a lot of the most vitriolic, active opponents wind up being gay.
quote:Again, I would differentiate between casual, armchair anti-gay people and those who seem to want to make it their life's work.
I think that is a big difference. Typically you can tell a lot about a person's ambitions from their career choices (assuming they had a choice of careers, that is). If someone is incredibly passionate about their religion, perhaps they'd become a minister or a missionary or nun or monk or church accountant, depending on their talents and what secondary passions they have. So it stands to reason if you'd make a career out of preaching against homosexuality, it's possible you'd have some attribute that made you care much more about homosexuality than the average Christian. Whether that attribute is repressed homosexual feelings, or anger at a childhood experience, or maybe just a "moment of enlightenment" where you realized the horrible menace the "eviiiiil homosexuals" are to our society, or all three combined, is another question.
quote:Also, I find that conservatives often will complain about people being rude to them regarding their beliefs on homosexuality. I would point out that denying a consenting adult the same rights that you have is (in addition to being wrongheaded and cruel and unjust) rude.
Completely agree with this. I've been pretty vocally active against the DADT policy since I enlisted in the military, and despise the injustice that has been done to gays and lesbians in our society.
Since I can already imagine someone questioning *my* motivations for feeling so strongly about the subject: one of my best friends committed suicide in high school. He was constantly picked on for being gay (as well as being fat and kind of awkward), and after he came out to his parents, his father disowned him. I have so many memories of all the times he was being harassed and I could have stood up for him, but instead just kept quiet and acted kind of embarrassed to be his friend. I don't think I'll ever live down the shame I feel now.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I suppose that part of my motivation for supporting gay rights is that I have always had gay friends. I am involved in music and theatre and, in high school and college, was the girl that my gay friends usually came out to first. I tended to be a substitute "mom" for those whose own parents couldn't face their children's homosexuality. It breaks my heart because it just shouldn't be that hard for them.
But I think what really makes be passionate about gay rights is my religion. I have always been quite religious and I am deeply offended by the notion of a god that would be so cruel and unjust as to want us to deny gay people the same opportunity for love and happiness that straight people have.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Now do you care to defend your statement, good man?
