To: GreenDice. Re: Lexy's Big Fat Gay Brain [EDIT!]

Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Jul 19 2001, 2:23 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 5:15 pm Lord of Water wrote:
My problem with what she said is that I detest homosexuality. I consider it vile and discusting, and homosexuals go into my book as morally lower than others.

I beleive in a no-homo world.

You can say NO to homosexuality.

I personally don't like homosexuality either. It's something I put in the "icky" bucket. But there are a lot of things in my "icky" bucket. Peas, for example. People eating peas creep me out much worse than the thought of homosexuality ever could. Yet I don't believe in persecuting people who eat peas, nor do I believe in persecuting homosexuals. My problem with what you said is that I detest bigotry. I consider it vile and disgusting, and bigots go into my book as morally lower than others.

I believe in a no-bigot world.

You can say NO to bigotry.
Jul 19 2001, 2:30 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 5:15 pm Lord of Water wrote:
My problem with what she said is that I detest homosexuality. I consider it vile and disgusting, and homosexuals go into my book as morally lower than others.

I beleive in a no-homo world.

You can say NO to homosexuality.

No one was asking you to practice homosexual acts.

I detest decapitating turkeys after a horrible experience on Thanksgiving a few years ago. I removed the turkey's head cleanly, and the body actually jumped up and ran away. Took twenty minutes to track it down in the nearby forest. By the time we finished plucking it and pulling the juicy, squishy bits from inside it, I didn't feel much like eating turkey.

Pretty vile and disgusting stuff all around, in my opinion.

I don't go around telling other people not to decapitate turkeys. I imagine you've eaten turkey. I don't renounce you or tell you how morally inferior you are.

<font size=1>I've gotten over my turkey aversion since then. It's actually one of my favorite foods now.</font>
Jul 19 2001, 2:33 pm
In response to Deadron
On 7/19/01 4:07 pm Deadron wrote:
On 7/19/01 3:58 pm Ebonshadow wrote:
On 7/19/01 2:56 pm Spuzzum wrote:
Hopefully you don't say it elsewhere either.

I dont hang out with any gay people(at least not that I know of), so I say it quite freely when im hanging around with my friends.

First off you are probably wrong about that.
I didn't mean it the way it sounded, Deadron. I didn't say, I would never hang out with any gay people, its just that most of the type people I hang out with aren't gay, you can tell by the way they talk(maybe they are Bi, but judging by the things they say about women, their not gay). I do know some people at my school are gay, and I dont talk like that around them because I do not want to offend them. Most gay people are openly gay, so you know basically whos gay and who isn't.


Second off, using racial or otherwise inspired epithets when people of that race/group are not around does not change its meaning.

"I say nigger to my friends because they know it doesn't mean nigger" does not fly well. And in this case, it means that any of your friends who are gay certainly aren't going to tell you about it.

The point is, the phrase has an entirely different meaning, and most people my age have heard it b4 so they know that its not ment as an offensive action towards gays. If somebody came up to me and said, "Waazzzaap my nigga?", I certainly would not be offended. Nigga has two different meanings as well. However, I can see what you mean, because I know if I said that to certain african americans, they would kick my ass.

It is impossible to judge an entire group of people, so I dont. Saying, "Thats gay" is simply a bad habit. It could offend somebody who is gay because its generally said refering to something bad.(I dont see how this is any different then LexyBitch saying all good things are lesbians but thats besides the point). I try to refrain from saying the phrase, but I can honestly say that most the people I hang out with, Im 100% sure their not gay because they have girl friends, the things they say, and the things(or people) they do. I dont just assume they are not gay.

Last time I said, "Thats gay", and you responded, I apologized. Since then, Ive made sure not to say it unless I know the people who hear it are not going to be offended.
Jul 19 2001, 2:34 pm
In response to Leftley
On 7/19/01 5:23 pm Leftley wrote:
Peas, for example. People eating peas creep me out much worse than the thought of homosexuality ever could.

Heh, disturbing how we both turn a discussion on homosexuality into one about food. I must say, I prefer peas to the Headless Turkey of Sleepy Hollow any day ;)
Jul 19 2001, 2:42 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 5:15 pm Lord of Water wrote:
My problem with what she said is that I detest homosexuality. I consider it vile and disgusting, and homosexuals go into my book as morally lower than others.

I beleive in a no-homo world.

That sounds familiar... Didn't hitler believe in something similar?

You can say NO to homosexuality.

I dont think there is anything wrong with it as long as im not apart of it. I don't agree with it, but as long as it doesn't hurt me I really dont care.
"You can say NO to homosexuality."

You trying to change somebody from gay to straight would be just like them trying to make you gay. You make it sound like drugs. I really doubt people are peer-pressured into being gay. What it comes down to is it is really just persons personal preference. You should not have to change your personal preference because somebody disagrees with it.
Actually I dont think its possible to change your personal preference on your own. I couldn't just change my favorite color to red when I know it's green.
Jul 19 2001, 3:11 pm
In response to GreenDice
On 7/19/01 5:04 pm GreenDice wrote:
My game is based on another game, called Diggers, that is extremely similar in regards to such thing


You Mean DigDug

When I mean DigDug, I say DigDug. The game to which I am referring is called Diggers. In it, you controlled a group of 3 or maybe 4 vaguely Lemming-like aliens who tried to extract ore from an alien world populated by carnivorous plants, tommyknockers (the lanter-bearing ghosts of dead miners, not the Stephen King aliens), and dinosaurs.
Jul 19 2001, 3:17 pm
In response to Lord of Water
If the others want to argue with you, they can go ahead. I won't. When I correct someone for saying "That's gay," it's because they're ignorant, and my goal in life is the removal of ignorance. But you know what? I have no argument against honest evil.

But since we're talking about disgust... you know what disgusts me?

It's he way you imagine that you're being polite with topic headings like "Excuse me, if it's not too much trouble, could someone please explain this to me?" That's actually rude. Consider this: people spend their valuable time answering your questions. Isn't it more polite to use the topic heading the way it's meant to be used... i.e., to convey the topic of your posts? That way, if you have a question about movement, the people who know a lot about that area can jump right to your question, while those of us who are shaky on such things can move on to questions about, say, list sorting.

So, please put aside your pretensions when posting your code problems, and just state the problem.
Jul 19 2001, 3:38 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 5:15 pm Lord of Water wrote:
My problem with what she said is that I detest homosexuality. I consider it vile and disgusting, and homosexuals go into my book as morally lower than others.

I beleive in a no-homo world.

You can say NO to homosexuality.

I haven't much problem with hearing about what others detest, but I feel obligated to speak up when I see hatred I feel is harmful.

I support the rights of queers. I don't believe the practice is disgusting in any way, nor do I believe it is harmful to god, country, family values, or any other nebulous establishment you can think of. I admit to not understanding a hatred for a broad class of people and for a practice that is not assault, environmental destruction, libel, theft, genocide, lying, vandalism, rape, slander, animal abuse, bad poetry or any other means by which one person may hurt another. I am as baffled by what is threatening about homosexuality as I am about what is threatening about peas.

Save the hate and judgement for rapists. Save it for murderers. Heck, save it for vegetables. What people do consentually behind closed doors may well warrant disgust, but hating takes a lot of precious energy: save it for things that matter.

Z
Jul 19 2001, 3:39 pm
In response to Zilal
I am as baffled by what is threatening about homosexuality as I am about what is threatening about peas.

They're nasty and they're squishy and they taste bad. The peas, not the homosexuals (to my knowledge).

(As you might have guessed, I'm a very picky eater).
Jul 19 2001, 4:23 pm
In response to Leftley
They're nasty and they're squishy and they taste bad. The peas, not the homosexuals (to my knowledge).

What about uncooked snow peas? I don't like cooked mushy peas either, but I love those uncooked baby lil' yummy guys.


(Hmm, the keyword 'snow' might mean they're Canada-native, but I'm not sure.)
Jul 19 2001, 4:29 pm
In response to Spuzzum
On 7/19/01 7:23 pm Spuzzum wrote:
They're nasty and they're squishy and they taste bad. The peas, not the homosexuals (to my knowledge).

What about uncooked snow peas? I don't like cooked mushy peas either, but I love those uncooked baby lil' yummy guys.


(Hmm, the keyword 'snow' might mean they're Canada-native, but I'm not sure.)

Nah, they have them in civilized parts, too. :)
Jul 19 2001, 4:46 pm
In response to LexyBitch
On 7/19/01 7:29 pm LexyBitch wrote:
On 7/19/01 7:23 pm Spuzzum wrote:
They're nasty and they're squishy and they taste bad. The peas, not the homosexuals (to my knowledge).

What about uncooked snow peas? I don't like cooked mushy peas either, but I love those uncooked baby lil' yummy guys.


(Hmm, the keyword 'snow' might mean they're Canada-native, but I'm not sure.)

Nah, they have them in civilized parts, too. :)

Too cruel. ;-(

I have to wonder if Red Cross will bring our shipment of grain... I've gone hungry for three days now. ...Er, uh, wait, if I were that poor I wouldn't have a computer.

No offense was intended to anyone, though Lexy can't say the same about her post. ;-)
Jul 19 2001, 4:58 pm
In response to Spuzzum
On 7/19/01 7:46 pm Spuzzum wrote:
On 7/19/01 7:29 pm LexyBitch wrote:
On 7/19/01 7:23 pm Spuzzum wrote:
They're nasty and they're squishy and they taste bad. The peas, not the homosexuals (to my knowledge).

What about uncooked snow peas? I don't like cooked mushy peas either, but I love those uncooked baby lil' yummy guys.


(Hmm, the keyword 'snow' might mean they're Canada-native, but I'm not sure.)

Nah, they have them in civilized parts, too. :)

Too cruel. ;-(

I have to wonder if Red Cross will bring our shipment of grain... I've gone hungry for three days now. ...Er, uh, wait, if I were that poor I wouldn't have a computer.

No offense was intended to anyone, though Lexy can't say the same about her post. ;-)

I was channeling Leftley.
Jul 19 2001, 5:47 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 5:15 pm Lord of Water wrote:
My problem with what she said is that I detest homosexuality. I consider it vile and disgusting, and homosexuals go into my book as morally lower than others.

I beleive in a no-homo world.

You can say NO to homosexuality.

wow

...


just, wow

Someone channelling Dr. Laura?
Jul 19 2001, 6:00 pm
In response to Ebonshadow
On 7/19/01 5:42 pm Ebonshadow wrote:
cut...
Actually I dont think its possible to change your personal preference on your own. I couldn't just change my favorite color to red when I know it's green.

If you can't change your "personal" preference, then its not a preference.
For ex, I'm Fat, but I can't change it. So its, not a preference. (I do not prefer to be fat, nor am I fat...)
If I like to eat beans, I can switch my preference to red meat.
On the issue of sexuality/gender, the problem is with the old method of classifing human. Why are there only ,ale or female?
I believe that there was a study in ?US/France?, that state that human should be classify into more than 2 to accomodate their differences in sexuality/gender.
I have forgotten if its gender or sexuality...
So much for school...
Jul 19 2001, 6:30 pm
In response to sunzoner
On 7/19/01 9:00 pm sunzoner wrote:
On 7/19/01 5:42 pm Ebonshadow wrote:
cut...
Actually I dont think its possible to change your personal preference on your own. I couldn't just change my favorite color to red when I know it's green.

If you can't change your "personal" preference, then its not a preference.
For ex, I'm Fat, but I can't change it. So its, not a preference. (I do not prefer to be fat, nor am I fat...)
If I like to eat beans, I can switch my preference to red meat.

I disagree with this. I dont like the way fish tastes. Theres know way anybody is ever gonna change this unless they can make fish taste like pizza. Theres no way I could just all the sudden start liking fish. Just because you prefer something over another, doesn't mean you can change what you prefer. You can begin to prefer something else, but you cant force yourself to prefer something else. Your trying to make it sound like if a gay person wanted to, he could just suddenlt turn straight and start like women. You cannot force yourself to like something. Its as simple as that.
Jul 19 2001, 6:34 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 5:15 pm Lord of Water wrote:
You can say NO to homosexuality.

Yeah but then I'd miss out on all the fun.

How about I say no to YOU being homosexual?

We don't want you. Really.
Jul 19 2001, 7:50 pm
In response to Deadron
Well, you've got me going.

1. homosexuality is a genetic flaw
2. non homosexuals are, by definition, more geneticlly correct than homos
3. homosexuality can be fought
4. gay or lesbian marriges do not make sense by religion, but also don't make sense
4. displaying your homosexuality, or flaunting it, is bad. Very bad. It's like saying "look at my flaw, people!"
5. being a homo is not cool
6. having it a common subject on TV glorifies it.
7. The entire world should be fighting it.
6. When it's out of the human genome, it should be illegal to be gay or lesbian.
Jul 19 2001, 7:54 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 10:50 pm Lord of Water wrote:
Well, you've got me going.

1. homosexuality is a genetic flaw
2. non homosexuals are, by definition, more geneticlly correct than homos
3. homosexuality can be fought
4. gay or lesbian marriges do not make sense by religion, but also don't make sense
4. displaying your homosexuality, or flaunting it, is bad. Very bad. It's like saying "look at my flaw, people!"
5. being a homo is not cool
6. having it a common subject on TV glorifies it.
7. The entire world should be fighting it.
6. When it's out of the human genome, it should be illegal to be gay or lesbian.

I always forget. Is it spelled "Seig heil" or "Zeig heil" or can I just not spell German at all?
Jul 19 2001, 8:13 pm
In response to Lord of Water
On 7/19/01 10:50 pm Lord of Water wrote:
Well, you've got me going.

1. homosexuality is a genetic flaw
2. non homosexuals are, by definition, more geneticlly correct than homos
3. homosexuality can be fought
4. gay or lesbian marriges do not make sense by religion, but also don't make sense
4. displaying your homosexuality, or flaunting it, is bad. Very bad. It's like saying "look at my flaw, people!"
5. being a homo is not cool
6. having it a common subject on TV glorifies it.
7. The entire world should be fighting it.
6. When it's out of the human genome, it should be illegal to be gay or lesbian.

Well, you've made a lot of contentious points here, but most experts agree on a couple of things:

<H1>8 comes after 7, and the number 4 only occurs once.</H1>

That having been said, I'll proceed to address your murkier mistakes.

1. homosexuality is a genetic flaw

Who determines what is a flaw and what is a trait? Obviously, for homosexuality to survive in the genome (and not just the human genome), the burden it places on a species survival can't outweigh its benefits. What benefits? Limits on breeding, for one thing. And then there's the social benefits. Examine the roles of homosexuals and transgendered individuals in hunter/gatherer cultures (as opposed to violent, war-like cultures, such as the ancient Semetic cultures of the middle east... when most of the breeding men die in conflict, it's important that all the males breed) to see what I'm talking about.

2. non homosexuals are, by definition, more geneticlly correct than homos

This is only true if number 1 is true. It isn't even a separate point. You have repeated the same point twice, in order to make your argument seem more pointed. Shame on you.

3. homosexuality can be fought

This, in contrast to number 2, is only true if number 1 is false. I suppose my predisposition to diabetes can be overcome, too, if only I try. Can congenital heart failure be said NO to?

4. gay or lesbian marriges do not make sense by religion, but also don't make sense

Depends entirely upon your religion. Again, I could refer you to certain early Native American cultures.

4. displaying your homosexuality, or flaunting it, is bad. Very bad. It's like saying "look at my flaw, people!"

Again, this is only true if homosexuality is a flaw. You have to be able to prove that basic point before this has any meaning.

5. being a homo is not cool

Again, not a distinct point. Same thing, over and over again. Why bother numbering your points (and embarassing yourself by numbering them incorrectly) if you're not going to come up with separate points?

6. having it a common subject on TV glorifies it.

Diversity is a good thing to glorify.

7. The entire world should be fighting it.

Again, why? If it's in the genome, it's most likely there for a reason. Until you can come with a better reason for thinking it's a flaw than simply repeating "It's a flaw", it's better not to mess with it. After all, tampering with the human genome is tampering with nature.

6. When it's out of the human genome, it should be illegal to be gay or lesbian.

Again, 8 generally follows 7. And again, why mess with what you've admitted is natural?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5