Nope. You are just saying this because one party is much smaller,weaker than the other. Would you say the same about S&M? Sure not...
Duck Dynasty star canned for homophobic remarks
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Nope. You are just saying this because one party is much smaller,weaker than the other. Would you say the same about S&M? Sure not...
It is, of course, both. Heterosexuals are attracted to people of the opposite sex; that is a form of sexuality (but not abuse in most cases.) Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex; that is a form of sexuality (but not abuse in most cases.) Pedophilia are attracted to children; that is a form of sexuality (and abuse when expressed.)
?? If someone is attracted to children and never acts on it because of his innate morality, then it is not abuse (or even a crime.) The EXPRESSION of it is abuse. Nevertheless, it's not something I tolerate.
Homosexuality, which is also a sexual orientation, was also a psychiatric disorder for a long time. (And because people here often intentionally miss the point let me be clear - they are NOT the same.)
You're an ignoramus. A-grade.
I'm not intentionally missing any point. What you said was nonsense.
What you said was ignorant bullshit. Defending it's correctness puts you in the group who intentionally miss the point. You tolerate stuff you don't know is happening? Profound logic path.
Last edited:
S&M between consenting adults is ..... It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Don't tell me what I'm trying to say unless you understand what I was trying to say and need more clarification. Pedophilia isn't between consenting adults and is criminal behavior. Same thing as rape but to children. Nope: Rape isn't a sexual orientation.
It is NOT CORRECT. I had a feeling you would intentionally miss the point.
Stupidism: The right to be stupid and remain so indefinitely. The point is we define one as criminal behavior and the other as a basic human right. You don't get to add your ignorant interpretation. The community has decided regardless what you think.
Freedom of speech. You can say anything you want. All the way to the front gate of your employer. We reserve the right to chastise nonsense comments made while representing the company or in the workplace. The freedom of speech argument from moron dynasty is further proof that they don't know what they're talking about.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I don't derive my knowledge of life from obscure online articles. I derive it from actual experience. You should try that sometime.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Sounds like you have a prejudice against obese people. You should get to know some of them. They're not as bad as you think.
So...does that mean that you DID NOT read the "obscure online article", as you called it?
BTW, you sure Post a lot of obscure on-line articles - is there a reason for that? What do you
derive" from doing that?
Did you read the actual "GQ" interview with Mr. Robertson?
So...all the "knowledge of life" that you may or may not possess came solely from "actual experience(s)"?
Do you suppose or even accept the possibility that Mr. Robertson's "knowledge of life" may have been "derive(d)" from his own "actual experience(s)"?
Why, Magical Realist, should anyone give your claimed "knowledge of life" any more credence than Mr. Robertson's, or Jeremy Dean's - psychologist/author -or indeed their own ""actual experience(d)" and accrued "knowledge of life"?
Honestly, I will never "TRY THAT" at anytime! Trying is akin to attempting - I prefer succeeding.
If the "knowledge of life", as you call it, was truly, 100%, only attainable through "actual experience", then you never "actual(ly) experience(d)" Mr. Robertson telling you, personally, Magical Realist, what got you to Post the OP in the first place!
As a matter of fact, Magical Realist, when you Posted : http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/showbi...ty-suspension/ in your OP, was it not just another link to an "obscure online article"?
Magical Realist, do you consider your Posts, and the Links included in those Posts on this Forum, to be "actual experience(s)" from which to "derive" your "knowledge of life", as you call it?
Magical Realist, my own life experiences tell me that you GET WHAT YOU GIVE!
If you expect or demand that other people accept your own personal biased and bigoted "knowledge of life", derived from your own personal "actual experience(s)" - should you not also be open to accepting their own personal "knowledge of life", derived from their own personal biased and bigoted "actual experience(s)"?
Magical Realist, you will continue Posting on this Forum in the same way that you always have.
Your Posts have exactly 2 things to do with "knowledge of life" experiences or indeed any kind of "knowledge" - 1.) - diddley and 2.) - squat!
Magical Realist, you mentioned in an earlier Post :
How would you feel if someone/anyone Posted :
Enough Said!
Exactly. We express intolerance to the former, for good reason.
In your rush to post personal attacks you likely overlooked that I agree with the above. Is it embarrassing when that happens, or do you just not think about it?
(sigh)
The question itself is problematic.
And the question that led to that:
As MR put it: "They have a choice to be or not be a bigot, unlike a gay person who has absolutely no choice in being who they are."
And as you asked:
The problem arises when one suggests behavior one has control over, such as bigotry, is akin to attributes one has no control over.
Does the bigot have no control over his or her behavior? Why not?
There are certainly potential reasons. I have a cousin with Down's Syndrome, for instance; it isn't so much that her temper tantrums go without response, but that we also recognize some of the actual brain function motivating her behavior is simply beyond her control. However, I can certainly understand one's objection to being labeled mentally retarded just for holding a completely idiotic, dysfunctional, and harmful opinion.
And there is certainly peer pressure. It must be hard to live in such a sea of bigotry and not be a bigot.
And that actually works as a comparison.
When disparate items are grouped in non-judgmental contexts, that's one thing. Sure, pedophilia and homovestism are both paraphilias, but that's where the grouping ends. One can certainly make homovestism problematic, but in and of itself it does not tread into dangerous or damaging territory. Pedophilia, realized in practice, is inherently harmful. Homovestism, realized in practice, depends on other attitudes for any harm we might associate with it. Zoophilia is inherently violative. Homosexuality is not. Grouping the two within a judgmental category like "sin" is, indeed, a comparison.
And this is an old comparison, one that has worn out its welcome, and is even harmful to those who hold the belief. After all, consent is absent from such comparisons.
Which, when taken in the broader context of these social-conservative sexual obsessions, is not the least surprising.
DMoE said:
The question itself is problematic.
And the question that led to that:
"Though, I have to ask... is it not bigotry itself to ask, nay, demand people to suppress who they are and their opinions because they offend homosexual/transexual/other different folks (hm, interesting double standard here)"
As MR put it: "They have a choice to be or not be a bigot, unlike a gay person who has absolutely no choice in being who they are."
And as you asked:
"So...Magical Realist, does a 'gay person' have a 'choice' in whether or not they are 'hateful and bigoted' toward anyone who espouses their honest feelings and attitudes?
"Feelings and attitudes that their society/culture/upbringing/religion have ingrained into them - effectively giving them 'no choice' in 'being who they are'?
"So...Magical Realist, would it be 'bigotry' if you are 'prejudiced against someone for' being, as you put it, a 'redneck asshole'?"
"Feelings and attitudes that their society/culture/upbringing/religion have ingrained into them - effectively giving them 'no choice' in 'being who they are'?
"So...Magical Realist, would it be 'bigotry' if you are 'prejudiced against someone for' being, as you put it, a 'redneck asshole'?"
The problem arises when one suggests behavior one has control over, such as bigotry, is akin to attributes one has no control over.
Does the bigot have no control over his or her behavior? Why not?
There are certainly potential reasons. I have a cousin with Down's Syndrome, for instance; it isn't so much that her temper tantrums go without response, but that we also recognize some of the actual brain function motivating her behavior is simply beyond her control. However, I can certainly understand one's objection to being labeled mentally retarded just for holding a completely idiotic, dysfunctional, and harmful opinion.
And there is certainly peer pressure. It must be hard to live in such a sea of bigotry and not be a bigot.
And that actually works as a comparison.
When disparate items are grouped in non-judgmental contexts, that's one thing. Sure, pedophilia and homovestism are both paraphilias, but that's where the grouping ends. One can certainly make homovestism problematic, but in and of itself it does not tread into dangerous or damaging territory. Pedophilia, realized in practice, is inherently harmful. Homovestism, realized in practice, depends on other attitudes for any harm we might associate with it. Zoophilia is inherently violative. Homosexuality is not. Grouping the two within a judgmental category like "sin" is, indeed, a comparison.
And this is an old comparison, one that has worn out its welcome, and is even harmful to those who hold the belief. After all, consent is absent from such comparisons.
Which, when taken in the broader context of these social-conservative sexual obsessions, is not the least surprising.
Exactly, regardless of sexual proclivity, bigotry is bigotry - and anyone should be able to exercise control over that/their bigotry, barring any behavioral/psychological/congenital complications.
I honestly believe that the "no choice" card was just a dodge or diversion. Mr. Robertson did not state or claim any personal bigotry toward anyone in particular(if at all), he merely stated that he did not understand what "drove" homosexual behavior, and that he considered homosexuality as a sin.
MR evidently took those remarks as personal and retaliated with name-calling and proceeded to exhibit bigoted behavior.
I believe that any "normal well adjusted human being" should have full "control over his or her behavior", regardless of sexual orientation/race/religion/national creed/upbringing/height/weight/gender/biases/bigotry...etc.
To me, it seemed that Mr. Robertson exhibited/exercised that "control" (I read the whole interview @ http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...?currentPage=1 ) in his interview.
MR, to me, did not exhibit/exercise any kind of "control" over MR's behavior.
Tiassa, I do not presume nor assume to know "why or why not" either individual exhibited/exercised said control.
That is why I asked MR for clarification of MR's stated views.
I must humbly disagree. A list is a list, not a comparison. i.e. a grocer may tell you that the "list of fruits" that he has for sale includes : peaches, apples, kiwis, pineapples and oranges. The grocer is in no way "comparing apples to oranges" by "listing" what he has available.
Tiassa, the person hearing/reading the "list" may choose to perceive it as a comparison - but that is not how it was originally proffered.
Tiassa, I had to look up "homovestism" - with no luck. but I did find this on "homeovestism": from - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_homeovestism
- quote - "What is homeovestism?
In: Fetishes [Edit categories]
Answer:
Homeovestism is the sexual gratification that is gained by wearing clothing that is normal or appropriate for ones gender. This can include a man who is arroused by wearing a suit or a woman who is aroused by wearing a dress. It is the opposite of transvestitism." - end quote -
I honestly had never heard of that proclivity before.
At any rate, Tiassa, as I stated before, I firmly believe that Mr. Robertson was responding to the question of the Interviewer :
- quote - "What, in your mind, is sinful?" (interviewer)
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says" - end quote -
To me it seemed he was "listing" some sins, he did not seem to be "comparing" or exhibiting "bigotry or biases" - he was just offering his honest feelings of what, in his mind, was sinful - after being ASKED.
As far as the rest of your ^^above^^ - I was only speaking of "Bigotry" in my Posts.
Tiassa, I am a near 60 year old male that, for whatever reason, was always straight and faithful to only 1 adult human female at a time.
Brought up "wrong", I guess - from todays "norms"!
I would prefer not to get into any discussions about "todays sexual norms/bents/aberrations/morals, please?
Tiassa, I cannot disagree with your ^^above^^.
Oddly enough, your final statement could be a "paraphrased" synopsis of Mr. Robertsons remarks in part of the interview...or so it seems to me.