Putin propagates hateful gay stereotype
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Surely this guy must be joking.
Surely such feats of miscomprehension are not possible amongst persons who can operate a keyboard.
Never underestimate the ability of someone to intentionally misunderstand something on-line.
You would? Because it looks as though you are unable readily define the ethical line whereof you speak.syne said:
Meanwhile, nobody is trying to argue that common and ordinary epigenetically established human features are unnatural, immoral, and chosen by that human - right?syne said:
When I checked here : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=36 - it would seem that Post #59 could/would/should(?!) be considered "Trolling":
I. Unacceptable behaviour that may result in a temporary or permanent ban said:
But...hey, I am "dumbest man on earth", what could I possibly be able to figure out...
We do, but I can see your point that it is pointless to continue feeding the vitriol. I do not expect to get answers anyway.
Already have, at overtly sexual behavior.
That's where I noticed you didn't seem to have a ready definition.syne said:
What you mean by that is difficult to make sense of - it's certainly not what I or many other people mean by it, it seems to be a list of stuff you find unseemly for personal and obscure reasons (nudity, say), and more than one poster here has noticed the problem.
Let's try an example: Nuns are members of a somewhat secretive and self-protective group whose lifestyle - what was your phrase, something about not conducive to children? - obviously makes their sexual relationships with children a matter of concern to you. In addition, they engage in the overt sexual behavior of rigidly enforced and publicly acknowledged chastity (kind of embarrassing to explain to children). So do you find nun behavior in front of children crossing the ethical line whereof you speak?
Bells
Staff member
Environment and experience..
You can't catch gay.
How should one answer something that is so inherently stupid to begin with?
And to imply that I find simulated sex in front of my children or with someone who looks like a child to be acceptable... Ah, Syne, you are a joy.
Oh no, it isn't thinly veiled.
I do believe you are a perverted creep.
Firstly, because you are so inherently dishonest. Secondly because of the fact that you seem to believe that if someone attends a gay parade or finds homosexuality acceptable, then they somehow or other think that simulating sex in front of children or with people who look like children is acceptable.
Finally, you are so caught up in your moral panic that you can no longer justify your own ridiculous position on the issue.
Well of course, if I were to find it acceptable for others to simulate sex in front of my children, then of course I would never dream of doing something like that myself.
Do you even read what you say to people?
Do you suffer from an illness that makes communicating with people difficult?
Or are you so anally prejudiced against gays that you think it is acceptable to ask people such questions?
Right.. In a thread discussing Putin applying paedophilia with homosexuality, you make such a comment and now try to back pedal that it has nothing to do with paedophilia? How about when you asked me if simulating sex with someone who looks underage is acceptable?
I didn't think it was acceptable full stop, for a variety of reasons.
Remember Syne, you are the only person who keeps asking people about crotch rubbing and simulating sex in front of children in threads about homosexuals. No one else is. Well except for Putin of course.
In discussing decency laws and homosexuality, the likes of you and Putin say nothing about children or teenagers who are homosexual and who are now being denied the chance to be told that they even have equal rights. You know, because telling a homosexual child that they have rights is indecent.
But again, as I commented above, you don't care or think about those children, do you?
And you are the only person who keeps assigning indecency to homosexuals and gay pride parades.
If people like you had their way, then the Sistine Chapel would be burned down for the nakedness and clear sexual inferences and artists like Bernini and Rubens would see their art works destroyed. Not to mention you would see religious temples in many Asian countries destroyed because "gasp", they depict sex.
You are incapable of defining 'indecency' and applying it equally. Because the only time you ever seem to bring it up is when the conversation is about homosexuals.
I actually find you somewhat indecent. Because I find creepy and hypocritical misogynistic liars like you to be indecent human beings because of the impact you and your beliefs have on innocent people.
What my children do or how they spend their time is actually none of your business.
Sorry, I obviously gave you much more credit than you deserve. Calling nuns abstaining from sex "overt sexual behavior" is silly, and you should feel very ashamed that you would either be ignorant enough to think so or intellectually dishonest enough to make such an argument.
o·vert
1.
done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden.
sex·u·al
1.
relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
be·hav·ior
1.
the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, esp. toward others.
1.
done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden.
sex·u·al
1.
relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
be·hav·ior
1.
the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, esp. toward others.
You conveniently left out "...possibly inherent factors". That is generally how propaganda works.
I believe you are an hysterically man-hating, self-righteous, and unethical shrew (you know, since you seem to think this sort of thing helps facilitate civil discussion).
You yourself posted the appropriate definitions, which match perfectly.syne said:
They match for nuns much more directly and clearly than, say, nudity does - your standard Finnish sauna or nude beach is not a scene of overt sexual behavior of any particular kind, for example, and does not match your definitions, but every nunnery is and does.
Note that it is easily possible to refuse and reject normal sex without making a big public show, wearing special flamboyant clothes, congregating in groups of like minded sexual orientation, etc - lots of people manage their sexual preferences and behavior quietly and in private, without getting in everyone's face about it.
Note that we don't see entire political factions of people automatically pairing public and flamboyant vows of chastity with child molestation on this thread, despite the by now familiar and likely mechanism-grounded association. The people who recognize things like that don't argue like that.
As noted:
Instead of some kind of criteria or coherent description of ethical concern, you present an incoherency of associations among behaviors with little in common except membership in the familiar bigotry bag of fundie monotheistic religion.
Bells
Staff member
"Possibly inherent factors". Again, you can't catch gay, nor can you influence someone to be gay. Just as no one could influence you to be straight.
You can call me whatever you want Syne.
You make spurious allegations that I am sexually abusing my sons (showing children overtly sexual actions and behaviour (such as simulated sex) and possible sex abuse of minors is sexual abuse - so asking me if showing my children that is acceptable is a direct implication that I apparently do), and keep showing a weird interest in my children as you have been in this fashion, then I will call you a perverted creep.
Pretty simple really.:shrug:
Syne,
Ok. But all of those images are from pop culture, and none of them is explicitly homosexual.
It appears to me that your main concern is not with gay people, but rather with public displays of sexuality, especially in front of children. And I take it that it wouldn't matter whether such displays (e.g. of nudity in public places) were by heterosexual or homosexual people. Correct?
Now, I wonder whether you think that gay people are more prone to "unacceptable" sexual displays than straight people.
It seems to me that a lot of popular culture these days has a lot of sexualised imagery, some of which I would agree is unsuitable for children. And the vast majority of that imagery is produced by and for the "straight" community rather than the gay community.
So, I'm wondering why you seem keen to turn a blind eye to heterosexual displays, while condemning gay ones.
Can you explain?
Ok. But all of those images are from pop culture, and none of them is explicitly homosexual.
It appears to me that your main concern is not with gay people, but rather with public displays of sexuality, especially in front of children. And I take it that it wouldn't matter whether such displays (e.g. of nudity in public places) were by heterosexual or homosexual people. Correct?
Now, I wonder whether you think that gay people are more prone to "unacceptable" sexual displays than straight people.
It seems to me that a lot of popular culture these days has a lot of sexualised imagery, some of which I would agree is unsuitable for children. And the vast majority of that imagery is produced by and for the "straight" community rather than the gay community.
So, I'm wondering why you seem keen to turn a blind eye to heterosexual displays, while condemning gay ones.
Can you explain?
Insightful Post, James R. Grok'd!
I have repeatedly said that things like Mardi Gras (specifically Bourbon Street), Solstice, and other largely heterosexual public displays are equally indecent. Homosexuals have, historically, made it a point to flaunt their sexual behavior. Now we can talk about how repression has contributed to such rebellious exhibitions, but the justification does not, itself, excuse the behavior. And it should really go without saying that this is a thread about homosexual issues. How is staying on-topic "turn[ing] a blind eye"?
I condemn all overtly sexual behavior in view of children, regardless of orientation.
Uh huh.
But no more-so than heterosexuals, as far as I can tell. For every gay Mardi Gras, there's at least one other straight one, in effect.
Fair enough, though I wonder where you draw the line. (Is public kissing acceptable? Hugging? What clothes are appropriate and which are not? etc. No need to reply.)
I am not really up on Solstice goings on, but at Mardi Gras (even on Bourbon Street) sexuality is not the sole focus (no matter what Girls Gone Wild would have us believe), unlike gay pride parades. Where heterosexuals can be just as hedonistic, I have not seen any make their sexuality the focus of a parade and a matter of pride. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
I'd guess that it's for the same reason that black civil rights protesters had race as the focus of their parades.
Except you exempt the flamboyant chastity-vowing dress of nuns and priests, the various sexual aspects of marriage ceremonies, and the like, (even stuff famously connected with actual child sexual molestation)syne said:
while ostensibly condemning all public or even social nudity anywhere near a child regardless of its sexual connotations, and in practice confining your condemnation to nude gay men - on the grounds that their existence threatens the wellbeing of children.
Can you see how this would make no sense to anyone not sharing your particular bigotries and presumptions?