Author
|
Topic: "gay" (Read 25254 times)
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
 |
Re: "gay"
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2005, 10:44:32 pm » |
|
"The thing that boils my blood about American "liberals" and "conservatives" can be summed up thusly: people whom you don't know and will never meet are engaging in activites that don't involve you."
Then you agree that people should not interject themselves into other affairs and tell people what can and cannot be said?
"In fact, there is no way it could possibly be any LESS your business. Why are we talking about it at all?"
Obesity is not so much my business either, but I might talk about it here and there. I talk about it, because someone might bring up an opinion about it and I then give my opinion (sometimes jokingly). How is what we talk about your business?
"As for the "incident" that sparked this discussion: Deus_Siddis, you said something that was deemed by other forum-goers to be offensive, so much so that it completely derailed the topic at hand, and moderators had to step in."
I probably should have clarrified that I was not really talking about morality. But I didn't bring up the issue and since I do not have telepathy, I do not know what may offend some forum followers. Even so, there are those who agree with me on some areas and some who do not agree. I can live with the opinions of people who do not agree with me, often times. Can you? And anyhu, if I "sparked" this offshoot, I certainly didn't force anybody else to come here and chat. Is it my fault that people wanted to give their opinions as well?
"You now have a choice: be a good neighbour and avoid using said language in a public forum in the future, or be a bad neighbour and keep using said language, despite the fact that doing so is obviously disruptive."
Ah, the old "your either with us, or against us" speech. I think you've overlooked the fact that this is a very large forum with lot's of members and viewpoints. It's not a liberals only club, nor the opposite. It is also a forum which has had some pretty big and sometimes heated political debates. This is not "disruption", it is discussion. Disruption is when people flood or use other cheating methods to make it so you can't have a real discussion. So if you only want to hear one viewpoint, never leave your house/apartment and don't dial up. Speaking of disruption, why are you so negative? Is it a joking persona thing or are you serious?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr._Jiggles
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 208
Get Down!
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2005, 11:04:37 pm » |
|
I don't really have nothing against homosexuals. But im walking to a Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors in San Francisco and this naked gay couple walk in front of me into the 31 flavors. There were children in there and know there parents have to explain this to them. i swear some of those kids were 5 years old. They had no right to walk in their naked and scar those childrens minds like that. Plus the homosexual couple made a scene when the manager refused to serve them since they were totally naked and were in a family place. My god anybody who defends this is mentally disabled. I have nothing against them but when someone shows me their lifestyle like that i want to cover them in gasoline and light them on fire. Also my little brother who is 8 was with me. That was not f*ckin cool to explain this to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2005, 11:45:20 pm » |
|
Then you agree that people should not interject themselves into other affairs and tell people what can and cannot be said?
Your strawman-making ability is unsurpassed, but that's not what I said; people should not interject themselves into private matters that are obviously none of their business; e.g., two consenting adults engaging in activites that do not impact anyone besides themselves. However, public discourse on an Internet forum is, by definition, everyone's business, by virtue of the fact that it's held in public. I have enough trouble defending the things I DO say, please don't put me in the position of defending things I didn't say. For one, I don't know where I'd find the time.
How is what we talk about your business?
Because you're posting about it in a public forum that I read, perhaps? You're either breathtakingly ignorant or you're being obtuse on purpose. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, in which case, knock it the fuck off and speak plainly. The issue is not a complicated one.
Fact: you said things that got people pissed off, unrelated to the topic being discussed. The polite thing to do would be to apologize for hurting people's feelings and attempt to not hurt them again. Claiming that others don't have the right to be offended and other such nonsense is jackasery of the highest order. Some people are more thin-skinned than others. Cope.
I probably should have clarrified that I was not really talking about morality. But I didn't bring up the issue and since I do not have telepathy, I do not know what may offend some forum followers.
How about when they explicitly tell you so, after the fact? Can you tell then? Sweet zombie jesus, this is not that hard a concept to grasp...
Ah, the old "your either with us, or against us" speech.
No, it was the "man up, apologize, and stop being a juvenile, argumentative asshat" speech, but I can see how one could get the two confused.
I think you've overlooked the fact that this is a very large forum with lot's of members and viewpoints. It's not a liberals only club, nor the opposite. It is also a forum which has had some pretty big and sometimes heated political debates. This is not "disruption", it is discussion.
So, completely derailing threads is not disruptive? In what universe?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2005, 12:46:10 am » |
|
"Your strawman-making ability is unsurpassed"
That's just a flat out lie. I have never taken any callsign other than "Deus Siddis" on these forums. It wouldn't make much difference anyway, the IPs are monitored. If you can't stand other people who are not exactly like you, then that is your own challenge. You can't blame everything on me.
"I have enough trouble defending the things I DO say, please don't put me in the position of defending things I didn't say. For one, I don't know where I'd find the time."
That's not what I was saying. My point was that you can't stop someone from using the word "gay" with a meaning other than happy or homosexual. Diverting a conversation to point out how evil that is, is not really necessary. But, Chrispy is allowed to make side comments and digressions if so he chooses. Others can do the same, but if things get too far off topic, things might get moved. That's what happened here and in a number of other topics (which I was not responsible for, believe it or not).
"Because you're posting about it in a public forum that I read, perhaps?"
I can say the same thing for myself. Someone posted, I commented. I've done the same on many topics (most were much lighter).
"You're either breathtakingly ignorant or you're being obtuse on purpose."
Is there a choice "C"?
"knock it the fuck off and speak plainly. The issue is not a complicated one."
No, but apparently so are the instructions your psychiatrist gave you for opening your meds.
"Fact: you said things that got people pissed off, unrelated to the topic being discussed. The polite thing to do would be to apologize for hurting people's feelings and attempt to not hurt them again."
Well, then it seems you have a LOT of apologizing to do to a LOT of people on this forum (beyond this topic).
"Some people are more thin-skinned than others. Cope."
I am coping, are you?
"How about when they explicitly tell you so, after the fact? Can you tell then? Sweet zombie jesus, this is not that hard a concept to grasp..."
Then why haven't you grasped it?
"No, it was the "man up, apologize, and stop being a juvenile, argumentative asshat" speech, but I can see how one could get the two confused."
I apologize for sounding like I was making a moral judgement on homosexuallity on a public forum. On its own, homosexuality does not hurt anyone.
"So, completely derailing threads is not disruptive? In what universe?"
I just commented on a comment. Then I had to back up what I had said because it had "sparked" another discussion. Now the whole thread has been moved and is no longer in the way of anything. This has happened many times on other topics. In its current location, this thread can only bother those who seek it out, be they thin skinned or not. Cope.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2005, 12:52:41 am by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gay
Guest
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2005, 01:01:30 am » |
|
I can accept that gays love me. Well who doesnt?, but I use females for sex, and males for war.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2005, 01:17:53 am » |
|
That's just a flat out lie. I have never taken any callsign other than "Deus Siddis" on these forums.
You misunderstood my meaning. A "strawman argument" is a logical fallacy, whereby a person misrepresents the position of their opponent, then attacks the misrepresentation, sidestepping the actual argument. I was claiming that you were engaging in that practice, not engaging in fraudulent posting. Sorry for the confusion.
[...superfluous personal attacks ignored...]
Well, then it seems you have a LOT of apologizing to do to a LOT of people on this forum (beyond this topic).
I do? Care to provide any examples? I'm certainly not above practicing what I preach, but I do tend towards obliviousness on occasion. Or were you just being rhetorical?
[...more superfluous personal attacks ignored...]
I apologize for sounding like I was making a moral judgement on homosexuallity on a public forum. On its own, homosexuality does not hurt anyone.
Very well, then.
I just commented on a comment. Then I had to back up what I had said because it had "sparked" another discussion. Now the whole thread has been moved and is no longer in the way of anything. This has happened many times on other topics. In its current location, this thread can only bother those who seek it out, be they thin skinned or not. Cope.
Fair enough, and as it should be. Although it seems that topics like this one attract trolls like shit attracts flies, hopefully my fellow readers are savvy enough not to fall for it. Flamewars aren't doing anyone any favours.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 28, 2005, 01:20:21 am by 0xDEC0DE »
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
Defender
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 817
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2005, 02:31:46 am » |
|
mods: i have a request...lock this thread.
though i might have the freedom of speech to say or post "gay" whenever i feel like. i also have the respect, that if it "offends" a friend or fellow poster, i will refrain from using the offensive word. this was the sole reason of Chrispy's post and i should think by now that everyone who has an ounce of self control would repect his wishes regardless if they clash with your freedom.
its called respect...pass it along, ok? thank you.
~DEFIANT
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gay
Guest
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2005, 02:43:16 am » |
|
I respect that gays fuck other gays.
But they should stay away from me, because I like to fuck girls.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2005, 02:53:11 am » |
|
"You misunderstood my meaning. Â A "strawman argument" is a logical fallacy, whereby a person misrepresents the position of their opponent, then attacks the misrepresentation, sidestepping the actual argument. Â I was claiming that you were engaging in that practice, not engaging in fraudulent posting. Â Sorry for the confusion."
I thought you meant the kind of strawman that completes a task for someone, so that his name does not get involved (because it might damage his reputation or drive up the price of something during a negotiation). I'm not sure if I'm guilty of strawmanning (under your definition) anybody's arguement, or if everyone just assumed I was saying things that I hadn't or hadn't tried to. Either way, there was probably some of this on both sides.
"I do? Â Care to provide any examples? Â I'm certainly not above practicing what I preach, but I do tend towards obliviousness on occasion. Â Or were you just being rhetorical?"
This thread and then these are some too:
http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2299.0
http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2365.0
http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2340.0
Granted, I don't think you really said anything bad in any of those, and you probably were not totally serious. Plus, I too work on freeware gaming projects as a hobby and I don't think those who aren't assisting can make demands (though I don't see why ideas and suggestions are so destructive). Just don't pretend to be the dean of manners and don't get on anybody else's case for lacking tact. Say what you want, but don't talk out of both sides of your mouth.
"Fair enough, and as it should be. Â Although it seems that topics like this one attract trolls like shit attracts flies, hopefully my fellow readers are savvy enough not to fall for it. Â Flamewars aren't doing anyone any favours."
As we've all seen, real trolls cannot be avoided, just banned. Flamewars are people lossing control of their emotions. If people can stay in control and see only what is being said (and not all the politics the media has given them), then even the most controversial threads can just remain discussions.
By the way, those "superfluous personal attacks" were just skirmishing. I joke about things more than I probably should. But when I'm being serious, I can keep things reasonable or I can use some color, depending on what the person I'm talking to is doing. And as stated above, I don't really care about what and how you said things to other people or to me, I just don't like getting threatened with being banned when I haven't done much and I don't see the point in getting lectured on the importance of avoiding egos, by someone who's broken some "thin skins". Anyway, no harm, no fowl. In a debate, only egos can be bruised.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2005, 03:30:11 am » |
|
I'm not sure if I'm guilty of strawmanning (under your definition) anybody's arguement, or if everyone just assumed I was saying things that I hadn't or hadn't tried to. Either way, there was probably some of this on both sides.
I'd say that more often than not, strawman arguments are made out of genuine misunderstanding of the opponent's position, rather than due to any malice or ill intent. It happens; people tend to make arguments founded on unspoken assumptions that they assume their opponent shares, and when this isn't the case, it leads to misunderstandings. e.g., I assumed you knew what I meant by "strawman", you assumed I meant something else, hence the discussion we're now having. 
Re: the last two posts, noone bothered to fault me for what I said at the time (and I'd be curious to know what your objections to them are), and in the case of the last one, the parent poster even came back and laughed at the joke, so I'd posit that no apologies were necessary there. As for the first one, getting him to blow his top wasn't exactly the intent, but I wasn't exactly trying to be nice to him, either, because I'm a cockbite. And in all of the above cases, I did stay on-topic 
Anyway, no harm, no fowl. In a debate, only egos can be bruised.
No fowl? Are you calling me a chicken? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2005, 03:56:59 am » |
|
"I'd be curious to know what your objections to them are."
As stated above, I have none. My only point is that nobody uses sesame street manners, and sometimes people get offended. But if you offend someone, that doesn't mean that your wrong or that you need to take everything back (that's not to say you shouldn't take back something you didn't mean or clarify a point you made).
"No fowl? Are you calling me a chicken?"
And what is wrong with being a chicken? They never hurt anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr._Jiggles
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 208
Get Down!
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2005, 04:35:18 am » |
|
Heh, glad this arguement is over. You guys going to be mortal enemies like the Kohr-Ah and the Kzer-Za? Wow it was really fun reading this garbage but now that your both done with your ego wars, can you please answer my question listed above.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2005, 05:43:30 am » |
|
"Heh, glad this arguement is over. You guys going to be mortal enemies like the Kohr-Ah and the Kzer-Za?"
While I'm probably not real well liked anymore, there are no long term grudges, I don't think. Though I think this became more emotional than need be, I don't feel anything negative towards anybody -- doing so would just be ridiculous. The two paths will now fly their separate ways until we all meet again on the other side of the galaxy, during the next hot topic.
"Wow it was really fun reading this garbage but now that your both done with your ego wars, can you please answer my question listed above."
What question? You only asked if there would be grudges because of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr._Jiggles
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 208
Get Down!
|
|
Re: "gay"
« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2005, 06:21:26 pm » |
|
Im not going to even bother to put the quote right here, *sigh* nevermind 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
