This emoticon :rolleyes: is directed at me, magellan01, not you, for voluntarily banging my head against a very thick wall.
But here “racist” takes on two meanings: one he deserves (taking race into account), the other (viewing blacks as inferior) he may or may not deserve. For instance, it is very possible that he abhors the way society treats blacks as second-class citizens, or even second-class human beings. He may work behind the scenes, sending money to the NAACP or Howard U. to help reverse things. If this is the case then his business policy is racist( possibly out of necessity for his own survival), but he is anyhting but a racist, in the blacks-are-inferior sense.
Possibly. It depends on if his rationale stands up to scrutiny. If he lived in a town full of KKK, including the police force, and his personal safety and that of his family were on the line, he did the rational thing. And I would go so far as to say the right thing, as I think that his primary responsibility is to his wife and kids. Was he heroic. No. Should he be proud of his action? No. Could he have acted differently? That depends on the particular circumstances.
Your Jewish analogy is unbelievably offensive, as I don’t think you want to liken Jews’ attraction to money and usury to the sexual attraction one human being feels toward another. I’m sure it was just one of the clumsy analogies that we all are guilty of from time to time, so we’ll just leave it at that.
You use the word “supervise”. Why? I was very specific in building a scenarion that went far beyond supervise. Just because my example might rightly bar a group of young girls from being chaperoned overnight exclusively by heterosexual male adults doesn’t mean that males can never “supervise” females in any, or most, other capacities. I know you know this, so your semantic gamesmanship puzzles me.
How is it homophobic, by any definition? I am placing the same conditions on gays and straights. I am barring each of them from going on evernights with the sex they are attracted to if they are the sole chaperones. That seems perfectly fair and reasonable. Why do you think it is not?
If that’s your whole response, then enjoy your thread. Another on my list of godwins: repeating myself without getting a considered response.
As long as you continue to keep your agenda hidden, and try to passively aggressively manipulate your “opponents” into giving you permission to be prejudiced without revealing your actual prejudices, you’re not debating in good faith. You seem pretty clearly to be trying to trap people into a hypothetical that’s far enough removed from reality and twisted far enough out of relevance that will allow you to go, “A HA! See, you’ve agreed to a hypothetical pigeonhole into which I can cram my prejudice!”
I’ll check back here, and if you ever reveal your actual agenda–your specific prejudices, and your rationale for believing them–for my actual reaction, I may respond. Until then, I have devoted too much time to this.
There is no getting through to you. It’s mind boggling. My agenda is not hidden, it’s right there in the OP. I’ve pointed out the subjust of this thread to you numerous times. Others have done so as well. You simply refuse to NOT focus on what YOU want to focus on. Knock yourself out. Most others have managed to communicate in this thread quite well, even those who probably agree with you on specific gay rights issues. But they have been able to comprehend that this thread is NOT about those issues.
PLEASE—read the OP again. Then read the thread slowly with an open mind, and without getting your hackles up. Read whatEvil Captor said and try to understand WHY he said it. You seem to be the only one who fails to grasp that. If you do not think he is right, stop proving him right just about every time you post. And, no, this is not some game or plan to shut you up. It’s just that you want your point of view accept a priori. Can you not accept the possibility that someone down the road might have something to say that might give you pause. If not, stop reading posts altogether. Just type.
No; your agenda is to manipulate me, and others–your “opponents”–into giving you a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for your particular prejudices, while refusing to reveal those particular prejudices. Your agenda is to manipulate a revision of the definition for the word “homophobia” so that it doesn’t inlclude you, because you refuse to accept the FACT that your render your inclusion in the definition inescapable. The fact that you continue to try to convince yourself that there are justifiable reasons for limiting the civil rights of people you don’t understand–and whom you *refuse *to understand–only proves that you are unwilling to examine your prejudices.
Your agenda is to have your cake and eat it too.
Your agenda is to be a homophobe without acknowledging that you are a homophobe.
Note, I’m not saying “lissenerphobe,” because despite your and EC’s continued attempts to divert the discussion in this manner, you are not being called to task for disagreeing with me, but for dehumanizing me. That I personally disagree with that dehumanization is totally irrelevant, and you’re the one who keeps bringing it into the discussion. I am not calling you a homophobe because you disagree with me; I am drawn to the inevitable conclusion that you are a homophobe because you keep getting real close to almost revealing your own prejudices, but then you don’t. You’re like a driver who’s pulled over for weaving, but who refuses to take a breathalizer test.
Until you blow into the tube–share with us the prejudices that you seem to think we’ll label as homophobic, and let us examine those prejudices specifically–and quit retreating behind your smokescreens of abstraction and generalization and hypotheticals–until then, you’re not fully and honestly participating in this debate, and your agenda remains hidden.
This has been addressed. Putting the burden on ME to imagine a baroquely esoteric anomoly that will support YOUR position is not a valid debate tactic. If you feel that your prejudices are this anomolous exception that will prove me wrong, then YOU present your anomoly, instead of trying to manipulate me into GUESSING what your “prejudice-that’s-not-homophobic” might be.
You can bog down ANY argument by retreating to the “but there MIGHT be, somewhere, under some bizarre circumstances, SOMETHING that’s an exception to your rule, right?” That’s just not how it works. It’s relying on the provability of a negative, and it’s putting YOUR burden on MY shoulders. You’re convinced there’s such an exception, then YOU present it. Otherwise, it’s just flying monkeys with toolbelts.
…
But then the adjective irrational attaches to the conclusion, not to the person.
I have no problem with you coming up with a definition that says any action or thought that is prejudicial against homosexuals is homophobia.
I object to your claim that you are using a dictionary definition when you have to turn the lanuage inside out to pretend that your definition matches that of the dictionary.
You need to go read the thread in order instead of leaping at the chance to attack me.
You responded to my comment to Scott Plaid. The example to which Scott alluded was the earlier discussion of the hypothetical person who had no animus against homosexuals, but came to a decision that resulted in a discriminatory decision. Scott, through dishonesty or a lack of comprehension tried to use that discussion of language to falsely accuse me of just trying to hide my homophobic feelings, then you take my response out of context to try to drag me back into this discussion.
I’m willing to stay out of this thread, but if I keep being dragged back in by personal attacks that are not even relevant to the discussion, it will become an even messier thread than it now is.
Oh, Christ on a bicycle. I give up. I just hope that anyone who reads this will appreciate how abhorrent bigotry of any sort, as exemplifed by Certain Participants in this thread, is. :rolleyes:
I really think you need to pursue this line of thought to it’s logical conclusion.
Sorry, universal you; I was “addressing” the Abstract Person who uses religion to justify homophobia.
's all right.
I did raise, much earlier in this, a person, not quite hypothetical as I was reporting someone actual on another message board’s apparent stance, from his posts:
[ul]
[li]understands the non-chosen nature of gay orientation[/li][li]entirely in favor of equal rights for gay people[/li][li]devout Christian, with a strong moral sense[/li][li]believes that judgment is God’s not one’s fellow man’s, and hence is opposed to any judgmentalism against gay people[/li][li]nonetheless believes that the Bible condemns gay sex acts, and will tell you that if directly asked or as part of a discussion of the sort we’ve been involved in[/li][/ul]
Now, this person I do not see as homophobic under any reasonable definition. He’s aware of sin as (in his view) a common problem of the human condition. If he believes you are tempted to sexual sin, he’s prepared to admit that he feels the same temptation. And does his level best not to be judgmental. (We can argue about the putative sinfulness of sexuality in some other thread; allow that presumption of the common sinfulness of all humanity, straight and gay alike, for the purposes of argument right now.)
I’d be very interested in your perception of his stance vis-a-vis the homophobia question.
Meanwhile, Magellan, I consider that even the imputation of pedophilia (Scout leaders) in this topic totally poisoned the well. I don’t know what others may be perceiving, but that nailed it down for me. I could refute that nasty allegation with an example from my own life, but, quite frankly, after that you don’t deserve it.
If you are going to deliberately misquote me or claim that I have said things that I have not, then you are going to have to take your strawman somewhere else.
I do not care what the definition of homophobia may be and long ago pointed out the futility of this thread.
The issue of the dictionary had to do with (mis)perceptions of other people’s comments and the issue of whether the various arguments followed, so your attribution to me, here, is a lie.
I do not find your dishonesty refreshing.
Go roll your eyes at your failure to comprehend what you have read.
What?! Please spell out what the problem is. Are you saying that I have somehow equated homosexuality with pedophilia in one of my examples? If so, please point it out. I don’t think you can. In each and every example having to do with the scout leaders I attribute the chance of pedophilia equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. I am aware of no correlation showing that one group is more prone to it than the other. You are being completely disengenuous if you are attempting to portray otherwise.
Then again, maybe I misunderstood your cryptic parting shot. If not, please provide a cite. If you cannot do that, I think you would agree that an apology will be in order.
On the one hand you suggest that he recognizes the “common sinfulness of all humanity,” but on the other, by mentioning the Bible’s condemnation of it, you imply he judges homosex as more sinful. I choose the word “judge” very carefully here, because insofar as he makes a distinction he is judging. To that extent, in his moral universe, he confers preferential status, vis-a-vis sin, upon heterosexual sinners. Is this accurate?
If so, he’s more judgmental than he wishes he were. To the extent that his “judgmentalness” distinguishes homosexuals as morally “more sinful,” well then to that degree, you ask me, he’s homophobic, within the definition established by the consensus of this thread.
That said, he sounds like someone I wouldn’t go out of my way to call a homophobe. But you axed.
Oh, can the righteous indignation. There was no imputation of any kind unless you’re determined to see it. Are you going to pretend that saying
offends you as a heterosexual man? If not, drop the outrage and address Magellan for who he/she is and what he is saying, not what you think he is or what you think he thinks.
I’d say yes, under Daniel’s definition. He’s making a moral distinction between homosex and heterosex. That’s the essence of homophobia. However, essence is an apt word, because in this specific example, it’s the faintest trace of homophobia imaginable. I would never 'call him out" on it, or mention it at all, unless directly asked, as you just did. His attitude towards homosexuality isn’t perfect, but it’s close enough that one really can’t complain.
First off, I understood what you were saying, and am not offended by it. Just wanted to make that clear, considering how high emotions are running in this thread.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that pedophiles overwhelmingly identify as heterosexual in their adult relationships, and do not generally exhibit a gender preference in their predation of children. As such, a group of young boys is likely to be safer under the supervision of gay men than they would be with straight men.
Hoo-boy. I’d been staying out until I saw this one.
On what “reasonable and prudent” ideas are you basing these statements? Statistically speaking, (from the cite I linked to in the other incarnation of Gay BSA leaders debate, and will discuss in a sec), we have more to worry about the self proclaimed straight men abusing children than we do the homosexuals. I would like to see some sites showing good, corroborrated data that gives evidence that homosexuals are poor leaders for youths.
(BTW: that’s one of the main points of “Two-Deep” leadership: it would take two people actively planning to molest children to be successful.)
Your examples were two of homosexual leaders and one of heterosexual leaders.
The main reasons that come to mind when I think about solely men leading girl scouts or women leading boy scouts have everything to do with embarassement with “problems” or injuries and nothing to do with sexual predation.
As to the last point, sadly, magellan (from what I presuppose about you - please forgive me if I’ve missed the mark - and know about me), from the statisitics alone, we fit the bill of the suspected pedophile more than many others on this board, or in this discussion. Also from what I presuppose about you, I would have no fear of you actually committing such an act if we were to lead a troup on a hike.
From http://www.georgiacenterforchildren.org/statistics.html
(Verified by another study, found on http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats2.htm ~3/4 of the way down)
ON another issue:
I really think you should reconsider using such phrases as “My agenda is not hidden, it’s right there in the OP” (post 283), or “I’d be fine with you or anyone else defining the word to mean whatever you want” (post 243). On the first two pages (before the debate siderailed for a while), your personal count of no-opinion vs narrower definition is 4:4. That is, even though you stated four times that you have no opinion or would go with what others decide, there are also four distinct cases of you arguing for a narrower definition. I’m not accusing you of scheming; merely of not knowing your own views as well as you think you do.
Your words:
(post 14 & 19, I think, don’t count)
(post 61 and 62 do not have immediate relevance to the OP)
(post 71, nothing really added)
(posts 94 & 95 not relevent to debate)
I’m open to the usage of more specific words to describe a person’s stance. For instance, what label do you think would best describe a person who shares your views of homosexuals, homosexuality, their rights, etc?
I’m not sure I follow you, but if I do, this might help. I see no contradiction with my statements. I would like homophobia defined more narrowly. If we can get everyone to agree on a narrower definition, fine—I am an advocate of it, whatever it is.
Later in the thread when some of us were trying to offer up definitions I volunteered that, ideally, if we narrow it, it should be restricted to what it means when it is used in the clinical sense, just like other “phobias”. But I’ve advocated all along that I don’t much care what we define it to mean if we can agree on a definition that is narrow in scope.
In a long thread, with questions coming from many directions, answers have to be addressed to the specific questions and might not at first glance sync completely with the rest of the thread. But I hope my explanation above clarifies things.
And JustAnotherGeek, you have waaay too much time on your hands. :dubious: 