Do I figure homosexuals are bad/evil? I suppose some are. I wouldn’t call any of the homosexuals I know bad/evil. But I would say their sexual behavior is deviant.
It’s ever so polite (as they say) to not say anything negative about certain types of sexual deviants, and to not say anything positive about other types of sexual deviants.
And that’s just fine for those who subscribe to the opinions of others.
That was a very well-written and well considered defense of Lyrical Reckoning’s use of the term “deviance”, dalovindj.
Are you going to follow it up with one of his subsequent use of the word “perverts” at the top of his laundry list of unprotected classes?
Next thing you know, and folks are going to have to defend words like “Federal,” “law,” “protects,” “discrimination,” “based,” “on,” “protection.”
If I didn’t know any better, I’d suppose the thought police were lurking about.
Oops . . . can I use a word like “lurking,” or is it taboo too?
Thanks for the compliment.
Definition of perversion: A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.
Looks like the same arguments hold. Based on the definition, there need not be an implied bigotry when one uses the word pervert (even if there often is one anyway). And if he’s got a problem with people who have New York accents my Brooklyn residing bad self would be shocked. A New York accent is like music. Flowing, eloquent, and sophisticated are words that come to mind. But anyone who likes red wine better than white is lower than those worst of deviants: The Midori Drinkers.
DaLovin’ Dj
Pffft.
“Thought Police,” indeed. Everyone takes the measure of everyone else around here, based on the posts that each person contributes. Where a poster declines to indicate his political and/or cultural leanings with straightforward statements of his opinions, his decision to include loaded buzzwords and catchphrases will naturally influence the conclusions his readers find themselves drawn to.
Okay, reaching a conclusion with insufficient data points is generally ineffective and counterproductive, so I’m just going to welcome you to the SDMB, LyricalReckoner, and apologize for the inattention to detail that allowed me to misstate your screen name earlier.
For all I know, you are as enamored as Nero Wolfe of the richness and subtleties that may be brought into a conversation with precise use of the English language. More power to you, if you are. But verbal communication, besides being a two-way street, is, IMHO an art form that is, shall we say, not presently at its zenith. The skillful communicator bears some responsibility for ensuring that only intended pejoratives are perceived as such.
In other words, throwing loaded words into the debate and then pretending that we live in some idealized word where there are no such things as connotations is, basically, cheating. It’s the written equivalent of saying, “but ‘nigger’ is just a dialectical rendering of ‘Negro’, so you can’t be offended when I use it.”
Words have connotations. This is not Plato’s ideal world above the Cave. The shadows are all we have. Hiding in them is dishonest.
:rolleyes:
This is easily resolved LyricalReckoner. People want to know if you meant deviant in the sense of a) it is unacceptable to your moral sensibilities, or b) it isn’t a regular occurance in the population. Or you can keep dancing. Your choice.
:smack:
I meant : or b) it isn’t a predominant occurance in the population. Sorry.
Ahhh, the nigger comparison. Can Nazi references be far off? So much for not jumping the gun, it looks like we fucking pole vaulted right over it. The Offenderati are on the beat and they’re mad as hell and they aren’t gonna take it anymore (even if there is nothing to take). Just remember kids, words don’t mean what they mean, they mean what we say they mean, whether you meant what they mean or not. And if you don’t believe me you just killed a kitten.
Well at least he’s getting initiated fast. He was inappropriately accused of bigotry in record time, had his words compared to calling someone a nigger, and has been told he is cave-dwelling. I guess it’s a little early still, but given the particulars, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be time to bring out the goat and the branding iron for this mother fucker. Get a rope.
DaLovin’ Dj
:aside; lights fade to a single spot:
Ladies and gentleman, we had alot of fun in this post, but it’s important to remember that mother fuckers are people too. We (nor our sponsors) in any way intend to demean or judge the fine men and women of the world who choose to sleep with female parents. They are a proud and diverse group who make the world a better place. Now you know.
This message brought to you by the Offenderati Society for a Better Thread, as well as the letters 2 & 3.
Well said. No, I wouldn’t put myself up there with Nero Wolfe. He’s way beyond me. But consider the screen name: Lyrical Reckoner. What might be a Lyrical Reckoner. A poet that counts? Hmmmm . . . .
I can assure you all that I’m not a small-minded bigot (at least, I don’t figure that I am) and that my use of words like ‘deviant’ and ‘pervert’ were not intended as a slap against men who (for some reason that’s beyond me) don’t appreciate good pussy. I was trying to speak from the perspective of the religious employer who is told (and may be some day) by the Feds that he has to hire men who act like women and women who act like men even though it’s quite against his religious beliefs to do so.
A Lyrical Reckoner? Maybe that’s someone who says one thing while suggesting something else in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I don’t know.
Don’t be a pedantic ass dalovindj. You very well know that the terms deviant and pervert are loaded with connotations that are offensive. The connotations are there regardless of whether you or anyone else want them to not be so. To use these words with out disclaimer necessarily implies the common connotations.
And if you weren’t so intent on being the defender in every fucking Pit thread, you’d notice that nobody has yet accused anyone of bigotry. We simply pointed out that his phrasing could be interpreted as bigoted and asked for clarification.
Our esteemed newbie has now gone on to spout nonsense such as “men who act like women and women who act like men” as a description of homosexuals. If he’d spend less time trying to be “lyrical” and more trying to be clear, then perhaps he’d use “homosexual” instead of “men who act like women and women who act like men”. Or perhaps he’s just an ass. Despite claims to not be a small-minded bigot, the evidence is mounting.
Thanks, Homebrew. That’s the exact point I was making. dalovindj, my post that you quoted was entirely subjunctive, meaning that if LyricalReckoner was making his own points by using “deviance” and “perverts” he can’t just ignore the widely-known connotations as if he were an alien who recently landed on this planet armed with a Webster’s and a Lookzhuman Disguise Kit.
If, however, he was emulating what a person of the religious persuasion in question would think, then he may be guilty of disingenuousness, but there’s an equally good chance that he was sincerely “acting as if” he were that person and really didn’t mean anything by it.
shrug I don’t know which yet. I’d just like to note that a) I did not call him a bigot. Ever. b) I resent the implication that I’m veering dangerously close to Godwin, and c) I’m one of the least hair-trigger people on this side of this question. In other words, will you please stop climbing up on other people’s crosses, dalovindj? There’s not enough space up there for two…
I’ll reiterate my “welcome aboard,” LyricalReckoner, and just say that from here on in, when I see your handle I’ll be forming an image of a pilot whale, setting the course for a pod of singing humpbacks.
Even if it doesn’t make any sense to any telepathic marine biologists who happen to tune in on me. 
All I have to say, Lyrical Reckoner, is that you truly need to get to know some gay men and women, well enough to begin to understand why they think and feel as they do. And this board is an excellnt place to do just that.
Me, I’m in the minority here, in that I’ve never seen the Faith-Based initiatives as wrong – provided that they follow applicable Federal, state, and local laws against discrimination that is not inherent in the job description, and that the funds made available are distributed on a non-discriminatory basis.
In other words, if the Silver Thjread Wiccan Coven applies to establish a counseling program for troubled youth, they have just as much right to do so as does the First Baptist Church. And if the Jonathan and David Metropolitan Community Church wants to start a day care for single parents’ kids, that’s their prerogative, and they can apply for funds on an equal basis with the Foursquare Gospel Apostolic Church, Inc.
But in reality, Polycarp, do you really believe that these groups will recieve equal treatment? If a Wicca coven and a Baptist Church both apply for the same funds, and only one can be picked, do you really think that they are going to base the decision on finances, resources, and experience? I mean, there has got to be someone who makes the decisions. I just don’t see any US employee giving money to a Muslim, Wiccan, Atheist or Buddist group as a result of this legislation. Maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t mind that the desire to help people and provide an invaluable service (headstart) can spring from a persons religious/spiritual life. It makes sense actually. I don’t even mind that some of these organizations could get Federal funding for providing these services. I can see no reason, however, to accept as fair and reasonable the creation of a specific exemption allowing people to discriminate when hiring for these federally funded jobs based on religious beliefs. If your spiritual view makes you want to start a headstart, but discriminates against any who don’t agree with you concerning religion (to the point of exclusion), then it seems your spirituality is not such a great moral compass after all. That discrimination law is terrific. If your headstart organization would rather not get funds to help people because they demand to exclude skilled employees in such a manner, then I don’t want them to have those funds anyway.
DaLovin’ Dj
Even if federal monies were distributed representationally amongst various faiths for the administration of different community services, it’s still a profoundly bad idea.
Unless you make the programs redundantly available in each community – Christian HeadStart, Muslim HeadStart, Sikh HeadStart, SubGenius HeadStart, etc. – individual religious affiliations are likely to alienate many of the people who should be able to benefit from it.
Why go out of your way to yoke secular benefits to religious organizations, specifically allowing discrimination? Would you feel comfortable sending your kid to a fitness program which was exclusively run by members of the Church of Scientology? Would you take them at their word that they had no intention of communicating their belief system to your child? Would having a non-Scientologist instructor or two in the program make you feel a bit better about it?
Or would it maybe be simpler to have federal money funding a secular organization dedicated to improving kids’ health?
Yes, well a good many of my acquaintances are homosexuals.
You’re supposed to preface that with “Don’t get me wrong,” LR.
Not “some of my best friends…”? 
I do see why you make the distinction, though, and it ities into my initial point – I said to get to know them … well enough to understand [them]."
Incidentally, I appreciate good pussy – several of my firends keep them as pets, and we used to. I also appreciate the fine qualities of women as people, some of whom are indeed sexually attractive – apparently you’ve stopped short at the emotional age of 14, if my inference that you evaluate them on the basis of their use as a source for sex for you based on that remark is accurate. (BTW, that’s condemned much more clearly than homosexuality in the Bible – go read it, if you doubt me!)
With ALL due respect, Poly, may I suggest that we allow LyricalReckoner a few more posts in which to give us a picture of himself, before we advise him on how to become more effectively socialized around here and in his life?