WildestBill sez :
:eek: I’ve never seen a parade where folks ‘shove homosexuality’. Just exactly how does one do that? I"ve seen parades wherein folks demonstrate their joy in something (the 4th of July, their celebration of life, Thanksgiving, homecoming etc.), or in protest of something (can’t recall one off the top of my head, but I"m sure it’s happened), but shoving anything, let alone shoving ‘homosexuality’, why the mind boggles at the imagery.
Esprix,
That was one of the nicest rebuttals you have ever given me. You stated your case without insults, pretty fair assumptions and with some taste. I applaud you for that it was a very nice change. I know me and you don’t see eye to eye things but it sure is nicer to calmly debate things. I will give you a rebuttal but they actually do some work around here. So I will get back to you.
Wring,
I guess it is those parades when they(some homosexuals not all) try to act as dirty as they can during the parade to I guess shock people. That is what I was talking about.
Hey Bill-no one is forcing you to attend gay pride parades.
Hell, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one except tv clips.
Parades aren’t really my thing, anyways.
I love a parade.
But I will have to back WB up on one point in his discussion with Esprix regarding the term “Jeezer”.
As a fairly lax Catholic, I have to take exception to that term. Consider the following:
There is a religion based upon the worship of ceiling fans. They have an elaborate religion set up, they do absolutely zero proselytizing, and completely keep to themselves. However, one person in the group goes out and bombs a Home Improvement, as he believes that they are taking advantage of the ceiling fans there, and backs his claim up with complete out-of-context use of their belief system. News of this event get around, and people begin to refer to this person as a “fandie”. The rest of the ceiling fan disciples become completely upset, as they revere the word “fan” above all other words, and this new term completely bastardizes that which they revere.
The term “Jeezer” bastardizes the name of Jesus. It is offensive to people who do not fall under your application of the word. I would recommend finding a new word.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Esprix *
Why don’t you just insult the people that you disagree with instead of accidently maybe insulting a group of people.
Ok here I disagree with you because of the Bible. God give us(Christians) a great commission to go out and share the gospel. So if someone ask you about your faith and tells you about Christ, please understand they are just doing their job.
But see that is an opinion. What makes a good Christian is different to different people wouldn’t you say?
I don’t know a whole lot about Fred Phelps from what you said I agree with you he is not acting very Christ like. But don’t blame the entire Christian population on one what one one guy does. Your beef is with him not all Christian. I’ll use me as an example I despise muslim terrorist that I tried to call all them towel heads but that is not really fair to all the other turbin wearing muslims that don’t fly into buildings now is it?
Well I don’t know about that because taking the Lord’s name in vein is one of the 10 Commandments.
Are you sure I could have swore I heard something like that coming from the road Sunday. ::just kidding::
Again, I see your point but like I said he/she was just doing what they thought they should do because of what Jesus told them to do. Maybe they are new Christians and don’t understand that is not the best way to witness.
No argument. In all reality I don’t read your gay threads as I am sure you don’t read my steroid threads because there is no interest on both our parts. But some of your other threads are pretty good.
Kinda depends on what you call ‘actions intended to shock people’ doesn’t it? If you’re talking about hand holding/kissing between members of the same sex and /or cross dressing, then we have widely divergent opinions of ‘actions intending to shock people’ Generally I call hand holding, kissing etc ‘expressions of affection’ and when done publically, then it’s PDA (public displays of affection).
If you’re talking about more explicit stuff than that, then, I’d suggest going after Mardi Gras first (public displays of nudity - or at least that’s what the “Coeds Go Wild” video commercials promise- etc.).
Do you believe that graphic stuff occurs routinely in gay pride marches? Not as far as I know.
I’ve been reading this board for quite some time now yet don’t post much for various reasons.
I must say that I am surprised and impressed by this thread.
My general impression of this board was that the “Golden Rule” has been that s/he who subjectively evaluates another poster’s content as ridiculous is granted free reign to target the poster as an object of ridicule. “Because he or she deserved it.”
The same rationalization used by wife-beaters.
What’s coming across to me is that the vast majority of participants here honestly have no intention to hurt. This is encouraging.
I observe that an important element of the culture of this board is a highly refined sense of humour. Yet if I had to generalize, I would say that the rule in place is that If sarcasm, jabbing, heckling, taunting, condescending, belittling or ridiculing is intended to be humourous, then the risk of hurting someone is reasonable.
I would like to determine when taking the risk of hurting someone is ever reasonable, when condemnation demands contempt.
Reading through this thread, the question that began repeating through my mind was “If the dopers stop using the term “Fundie”, then whom will they have to scapegoat?”
Esprix gave the answer: “last time I checked, it was still open season to insult Fred Phelps.”
I don’t know what Fred Phelps looks like, but I always picture the neighbor guy in the movie ‘American Beauty.’ I try to imagine what would happen if we actually caught the sorry fellow and I put bricks in your hands. How many of you would vomit before you could throw the brick or immediately after having thrown it? I rather think that the majority of you have the humanity to have a soft stomach.
If it’s so shocking, what are you doing at a gay pride parade? If you’re there of your own volition, quit bitching that you’re having it shoved in your face.
Esprix
I see your point, but I disagree. If someone uses their god - in this case, Jesus - as a weapon against me, I have no problem turning it around and using it against them. Of course I realize that those who are not rabid lunatics but still share some of the basic precepts of said loonie’s religious beliefs will take exception, but I hope they realize that I realize that they are not loonies like him. I think the both of us can agree that the extreme example we’ve been using, Fred Phelps, only qualifies as Christian by the thinnest of threads, and even at that it’s only because that’s how he self-identifies.
OK, this is a point well-taken. As at least a first step, I will refrain from capitalizing it.
I still think “jeezer” is appropriate, and we know “fundie” is also under scrutiny, and others (Polycarp?) have used “fundaloonie.” Even a good friend of mine refers to them as the “rabid right” since “religious” isn’t a term she is willing to give them.
I’m open to suggestions - do you have any?
Esprix
Thanks for the reply.
I still think this is dangerous, especially for the person using the term. Now, in your example, I would have no problem (i.e. someone using the Christian god as a soapbox for their own agenda) with you using the term “Jeezer” as fair turnabout. However, and I may be mistaken here, I believe I’ve seen you use it on the boards. If a newbie or a lurker or just someone unfamiliar with your use of the term were to read a post of yours using the term, and they were Christian as well, they would possibly take offense, for the reasons I stated above. I think decapitalizing it is a good step - one in which it makes the word not as easily connected with “Jesus” - and may on occasion be brought into question, wherein you would explain your meaning.
But that sure seems like a lot of work! I’m trying to come up with an alternative, and will think about it tonight (I have class, and it should be pretty boring, so now I have something to do). I really think “Bible Thumper” is still applicable. It focuses on those who theologically abuse the Bible, and uses the imagery of one who physically abuses the Bible (two instances that are not mutually exclusive).
Because those people insulting me are using their god to insult me. I can’t think of a better way to insult them back. I went to the New York City gay pride parade in '91 and a man stood there and waved a Bible at me and shouted, “Shame on you!” This is not someone looking for a theological debate, this was a man filled with hate, deserving of the title “jeezer” if ever I met one. (My response? “Shame on you for wearing that tie with those pants - ugh!” 
)
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. If I want to talk about religion, I’ll ask you, or I’ll take you up on the debate if you ask me kindly and in the appropriate setting - don’t stand on a street corner shouting it in my face or come up to me while I’m eating dinner or regale me with a Chick tract while I’m sitting watching the sunset with my boyfriend. And no, I’m not telling you to “keep it in church where it belongs,” but, like you don’t want a gay couple taunting you and your wife, I don’t want some fanatic waving a Bible in my face for no good reason.
(Again, I will reiterate that I do not view all Christians as these kinds of religious wackos, but you have to accept that they exist; similarly, I was just as disgusted to learn from one of Dan Savage’s columns that an HIV/AIDS social worker in San Francisco was quoted as going out and having unsafe, anonymous sex. I’m not going to stand there and say he represents the entirety of the gay community, but I’m also not going to stand there and say he doesn’t exist. There are creeps and cretins all over the place of every stripe.)
Not me, but since using jeezer is an opinion as well, I’m entitled to it.
Indeed, that’s why I am not calling all Christians “jeezers,” only the ones that use their Christianity as a weapon against me.
All Muslims are required to wear a head covering (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong); therefore, they have an outward sign at all times of their faith, so using “towel-head” does, indeed, wash every single person who wears a turban with the same brush. However, the only way I’m going to know you’re Christian is if you go out of your way to tell me, just like you’re not going to know I’m gay unless I go out of my way to tell you. You are not required to wear a cross around your neck (if you do, can I say you’re “flaunting it?”), and I am not required to wear a rainbow pin. Talking about your religious beliefs and/or my sexual orientation is fine - it’s part of who we are. But if you’re going to “come out” to me as a Christian by calling me a sinner, guess what? You get what you ask for, and that would be my disdain.
But thinking up creative ways to insult people is ok (I mean, after all, you’ve started threads seeking approval to scorn both Muslims and Atheists)? You have a weird religion, and I’m glad I don’t follow it.
Well, there’s one rationalization. Either way, it doesn’t matter - rude is rude, regardless of your reasons behind it. And if you tell me “God told me to,” you’ll get just as much derision, 'cause at that point, that’ll confirm to me that you are, indeed, a loonie - blaming it on Jesus doesn’t make it any more acceptable.
Esprix
Ding! {hands prize to wring}
Man, those heterosexuals make me sick, flaunting their sexuality in my face, with their wedding rings and their pictures on their desks and their soap operas and their Mardi Gras. Why do they have to shove it down my throat, day after day, everywhere I turn? I wish they’d just keep it in the bedroom where it belongs!
Esprix
I would venture to say that Jesus has pretty strong opinions about it. He may even have said something about it in the Bible.
Oh, don’t get me wrong - I have no love of Christianity; valid for others, perhaps, but I’ve been known to refer to it as “bunk n’ hooey,” to coin a phrase. So if someone reads it and takes offense, I might have actually meant it as a slam against their faith at the time. (Nice? No, but perhaps called for in that particular discussion.) In general, no, I do not go around insulting Christians at random, but if the topic comes up, don’t get me started.
I could live with that.
Esprix
That’s pretty amazing.
My opinion, but it seems to me to be the appropriate thing to throw back in response.
I’m glad I read this thread. I’ve guilty of using the word fundie a little too loosely. I’ll be more careful in the future.
We may have to invent a new word for the Jack Chicks and Fred Phelps of the world.
So if you don’t mean to convey contempt with the word but others do how should we treat the word? We should all memorize the entire list of words that may be taken as derogatory in some form and not use them? Or should everyone just try to be true to themselves and leave such petty concerns over some many petty words to the petty people who have nothing better to do.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Wildest Bill: Let’s cool it a little, 'kay? Some of your love notes from earlier today went a bit too far. Keep it calm.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]