This is the thread that never ends?
Yes it goes on and on my friends.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
Prop 8 OverturnedFollow
#1603
Aug 26 2010 at 7:18 AM
Hey guys, remember when Almalieque talked about evolution?
#1604
Aug 26 2010 at 7:57 AM
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What? Are you serious? You're wanting to lift the ban on SSM and you don't want to hear anything about rights, fairness or equality? Seriously? You are obviously blinded by emotion and that type of reasoning will never allow you conquer anything.
Because it's the government which creates that "legal definition", which is itself a limit on freedom.
And they should have to explain that restriction on that freedom. Which was Elinda's question. Preferably an explanation that contains some sort of proof of what one is saying. Not, you know, "Because it's obvious."
#1605
Aug 26 2010 at 9:31 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Bijou wrote:
2) Alma: You are a homophobe. Admit it to yourself and get on with your life
Of course. When you create a stupid word that consists of every possible feeling that doesn't support something, but then what's the value of the word? As mentioned, with that same logic, I'm a smokephobe, drinkalcoholaphobe, pukeaphobe, toesuckaphobe, puttitinthebuttaphobe, earsexaphobe, partyallthetimeaphobe, wearingtightjeansaphobe, countrymusuicaphobe, etc. The initial word might have had some merit, but with today's usage, the concept is completely stupid, irrelevant and has no value.
you forgot logicaphobe.
#1606
Aug 26 2010 at 9:52 AM
Almalieque wrote:
The initial word might have had some merit, but with today's usage, the concept is completely stupid, irrelevant and has no value.
Then so is Nigger, stupid. It's not an issue of semantics.
#1607
Aug 26 2010 at 10:02 AM
Barkingturtle wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The initial word might have had some merit, but with today's usage, the concept is completely stupid, irrelevant and has no value.
Then so is Nigger, stupid. It's not an issue of semantics.
Barkingturtle, son of BitingTurtle, you have been found guilty by the elders of the forums of uttering the "N" word, and so as a BLASPHEMER... You are to be stoned... to DEATH!! And BANNT!! Temporarily... maybe... Depending on the rules and regulations currently being enforced, or as may be the case, not.
#1608
Aug 26 2010 at 10:13 AM
I don't think we should get banned for words. They have no meaning.
#1609
Aug 26 2010 at 10:17 AM
They have the meaning that society as a whole attributes to them.
Like, gay used to mean "happy and carefree" but then it became associated with homosexuality and the original meaning is all but lost.
Since the society of ZAM - and the rest of the Internet, apparently - attributes "homophobe" to mean "a range of emotions, bigotry, yadda yadda, against gays" - then Alma is by our definition, and the definition of the rest of society, a homophobe, whether he agrees with it or not.
Like, gay used to mean "happy and carefree" but then it became associated with homosexuality and the original meaning is all but lost.
Since the society of ZAM - and the rest of the Internet, apparently - attributes "homophobe" to mean "a range of emotions, bigotry, yadda yadda, against gays" - then Alma is by our definition, and the definition of the rest of society, a homophobe, whether he agrees with it or not.
#1610
Aug 26 2010 at 10:17 AM
Guenny wrote:
I don't think we should get banned for words. They have no meaning.
True, unless card-boarding the presumption to staples couldn't enamour the vagaries of boundaries.
#1611
Aug 26 2010 at 10:44 AM
Almalieque wrote:
with today's usage, the concept is completely stupid, irrelevant and has no value.
I love it when idiots try to rationalize their opinions.
Edit: I also love it when I click the red arrow to go to the first unread post, respond to a post nearby, and go to check the post list only to find out that I was replying to something that was posted 2-3 pages ago.
Edited, Aug 26th 2010 11:45am by BrownDuck
#1612
Aug 26 2010 at 11:49 AM
Barkingturtle wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The initial word might have had some merit, but with today's usage, the concept is completely stupid, irrelevant and has no value.
Then so is Nigger, stupid. It's not an issue of semantics.
Ecxcept the definition of that word never changed. Besides, that's a horrible comparison. One word is referencing to a person of hatred and the other word is a negative term for the hated on person. That makes no sense.
Proper wording in a real debate is the foundation of an argument, your failure to realize that shows your intellectual stance in the debate.
catwho wrote:
Since the society of ZAM - and the rest of the Internet, apparently - attributes "homophobe" to mean "a range of emotions, bigotry, yadda yadda, against gays" - then Alma is by our definition, and the definition of the rest of society, a homophobe, whether he agrees with it or not.
So, I guess if you're not for reparations for slavery, that makes you a racist?
If you're not for minority scholarships, that makes you a racist?
If you not for pardoning illegal Mexican immigrants to be citizens, that makes you a racist?
The whole reason why I've been saying all of the -phobes, such as buttlickaphobe is to demonstrate how that type of similar logic doesn't apply to any other activity in society. The closest word is "sexist", but even then it's more defined than "homophobe". The reality is, pro-homosexuals have completely bastardized the word "homophobe" as a scare tactic to get whatever they want.
What's the point of labeling someone who doesn't hate gays, fear gays or couldn't care less on how they live their life a homophobe? That makes absolutely no sense, especially when people who actually hate or fear them are called the same thing.
Brown Duck wrote:
I love it when idiots try to rationalize their opinions.
Why do you think I come to Allakhazam, I see it all the time here.
#1613
Aug 26 2010 at 12:06 PM
If you are fighting against their right to get married, then you do care how they live their life. (Before I hear about "only arguing against bad arguemnts," I mean you in the general sense.)
#1615
Aug 26 2010 at 12:23 PM
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
If you are fighting against their right to get married, then you do care how they live their life. (Before I hear about "only arguing against bad arguemnts," I mean you in the general sense.)
Just like you're fighting against the rights for blacks to get reparations and illegal Mexicans to get citizenship if you don't agree with those actions?
No, you're looking at it one sided. Just like a glass being half empty or half full. I know you mean in the general sense, but for myself, I'm not fighting against homosexuality but for the definition of marriage.
That's a huge difference. If homosexuals somehow get a piece of the marriage pie, then so be it, but I'm not going be pro-same sex marriage just because you call me a "homophobe", that's ridiculous.
#1616
Aug 26 2010 at 12:26 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
If you are fighting against their right to get married, then you do care how they live their life. (Before I hear about "only arguing against bad arguemnts," I mean you in the general sense.)
Just like you're fighting against the rights for blacks to get reparations and illegal Mexicans to get citizenship if you don't agree with those actions?
Sure, if that's how you want to see it.
Alma wrote:
No, you're looking at it one sided.
Then share the other side, please. Because no one else has managed it.
Alma wrote:
Just like a glass being half empty or half full. I know you mean in the general sense, but for myself, I'm not fighting against homosexuality but for the definition of marriage.
Why?
Alma wrote:
That's a huge difference. If homosexuals somehow get a piece of the marriage pie, then so be it, but I'm not going be pro-same sex marriage just because you call me a "homophobe", that's ridiculous.
I don't think anyone really expects you to.
#1617
Aug 26 2010 at 12:40 PM
Belkira wrote:
Sure, if that's how you want to see it.
That's not how I'm seeing it, that's how you're seeing it. You're saying that if you don't agree with reparations or pardoning on illegal immigration, then that makes you a racist. Or what if you don't agree that a Muslim should be able to have their face covered in a state driving license? You also must hate Mormons if you don't support polygamy. That's absurd. Well, I didn't know you had so much hate in you...
Belkira wrote:
Then share the other side, please. Because no one else has managed it.
I just did in that very post.It's not fighting against SSM, but fighting for the definition of marriage.
Belkira wrote:
Why?
Because, it's all about the arguments being used. If we allow people to do what they want just because they say "I have a right to", then the foundations of laws and rules will fall apart. I'm not arguing against the change, just how it's done.
Belkira wrote:
I don't think anyone really expects you to.
Most likely not, but the whole "homophobe" attack supports that claim. "If you don't agree then you're a HOMOPHOBE!!"
#1618
Aug 26 2010 at 12:43 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Sure, if that's how you want to see it.
That's not how I'm seeing it, that's how you're seeing it. You're saying that if you don't agree with reparations or pardoning on illegal immigration, then that makes you a racist. Or what if you don't agree that a Muslim should be able to have their face covered in a state driving license? You also must hate Mormons if you don't support polygamy. That's absurd. Well, I didn't know you had so much hate in you...
I suggest, before you try to continue this argument, you actually look up the definition of racism. You might be able to figure out why your argument is idiotic. Maybe you can see how it's different than that of homophobe, too.
Alma wrote:
I just did in that very post.It's not fighting against SSM, but fighting for the definition of marriage.
Because, it's all about the arguments being used. If we allow people to do what they want just because they say "I have a right to", then the foundations of laws and rules will fall apart. I'm not arguing against the change, just how it's done.
Belkira wrote:
Why?
Because, it's all about the arguments being used. If we allow people to do what they want just because they say "I have a right to", then the foundations of laws and rules will fall apart. I'm not arguing against the change, just how it's done.
Whatever, buddy. Alma wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I don't think anyone really expects you to.
Most likely not, but the whole "homophobe" attack supports that claim. "If you don't agree then you're a HOMOPHOBE!!"
So...?
#1620
Aug 26 2010 at 12:55 PM
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Why are you even still talking to him Bel? You can't understand him, and if you did, it would mean you've crossed the point of no return.
I want to educate people. 
#1622
Aug 26 2010 at 1:04 PM
Belkira wrote:
I suggest, before you try to continue this argument, you actually look up the definition of racism. You might be able to figure out why your argument is idiotic. Maybe you can see how it's different than that of homophobe, too.
That is my point. The two words are very different. One word is more refined and specific and the other word is open to anything. My point is that the word "homophobe" has no bounds and can be utilized on someone for simply not fighting for homosexuality.
The term "racist", along with just about every other term, doesn't work that way. We mainly don't have words to describe people who simply don't support things or are indifferent. Our words typically describe the extremes sides. That's why we have words like "foot fetish" but not toesuckaphobe. Homophobe is just as silly as toesuckaphobe as it makes absolutely no sense under society's current definition.
If "homophobe" were more defined such as the word "racist", then it would be a completely different story.
Belkira wrote:
Smiley: rolleyes Whatever, buddy.
Of course you will refuse to accept it, because that will force you to accept the fact that people can not support SSM and not be a homophobe.
Belkira wrote:
So...?
It's a poor tactic, just like the argument "We have the right!!"
#1623
Aug 26 2010 at 1:18 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Smiley: rolleyes Whatever, buddy.
Of course you will refuse to accept it, because that will force you to accept the fact that people can not support SSM and not be a homophobe.
I'll admit that I don't really know what's been argued to this point, nor do I care. However, I will say that I believe you can be against SSM and not be a homophone. You're still stupid, IMO, for wanting to deny someone else what the supreme court has already declared a "fundamental right" in our society, for any of the previously mentioned reasons in this thread. None of them are valid. Yep, none of them.
Furthermore, if your only argument against SSM is the preservation of your definition of the word "Marriage", then you're doubly an idiot for believing that someone else being granted the same state sanctioned rights you have will somehow infringe on the sanctity of any possible relationship you may have with another person.
Pretty @#%^ing simple.
Full disclosure: I think you're an idiot anyway, mostly because of the way you present yourself and the beliefs you have bestowed upon the forum in previous threads.
Edited, Aug 26th 2010 2:20pm by BrownDuck
#1624
Aug 26 2010 at 1:30 PM
Almalieque wrote:
That is my point. The two words are very different. One word is more refined and specific and the other word is open to anything. My point is that the word "homophobe" has no bounds and can be utilized on someone for simply not fighting for homosexuality.
The term "racist", along with just about every other term, doesn't work that way. We mainly don't have words to describe people who simply don't support things or are indifferent. Our words typically describe the extremes sides. That's why we have words like "foot fetish" but not toesuckaphobe. Homophobe is just as silly as toesuckaphobe as it makes absolutely no sense under society's current definition.
If "homophobe" were more defined such as the word "racist", then it would be a completely different story.
The term "racist", along with just about every other term, doesn't work that way. We mainly don't have words to describe people who simply don't support things or are indifferent. Our words typically describe the extremes sides. That's why we have words like "foot fetish" but not toesuckaphobe. Homophobe is just as silly as toesuckaphobe as it makes absolutely no sense under society's current definition.
If "homophobe" were more defined such as the word "racist", then it would be a completely different story.
Again... so what? I'm sorry you don't like the defnition?
Belkira wrote:
Of course you will refuse to accept it, because that will force you to accept the fact that people can not support SSM and not be a homophobe.
I don't know that I ever said that. I believe all I've said on the subject was that the definition was pretty broad, so the way that people were using it seemed accurate, and I also mentioned that I try to steer clear of that word, myself. As a matter of fact, what I was responding to (some babble about needing to defend the definition of marriage to keep people from getting just claiming rights to whatever they want, or something) had nothing to do with homophobia.
Alma wrote:
Belkira wrote:
So...?
It's a poor tactic, just like the argument "We have the right!!"
Again, so? Going on and on about some archaic defnition of the word marriage is a pretty **** poor tactic, too, but it doesn't seem to stop you.
#1625
Aug 26 2010 at 1:37 PM
Brown Duck wrote:
I'll admit that I don't really know what's been argued to this point, nor do I care. However, I will say that I believe you can be against SSM and not be a homophone. You're still stupid, IMO, for wanting to deny someone else what the supreme court has already declared a "fundamental right" in our society, for any of the previously mentioned reasons in this thread. None of them are valid. Yep, none of them.
1. If it's so cut and clear that it's a "fundamental right" then why is this still ongoing?
2. You all have already stated that the rulings in courts have nothing to do with what the truth really is, but how it's argued.
3. You're making an assumption that inaccurate rulings were never passed and/or will never pass, i.e. black citizens being considered only a fraction of a person.
4.Belkira admitted that if the Supreme Court argued against SSM saying that it wasn't denying their right, then it wouldn't change her mind. So, would it change your opinion on SSM?
Brown Duck wrote:
Furthermore, if your only argument against SSM is the preservation of your definition of the word "Marriage", then you're doubly an idiot for believing that someone else being granted the same state sanctioned rights you have will somehow infringe on the sanctity of any possible relationship you may have with another person.
Almalieque wrote:
Because, it's all about the arguments being used. If we allow people to do what they want just because they say "I have a right to", then the foundations of laws and rules will fall apart. I'm not arguing against the change, just how it's done.
Learn to read...and it'll all make sense to you. I promise.
Brown Duck wrote:
Full disclosure: I think you're an idiot anyway, mostly because of the way you present yourself and the beliefs you have bestowed upon the forum in previous threads.
What can I say, the truth hurts. It's easy to dwell in a like-minded forum of ignorance thinking everything on the outside is just peaches and cream. How many more of these "idiots" who simply disagree with the forum will it take before you all realize that what you're thinking is opinion at best?
#1626
Aug 26 2010 at 1:40 PM
Almalieque wrote:
What can I say, the truth hurts. It's easy to dwell in a like-minded forum of ignorance thinking everything on the outside is just peaches and cream. How many more of these "idiots" who simply disagree with the forum will it take before you all realize that what you're thinking is opinion at best?
And your line of thinking isn't...? It's based on some fact or evidence that you can't be bothered to present?
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 744
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (744)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC