Obama on Louisiana Flood - Bless his Heart!

[Starlight]

So when that consists of participants dressed as priests and nuns engaged in simulated sex acts do you consider that "celebratory of the group" or "being anti someone or something"?

Oh it's definitely being anti. And I personally roll my eyes at it and wouldn't encourage it.

I do however give a great deal of leeway to groups who have been historically oppressed if they want to express mockery or anger at their oppressors. The extent to which Christians (symbolized here by priests and nuns) have harmed gay people historically is incalculably massive. So a little bit of disrespectful mockery by gay people about Christians seems totally understandable.

[Cow Poke]

Oh it's definitely being anti. And I personally roll my eyes at it and wouldn't encourage it.

I do however give a great deal of leeway to groups who have been historically oppressed if they want to express mockery or anger at their oppressors. The extent to which Christians (symbolized here by priests and nuns) have harmed gay people historically is incalculably massive. So a little bit of disrespectful mockery by gay people about Christians seems totally understandable.

Yup - -

[Starlight]

Yup - -

I struggle to believe you're being serious with your random accusations of trolling, because you keep making the accusations against particularly inoffensive posts even when there's other more controversial ones to choose from. For example, the contents of the post you just accused of trolling is a post that I would anticipate 100% of liberal posters here would generally agree with.

However, the post before it said some things that are controversial in liberal circles. Liberals are deeply divided (perhaps approximately 50-50, it's hard to tell) as to what extent they need to be tolerant of intolerance and to what extent they are justified in using force of law to crack down on non-liberal values (e.g. allow absolute freedom of speech vs ban hate speech). Sometimes the two sides are labelled 'progressive' and 'regressive'/'authoritarian left'. I generally tend slightly toward the authoritarian left and think that at times there can be justification for banning types of free speech, for preventing people expressing certain kinds of views (e.g. if the KKK wants to have a parade and distribute pamphlets to school kids about how terrible black people are, then the government should stop them expressing that sort of speech). So I would naturally expect only about 50% of the liberals in this forum to agree with this post where I suggest jail could be a reasonable possibility for over-zealously anti-gay Christian groups, and I would expect the other 50% of liberal posters here to say "no, I disagree, we need free speech, and they are entitled to promote whatever horrible policies they like, because freedom. Even if they are intolerant, we must tolerate them, because tolerance." If even every single other liberal poster here said they disagreed with my views in that post, I wouldn't be totally surprised.

If you'd accused that post of trolling, and argued "he's pretending he'd like to see religious conservatives go to jail in some circumstances, just to be inflammatory" I could have at least understood your accusation. FYI, I wasn't trolling and that's a view I really hold, and it is one I disagree with some of my fellow liberals / progressives / atheists on. But it wasn't that post you accused of being trolling, and instead you picked a totally innocuous and non-controversial post, which just expresses totally normal pan-standard liberal views, to claim it was trolling. So your random accusations of trolling make no sense at all to me, and I've come to believe you just do it to avoid discussion when you feel I've made some good points that you don't want to agree with but which you can't find an argument against.

[Cow Poke]

I struggle to believe you're being serious with your random accusations of trolling

Seriously, SL -- I don't care.

[Tassman]

But my meaning does not imply irrationality. Yes, I happen to think most homophobes are irrational, just like I think most sexists and racists are irrational. But the words "sexism" and "racism" don't imply irrationality in their meaning, and neither does the word "homophobia" in my usage.

Homophobia does

So, for example, I would describe a sincerely religious person who liked gay people but who believed same-sex sexual behavior to be a sin due to the bible's teachings, as a person who was rational but homophobic.

This is an incorrect use of the word.

[Starlight]

Homophobia does

The historical origin of a word doesn't control its meaning - thinking it does is a linguistic mistake known as the etymological fallacy. Many words quickly change in meaning from what the person who invented them was using them to mean, and may continue to change their meanings in the decades or centuries that follow. Homophobia is an example of a word whos meaning has shifted. Also, the suffix "-phobia" need not imply anything psychiatric - a surface can be "hydrophobic" or "hydrophilic" depending on whether it repels or attracts water.

[Tassman]

So, you'd want me in jail if I said "I believe that homosexuality is a sin"?

Only if, as per Kim Davis, your personal beliefs impel you to illegally discriminate against others e.g. re wedding cakes for homosexual weddings.

And, merely expressing a sincerely held religious belief is evidence of "hate"?

No. What is evidence of hate is when the likes of the Family Research Council makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science so as to discriminate against them. Sincerely held religious beliefs do not

No wonder the Pilgrims left Nutsville in search of Freedom of Religion.

Equally important is the freedom from religion, to which everyone is also entitled.

[Tassman]

The historical origin of a word doesn't control its meaning - thinking it does is a linguistic mistake known as the etymological fallacy. Many words quickly change in meaning from what the person who invented them was using them to mean, and may continue to change their meanings in the decades or centuries that follow. Homophobia is an example of a word whos meaning has shifted. Also, the suffix "-phobia" need not imply anything psychiatric - a surface can be "hydrophobic" or "hydrophilic" depending on whether it repels or attracts water.

Well I think that the dictionary definition of homophobia, to which you objected previously, is indicative of current usage...namely, that it has a definite negative connotation. So we must agree to disagree.

[rogue06]

Oh it's definitely being anti. And I personally roll my eyes at it and wouldn't encourage it.

Skipping the attempts to justify it, wouldn't such behavior, which is very prominent at such parades, therefore be, by your own definition of "hate groups," enough to qualify such rallies and those that sponsor them for that designation?

Let's see if you're consistent or if not the mental gymnastics you will employ

[Tassman]

Skipping the attempts to justify it, wouldn't such behavior, which is very prominent at such parades, therefore be, by your own definition of "hate groups," enough to qualify such rallies and those that sponsor them for that designation?

[Cow Poke]

The historical origin of a word doesn't control its meaning - thinking it does is a linguistic mistake known as the etymological fallacy. Many words quickly change in meaning from what the person who invented them was using them to mean, and may continue to change their meanings in the decades or centuries that follow. Homophobia is an example of a word whos meaning has shifted. Also, the suffix "-phobia" need not imply anything psychiatric - a surface can be "hydrophobic" or "hydrophilic" depending on whether it repels or attracts water.

Heck, I remember when 'gay' meant brightly colored or happy.

[Sparko]

Heck, I remember when 'gay' meant brightly colored or happy.

Well I remember when it was the name of the plane that bombed Japan!

[Cow Poke]

Only if, as per Kim Davis,

Speaking of Kim Davis, I just googled something else regarding her, and this image popped up....


kim-david-bigamy.jpg

Does it remind you of anybody on Tweb?

[Cow Poke]

Well I remember when it was the name of the plane that bombed Japan!

Heck, I remember when it was a US Navy TBD Devastator pilot from Torpedo Squadron 8 operating from the USS Hornet in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. He got shot down and had a front row 'seat' for the Battle of Midway!

[Sparko]

Heck, I remember when it was a US Navy TBD Devastator pilot from Torpedo Squadron 8 operating from the USS Hornet in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. He got shot down and had a front row 'seat' for the Battle of Midway!

dang. you're old.