Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chongara wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Kovnik...you are new here, and yes I have been accused of homophobia by some of the posters on here. In their minds any type of oposition to homosexuality on moral grounds = homophobe.

Yes. That's pretty much the definition of homophobia.

Whats awesome is how you can be so consistently wrong. Your statement blows chunks in comparison to actual definitions.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discrimination portal
v · t · e
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions[1][2][3] refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[4]

http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/homophobia.asp

Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life. Organized hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate them.

Further, you can be opposed to homosexuality without being discriminatory towards it. I'm opposed to vegetables but I'm not discriminatory to them. Vegetarians on the other hand...

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:So if, as a society we decide to make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality...why stop there? I think that is the basis of my satirical posts.

You really love your slippery slopes, don't you?

They all do, and it literally is the worst argument ever.

If we start letting consenting adults marry each other... the next thing you know were raping babies!

Uh? First sentence you quoted:

Frazzled wrote:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.

I'm pretty sure "Your mere existence is immoral" counts as a negative attitude. It also easily counts as "Contempt" per the second sentence or at the very least "Aversion". There is no way you can "Object to homosexuality on moral grounds" and not be a homophone would probably have been a better way to phrase what I said.

Chongara wrote:Uh? First sentence you quoted:

Frazzled wrote:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual.

I'm pretty sure "Your mere existence is immoral" counts as a negative attitude. It also easily counts as "Contempt" per the second sentence or at the very least "Aversion".

He didn't cite a negative attitude or feeling. He said he was opposed to it on moral grounds.

Again, I don't have negative feelings towards vegetables. I'm opposed to them on moral grounds and common math. Thats calories better spent on cake.

If negative feeling constitutes the minimum low bar for discrimination then we're literally walking bigots committing hated bigotry every hour, even homosexuals. After all, becuase they prefer same sex relationships they, by nature, have negative feelings towards heterosexuals.

In fact, your argument only proves the Cannarus is the only non bigoted hatemonger amongst all of us. Of course, if Cannarus has a preference for blue instead of mocha he's just a color bigot. Cannerus don't be a color hata!

Frazzled wrote:
He didn't cite a negative attitude or feeling. He said he was opposed to it on moral grounds.

Well if thinking something is inherently wrong doesn't count as a negative attitude or feeling towards that something, I really have no idea what it is.

If negative feeling constitutes the minimum low bar for discrimination then we're literally walking bigots committing hated bigotry every hour, even homosexuals. After all, becuase they prefer same sex relationships they, by nature, have negative feelings towards heterosexuals.

You're the one who supplied the definition that set the bar at "Negative Feelings". That was the standard you provided, I assume to prove that saying "Your very existence [being a homosexual] is immoral" isn't homophobic.

"Homophobia is defined as having negative feelings about homosexuals " is your argument. It came from a post of yours I quoted, where you provided the definition of homophobia and that was it.

Well if thinking something is inherently wrong doesn't count as a negative attitude or feeling towards that something, I really have no idea what it is.

Then you have no idea what it is.

Haven't you heard, Chongara? Being opposed to something is a positive reaction towards it.

Frazzled, I think you've mixed up your ulcer medication with the crazy pills again. Go lie down, it'll soon blow over.

Albatross wrote:Haven't you heard, Chongara? Being opposed to something is a positive reaction towards it.

Frazzled, I think you've mixed up your ulcer medication with the crazy pills again. Go lie down, it'll soon blow over.

Thats a common misnomer. One type is red, the other is blue. You take the red pills in the morning and the blue pills in the evening.

OTT but if anyone saw some crazy homeless looking guy running down the street sunday morning in the rain being dragged by two dogs (one of which appeared to be yodelling) and carrying an ancient wiener dog in his arm like a football shouting "the Old Man is Too Slow! The Old Man is Too Slow!" at you, you weren't hallucinating. *



*The Old Man was too slow, so I had to pick him up as we trotted back to the house. Rodney freaked when lightning hit nearby and started yodelling, and I didn't want Tbone to get sick. Even in the rain Rusty was still hot and the Old Man was baring his teeth and growling all the way back. he does not suffer indignity lightly.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Beh no. Animals are simply not a proper outlet for sexual urges. I mean, I wouldn't throw the guy in prison for years, but definitely charge him with animal abuse and put him in a ward for a while.

And animals are definitely not comparable to robots. God, if I have to make it my only goal throughout my career as a philo teacher, it's going to be to convert the greatest amount of young, fragile minds away from that Cartesian point of view.

Isn't it funny though that sex with animals is considered animal abuse, but everyone seems to be fine with animals being kept in cages and slaughtered for food. Crabs boiled alive. Testing drugs and cosmetics on animals. They're worn as clothing. Baby eggs killed for flue shots.

Don't you think, given the choice, A dog would rather live in your house licking up peanut butter, then getting murdered in a humane society?

for the record again: don't ask, don't tell. I just don't think its any of my business what you do with your animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Is not the same as

or this:

I object to thinly veiled hated and paranoia that tries to hide behind a shield of "moral superiority"

Many peoples morals are ill-conceived, illogical, and dangerous.

So yes you can be as crazy as you wanna be, but expect to be called on it when you make unfounded statements in line with the typical homophobe agenda and talking points..

generalgrog wrote:Hold on.....we had someone post about how dolphins enjoyed homosexual bonding in nature and lions had homosexual urges in nature. I know of quite a few lapdogs that like to get it on with peoples legs...and believe me....they initiated the leg sex. So this proves that animals do like to engage in sex with humans...so what if it starts with leg sex... if it moves on to other more intimate pleasures who are we to be bigoted about it.
GG

That's not a dog trying to have sex with your leg, that's a dog attempting to dominate you as a lower member of the pack.

Lucian Greymark wrote:Look at it this way, heterosexual relationships are becomeing, sadly, only on par with homosexual relationships when it comes to reputation, rather than above them. A glance at britan will do this thread good. In England the terms "Husband and wife" are being banned state marriages because the term is "Insensitive" The term is now "Spouse and spouse" (Or will be soon) This is a good example of how our world is changing, in myopinion for the worse. This thread will only come across as a troll thread if you cannot discuss things like this calmly. Honestly there is no reason why mature people shouldnt be able to discuss things like this wherever they want. Regardless in realtion to the OP te picture the kid drew has nothing offensive on it, lets face it you pick 4 out of 5 kids these days and ask them to draw themselves with their perants and you will get a similar picture, the school is being a group of idiots.

That's a rather fiery statement there; are you implying that it's an outrage that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are 'on par'? They should be unequal?

It sounds like we have a bigot here.

George Spiggott wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Hold on.....we had someone post about how dolphins enjoyed homosexual bonding in nature and lions had homosexual urges in nature. I know of quite a few lapdogs that like to get it on with peoples legs...and believe me....they initiated the leg sex. So this proves that animals do like to engage in sex with humans...so what if it starts with leg sex... if it moves on to other more intimate pleasures who are we to be bigoted about it.
GG

That's not a dog trying to have sex with your leg, that's a dog attempting to dominate you as a lower member of the pack.

He humps you, you hump him twice as hard

He sends your trousers to the dry cleaners, you send that to the maternity ward!

sirlynchmob wrote:Crabs boiled alive.

It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.

Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.

I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething sea bugs...

Chowderhead wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Crabs boiled alive.

It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.

Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.

I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething sea bugs...

You can't help but see them anytime you walk into a red lobster. but no I've never personally caught one, I've ate one, didn't care for the taste. But just because I choose not to eat them, doesn't mean I have the right tell anyone else not to. I just find it odd what some people consider animal abuse and what they're ok with when it comes to the treatment of animals.

That's because people are crazy crazy hypocrites.

I thought it was an inbuilt thing so we don't go crazy.

Chowderhead wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Crabs boiled alive.

It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.

Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.

I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething delicious sea bugs...

Fixed that for you.

My dislike of arthropods makes me totally ok with boiling them alive, the only kinds I don't actively try to kill are house spiders (they eat flies, I hate flying insects even more than the other kinds) and ladybirds (because I was trained from a young age that they are good for the garden).

sirlynchmob wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Crabs boiled alive.

It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.

Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.

I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething sea bugs...

You can't help but see them anytime you walk into a red lobster. but no I've never personally caught one, I've ate one, didn't care for the taste. But just because I choose not to eat them, doesn't mean I have the right tell anyone else not to. I just find it odd what some people consider animal abuse and what they're ok with when it comes to the treatment of animals.

I am fine with your opinion to not eat them. I can understand the reasons, and I can sympathize with the cause, seeing some of the animals that I used to see on family vacations to a friends farm in a fridge.

However, I feel little sympathy for lobsters. It's hard to go swimming with the crabs and lobbies in the ocean trying to cut your toes off. They also eat all the muscles and oysters the men of my town try to grow, depriving them of an income.

So I do feel sorry for killing them. They have lives and families. We only kill the adults and throw back the children and pregnant women. It is, however, a great menace to our community,

That and the sharks in the harbor who have poisonous spines and eat the fish. donkey-caves.

Chowderhead wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Crabs boiled alive.

It is obvious you have never caught a Lobster before.

Those fethers have claws the size of an adult man's hand, and can tear flesh and even break bones if they are large enough.

I have the scars to show that Lobsters get what they deserve. fething sea bugs...

You can't help but see them anytime you walk into a red lobster. but no I've never personally caught one, I've ate one, didn't care for the taste. But just because I choose not to eat them, doesn't mean I have the right tell anyone else not to. I just find it odd what some people consider animal abuse and what they're ok with when it comes to the treatment of animals.

I am fine with your opinion to not eat them. I can understand the reasons, and I can sympathize with the cause, seeing some of the animals that I used to see on family vacations to a friends farm in a fridge.

However, I feel little sympathy for lobsters. It's hard to go swimming with the crabs and lobbies in the ocean trying to cut your toes off. They also eat all the muscles and oysters the men of my town try to grow, depriving them of an income.

So I do feel sorry for killing them. They have lives and families. We only kill the adults and throw back the children and pregnant women. It is, however, a great menace to our community,

That and the sharks in the harbor who have poisonous spines and eat the fish. donkey-caves.

Hey look at that, we agree to live and let live. I have no problems with you doing any of the stuff you listed or your reasons for it, because it in no way affects me.

Some people on this forum achieve the affect of making me feel dirty I share the hobby with them. Which has never been done on any other forum I've been on, from Doctor WHo, Blake's 7 and other modelling sites. As someone who has long associated with people in SF and fantasy fandom, I've found it to be one of the most open and accepting groups of people in which people of all sorts could mix and were largely free of judgement. To me there is a strong crossover in the nerdy hobbies and interests with a free and accepting attitude towards sexuality and people of all backgrounds.

Yet I don't find that to be the case within wargaming even of the SF and Fantasy variety, if Dakka is a fair reflection of that, and I find that really really sad. People like GG and Lucian Greymark utterly disgust me with their vile, judgemental views on things like homosexuality of which they seem particularly preoccupied with saying the most unpleasant things time and again.

Homosexuality cannot be equivalenced to bestiality or, as I recall in the past, paedophilia. I find people expressing such views are repellent. It's horrible.

Lucian Greymark wrote:


and as for my previous comment being bs, I have a friend who works in british law... try again sorry


Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay

There is no law against saying husband and wife.

Also we weren't designed to do anything.

Finally what brings you to the conclusion that being gay is wrong? Religion? Upbringing ? Low IQ? or Denial?

Our ultimate purpose is to reproduce and carry on our geen pool. Without that, our species would decrease in number and die, simple.

Even bacteria do that.

I think humans can aspire to a higher purpose.

Don't dictate to me what my ultimate purpose is.

My ultimate purpose is to not catch any STDs.

My other ultimate purpose is to finish painting my Black Templars.

Kilkrazy wrote:Even bacteria do that.

I think humans can aspire to a higher purpose.

I aspire to reproduce as often as possible.
Is that a higher purpose?

I simply can't see a moral aspect to homosexuality.

The value of reproduction is only absolute when not reproducing would endanger the specie (if one puts value on the existence of humanity as a whole) or when it hurt others (if one puts value to the individual first).

At this point in time, choosing not to reproduce (which is what homosexuals tend to do, because, really, homosexuality is only a minor obstacle to reproduction) no longer endanger anyone. It's a personal liberty.

AustonT wrote:I aspire to reproduce as often as possible.
Is that a higher purpose?

I'd say no. A higher purpose would be to produce the greatest quality of offspring, not the greatest number. Cause there, the rat got us beat no matter what.

No.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Some people on this forum achieve the affect of making me feel dirty I share the hobby with them. Which has never been done on any other forum I've been on, from Doctor WHo, Blake's 7 and other modelling sites. As someone who has long associated with people in SF and fantasy fandom, I've found it to be one of the most open and accepting groups of people in which people of all sorts could mix and were largely free of judgement. To me there is a strong crossover in the nerdy hobbies and interests with a free and accepting attitude towards sexuality and people of all backgrounds.

Yet I don't find that to be the case within wargaming even of the SF and Fantasy variety, if Dakka is a fair reflection of that, and I find that really really sad. People like GG and Lucian Greymark utterly disgust me with their vile, judgemental views on things like homosexuality of which they seem particularly preoccupied with saying the most unpleasant things time and again.

Homosexuality cannot be equivalenced to bestiality or, as I recall in the past, paedophilia. I find people expressing such views are repellent. It's horrible.

Dont blame hobbyists or Sci Fi enthusiasts! Thats terribly unfair, don't even blame people!

I like to copy Prof Dawkins and Hitch and go to the root of the problem.

Why ponder the hows and the whys when you can just blame Religion? It makes sense to do so, the least complex answer is the most likely one. Without it, bigotry against gay people would be much much rarer and that's an indisputable fact. Sure SOME people hate gays because of their own bizarre reasons, but when I hear an American doing it, 90% of the time, its because they are parroting what their preachers have said, and needless to say, GG and his chums are young earthers. They can dispute it all they want, but if 99% of the members of their church think like they do, how does it make sense to put this reprehensible behaviour down to individuals or even more stupidly, people that like Doctor Who or Warhammer?!

Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.

Why do they care so much about what other people get up to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:Don't dictate to me what my ultimate purpose is.

My ultimate purpose is to not catch any STDs.

My other ultimate purpose is to finish painting my Black Templars.

Exactly, we don't HAVE a purpose! There is no "grand plan" your purpose is whatever you decide you want it to be.

And its not like our species is rare.. gak, there are so many people now that you could argue that our numbers will result in our near demise and cause the starvation and suffering of billions, at which point, surely the purpose is to NOT have any more kids?

Ok, but you cannot deny that from an evolutionary viewpoint, a living being's primary goal is to reproduce and carry on the species. Not from you as an individual's goal, but as a whole species.

TheRobotLol wrote:Our ultimate purpose is to reproduce and carry on our geen pool. Without that, our species would decrease in number and die, simple.

I think we are more than ok when it comes to numbers.