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.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There are certain circumstances where you can unquestionably identify someone as gay, particularly behaviors that even "straight allies" wouldn't engage in.

I know straight people who have engaged in the activities that I believe you're referencing.

Then "gay" has an entirely different meaning than I am accustomed to.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:You mean like the gusy that go "woot lesbians" every time two women who happen to be friends hug in greeting?

No, I mean straight people that march in gay pride parades wearing rainbow t-shirts and chaps of a particular sort.

mistake in quote, fyi.

Awesome a dual thread duel between dogma and biccat.

corpsesarefun wrote:Awesome a dual thread duel between dogma and biccat.

This must be a different definition to "awesome" than I am used to.

biccat wrote:
Then "gay" has an entirely different meaning than I am accustomed to.

Oh, "gay" is a wonderful word which means basically whatever you want it to. Anything can be "gay", even video games, 40k units, and certain practices in Halo.

Anyway, "gay" usually doesn't mean, not when used in civil conversation, "I once did that one thing with that one dude, but I didn't like it."

biccat wrote:
mistake in quote, fyi.

My bad. I'll fix it.

Frazzled wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Awesome a dual thread duel between dogma and biccat.

This must be a different definition to "awesome" than I am used to.

And "dual."

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Then "gay" has an entirely different meaning than I am accustomed to.

Oh, "gay" is a wonderful word which means basically whatever you want it to. Anything can be "gay", even video games, 40k units, and certain practices in Halo.

Then I can say yes, I can objectively tell from a person's appearance whether they are gay or not.

Anyway, this has gone on long enough, I don't care about George Takei any more than I care about the rest of the cast from that inferior Star Trek series.

But... can you tell whether or not they're Takei?

biccat wrote:
Then I can say yes, I can objectively tell from a person's appearance whether they are gay or not.

Well, not objectively, you can't use a subjective word to reach an objective conclusion.

Hey I care about Takei! He's like how you want your grandparents to be when you have kids, kuddly and warm.

Go Grandma Takei!

Frazzled wrote:Hey I care about Takei! He's like how you want your grandparents to be when you have kids, kuddly and warm.

Go Grandma Takei!

And gay in every way (IE, happy and homosexual)?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Then I can say yes, I can objectively tell from a person's appearance whether they are gay or not.

Well, not objectively, you can't use a subjective word to reach an objective conclusion.

Yes I can. If I assign a fixed value to "gay" (all blonds are gay), I can create an objective test to determine whether a person meets that definition. Your definition of 'gay' is simply subject to individual interpretation. It doesn't mean that I can't have an objective test for determining someone's "gayness."

You might disagree with that assesment, but that doesn't change my application of the label.

Are you really arguing you can stop something being subjective by having a personal definition of it?

Also, dual means of two parts and was used correctly.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hey I care about Takei! He's like how you want your grandparents to be when you have kids, kuddly and warm.

Go Grandma Takei!

And gay in every way (IE, happy and homosexual)?

Happy and cuddly. (I think I just spelled cuddly in two different ways). A perfect grandparent for kids to have fond memories of.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:i find it funny when people say that Gay people ram their preferences down other people's throats

aside from the obvious sex joke, these people forget that for centuries they've been doing the oppressive ramming of preferences

and to be honest, Gays have a healthier message to say than the current hetero agenda imho

Gay people champion "be yourself" "love yourself" while the hetero agenda fosters "you aint a man if..." and "lose weight so you can be prettier" etc...

just throwing that out there

I suspect the gay scene has just as much body fascism as the hetero media.

You don't notice it so much because there is less gay media around and hetero people don't read it much, because they aren't interested.

My office is on the floor above "Sweatbox, London's Premier Gay Sauna and Gym" in Soho.

As my brother sometimes says, "Just because you are a member of an oppressed minority, it doesn't mean you aren't an arsehole".

this is always going to be true for both sides of the argument though.

As for gay media being not so prevalent: the only way for LGB POVs to be heard in the mainstream is if it is overwhelmingly positive. And even then the message tends to be filtered and censored down to "Is there a way we can avoid mentioning you're gay at all?"

In the meantime, mainstream media lets mysogyny, sex, drugs, etc air through with not a lot of trouble barring extreme cases. Take a look at an average rap video or Britney spears video. Lots of airplay. Sure concerned parents would gripe about it but really...not a lot of trouble. Turn it around though, make a video where adam lambert and ricky martin are grinding with half naked dudes and im betting you that's not seeing airtime without a some drama over it.

personally i really dont want to see that video but why the double standard?

Also, Martin Luther King Jr. was one loud bad-ass mofo. He had to be to get his message across.

I guess what I'm saying here, if people want the LGB community to dial it down a bit just let them have the same rights and treatment as any average joe. That way they can go through the sweet and crap of regular life in peace.

biccat wrote:
Yes I can. If I assign a fixed value to "gay" (all blonds are gay), I can create an objective test to determine whether a person meets that definition. Your definition of 'gay' is simply subject to individual interpretation. It doesn't mean that I can't have an objective test for determining someone's "gayness."

Yes, but the test is created via subjective means, which is an admitted problem of all non-mathematically determined sciences (and, if we're being really picky, even those), but still a real thing that you need to account for.

What is blonde, after all?

biccat wrote:
You might disagree with that assesment, but that doesn't change my application of the label.

Yes, you can objectively said to apply label X, but the application of label X is subjective.

corpsesarefun wrote:
Are you really arguing you can stop something being subjective by having a personal definition of it?

As you have identified, that is basically the definition of "subjective".

corpsesarefun wrote:
Also, dual means of two parts and was used correctly.

One might contend that an argument must be of two parts, though people do argue with themselves, so maybe not.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Yes I can. If I assign a fixed value to "gay" (all blonds are gay), I can create an objective test to determine whether a person meets that definition. Your definition of 'gay' is simply subject to individual interpretation. It doesn't mean that I can't have an objective test for determining someone's "gayness."

Yes, but the test is created via subjective means, which is an admitted problem of all non-mathematically determined sciences (and, if we're being really picky, even those), but still a real thing that you need to account for.

What is blonde, after all?

Are you a radical nihilist? It sure sounds like it. If so, then I'm not sure there's even any point in discussing anything with you.

Anyway, I have spiders to paint.

Ah Biccat, always the epitome of diplomacy and tact.

biccat wrote:
Are you a radical nihilist? It sure sounds like it. If so, then I'm not sure there's even any point in discussing anything with you.

Why would you say that? Because I suggested that "things" might be counted in ways which are not ones in which many people count things?

To me it sounds like you don't know what the word "nihilist" means either.

You made a statement which was dependent on your mind, that means it was subjective, its really as simple as that.

How is it dangerous to be gay?

Because you might take someone's eye out with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

This must be a different definition to "awesome" than I am used to.

I think you just convinced me that Americans really don't do irony Frazzled!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

How is it dangerous to be gay?

Because you might take someone's eye out with it.

Now, now. . . that's only if you're a little too over-enthusiastic.

Only if you miss.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Yes I can. If I assign a fixed value to "gay" (all blonds are gay), I can create an objective test to determine whether a person meets that definition. Your definition of 'gay' is simply subject to individual interpretation. It doesn't mean that I can't have an objective test for determining someone's "gayness."

Yes, but the test is created via subjective means, which is an admitted problem of all non-mathematically determined sciences (and, if we're being really picky, even those), but still a real thing that you need to account for.

What is blonde, after all?

Are you a radical nihilist? It sure sounds like it. If so, then I'm not sure there's even any point in discussing anything with you.

Anyway, I have spiders to paint.

As I noted before, IGNORE is your friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

How is it dangerous to be gay?

Because you might take someone's eye out with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

This must be a different definition to "awesome" than I am used to.

I think you just convinced me that Americans really don't do irony Frazzled!

Neither do Canadians. Its a continental thing. Its like rain on your wedding day (wait thats not ironic, thats unfortunate)

Rain on your wedding day is considered good luck over here.

No I don't understand it either.

Especially as the chance of rain in Blighty is usually 100%.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
ps IGNORE doesn't work
invariably someone will quote the ignoree.

more irony!

Frazzled wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Yes I can. If I assign a fixed value to "gay" (all blonds are gay), I can create an objective test to determine whether a person meets that definition. Your definition of 'gay' is simply subject to individual interpretation. It doesn't mean that I can't have an objective test for determining someone's "gayness."

Yes, but the test is created via subjective means, which is an admitted problem of all non-mathematically determined sciences (and, if we're being really picky, even those), but still a real thing that you need to account for.

What is blonde, after all?

Are you a radical nihilist? It sure sounds like it. If so, then I'm not sure there's even any point in discussing anything with you.

Anyway, I have spiders to paint.

As I noted before, IGNORE is your friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

How is it dangerous to be gay?

Because you might take someone's eye out with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

This must be a different definition to "awesome" than I am used to.

I think you just convinced me that Americans really don't do irony Frazzled!

Neither do Canadians. Its a continental thing. Its like rain on your wedding day (wait thats not ironic, thats unfortunate)

Alanis Morrisette is Canadian...

I think I said that.

Frazzled wrote:I think I said that.

Not explicitly.

Although I could honestly care less about the issue, it's nice to see that someone has a good sense of humor! This damn world takes itself way too seriously.

Life is nothing but a fething joke, so laugh at it!

AvatarForm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think I said that.

Not explicitly.

Mmm..yea I did. I said North American. Then I referenced a Canada lyric. You need more tiger blood.

AvatarForm wrote:
Alanis Morrisette is Canadian...

...that's not exactly something we're proud of...