Homophobia

[Wizzy`]

I can't believe you guys are so boring that you have to discuss the same topics over and over again..

[uniquinous]

Yes i see how you could say that animals are just as helpless, but we eat them. Well, if we were not meant to eat them, why would we be able to obtain vital nutrients from animalsWe can obtain those same nutrients by being cannibals and eating each other. But we don't.

If we were meant to practice abortion, would we not possess an internal natural way of doing it? Btw i am not a vegetarian. You and several others in this thread keep making mention of what we are "meant to" do, or what certain actions are "meant for". We do possess a natural way of abortion - the fact that we *can* says that we have the methods. You can't discredit the brain just because there isn't a "natural" switch located on the belly button.

And yes i think i now accept gay marriage, because i am not a very religious person so i would be lying to myself if i took the religious way out. Sorry i take so long to post i am posting with my new phone.proof against every noob who came in here saying "omg j00 can never change any1's mind!!!1111!". Discussion is a good thing.

[TheBlazedAce]

uniq, no Matter what some on this forum say, i am not unintelligent. I see where this is going, and it is just another situation which, in my mind, has no correlation with the matter at hand. Yes i see how you could say that animals are just as helpless, but we eat them. Well, if we were not meant to eat them, why would we be able to obtain vital nutrients from animals while there is a class of animals that eats entirely a diet consisting of plants? If we were meant to practice abortion, would we not possess an internal natural way of doing it? Btw i am not a vegetarian. And yes i think i now accept gay marriage, because i am not a very religious person so i would be lying to myself if i took the religious way out. Sorry i take so long to post i am posting with my new phone.
So you argument against abortion is "it's unnatural"? You realize both "unnatural" and "black and white" are terms for logical fallacies?

Neither are valid arguments. Who cares whether we have an internal mechanism? So if you were going to die if you didn't receive surgery to save your life, you would refuse because "if you were meant to" defeat whatever disease/cancer/injury than you would have an "internal mechanism" to defeat it on your own?

I'm going to ignore that you used the word "natural" in your argument. Part of the reason it's considered a logical fallacy is because it's not defined. What is natural? The truth is, anything in nature is by the fact, natural, including human technology.

-blazed

edit: I apologize if I sounded harsh. I meant no offense in my statement. Sometimes, I get carried away...

[bdog1321]

So you argument against abortion is "it's unnatural"? You realize both "unnatural" and "black and white" are terms for logical fallacies?

Neither are valid arguments. Who cares whether we have an internal mechanism? So if you were going to die if you didn't receive surgery to save your life, you would refuse because "if you were meant to" defeat whatever disease/cancer/injury than you would have an "internal mechanism" to defeat it on your own?

I'm going to ignore that you used the word "natural" in your argument. Part of the reason it's considered a logical fallacy is because it's not defined. What is natural? The truth is, anything in nature is by the fact, natural, including human technology.

-blazed

edit: I apologize if I sounded harsh. I meant no offense in my statement. Sometimes, I get carried away...

Well I kind of think you took it out of context, the cancer situation, no one is against curing cancer, it is accepted as a good thing to be rid of it. It impacts no one negatively, and raises no arguments against it. In the pure sense. Sure there's controversy over methods. I just think that using the cancer example is just as false as you claim my natural theory to be.

[Match Strike]

Well I kind of think you took it out of context, the cancer situation, no one is against curing cancer, it is accepted as a good thing to be rid of it. It impacts no one negatively, and raises no arguments against it. In the pure sense. Sure there's controversy over methods. I just think that using the cancer example is just as false as you claim my natural theory to be.

Saving lives through any medical practice takes sometimes a large amount of resources (human, financial and material). So the negative impact is that of oppurtunity cost. Of course this applies to any expenditure.

Not to mention population control, and that really old people cost us a lot of money to take care of: we might be overall better off as a society if everyone kileld themselves at 65.

[bdog1321]

Yes, but don't morals play a part for any of you?

[TheBlazedAce]

Well I kind of think you took it out of context, the cancer situation, no one is against curing cancer, it is accepted as a good thing to be rid of it. It impacts no one negatively, and raises no arguments against it. In the pure sense. Sure there's controversy over methods. I just think that using the cancer example is just as false as you claim my natural theory to be.
Your argument is either valid OR it isn't. By showing a situation where your argument clearly fails, even to you, I've shown that your argument is invalid. Period.

An example can't be "false". An argument can be illogical (or invalid). You're agreeing with me, that there is no such thing as an issue with the idea that something is not internally mechanized. You have no problem with "unnatural" practices when they help you, but you're using it as an excuse against abortion. Therefore the point is moot, and we can move on. What other issues do you have with abortion?

Oh, and, by the way, there are an infinite number of causes for infant fatalities (not including abortion)... so it's actually very wrong to say that if a baby is not aborted they will necessary live...

-blazed

Edit: This was posted after I started posting:
Yes, but don't morals play a part for any of you?
Morals are literally beliefs. My morals and your morals are not the same. Therefore, we have no basis arguing over them.

Ethics on the other hand is a study of morals, and a logical approach to apply them in society. There are various ethical standards that are generally accepted and used by various ethical societies, like the AMA, the national BAR, and various others...

If you want to talk about ethics, I'm open to that discussion, but I would expect us to talk about standards like that, rather then bickering back and forth about what is "morally" right... because again, that's just opinion... and we can't argue opinion. Do you not agree?

-blazed

[bdog1321]

Get me statistics on percentages of babies that die of other reasons while in the womb.
Well?

[uniquinous]

Well I kind of think you took it out of context, the cancer situation, no one is against curing cancer, it is accepted as a good thing to be rid of it. It impacts no one negatively, and raises no arguments against it. In the pure sense. Sure there's controversy over methods. I just think that using the cancer example is just as false as you claim my natural theory to be.wait wait wait. the original claim (by you) was that we shouldn't do it because it's not "natural". blazed brought up an excellent counterclaim: that most modern medicine is just as "unnatural". As he mentioned, you can't use it when it directly benefits you and then claim it's "not natural" when you don't like something. Technology/medicine is either fine to use, or it's not. You don't get to play both sides of the coin based on how it helps your argument.

Get me statistics on percentages of babies that die of other reasons while in the womb.
Well?Well, it's not a peer reviewed article by any means, but the top google hit (http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm) states it is up to 40%. The fact is, the majority of the time that things go wrong, a miscarriage results. The large majority of trisomy (extra chromosome) 13 and 18, for example, never make it to term. The most common trisomy, 21, aka Down's Syndrome, also is frequently miscarried naturally, but many times these fetuses make it to term as well. So, I guess... there is a "natural" way for abortion to come about. Unfortunately, the body doesn't always "detect" chromosomal defects (and it certainly has no way of knowing social/viral/deformation defects).

[iceman2001]

I think we should avoid all abortions by only having sex with bisexual males.

[Dark7]

not sure how this thread became an abortion debate, but i guess ill jump in anyway. Pro-life basically= anti-woman. Its just taking away one of their rights that the government really shouldnt be able to control.

[bdog1321]

not sure how this thread became an abortion debate, but i guess ill jump in anyway. Pro-life basically= anti-woman. Its just taking away one of their rights that the government really shouldnt be able to control.

Anti-woman? So you seriously think that the right to kill a baby is an unalienable right of women? Bullshit, sorry. I quite think that the government should be able to control institutionalized murder. At the very least, I don't think teenage girls should be able to get abortions without parental consent or even knowledge.

And I'll look into that Uniq...it just doesn't seem realistic that just under half of the babies conceived are not born due to complications. What did you google search exactly?

And no. Application matters. Using your logic, if it's alright to use technology to abort children, it's alright then to use technology to completely obliterate Iran?

[TheBlazedAce]

Anti-woman? So you seriously think that the right to kill a baby is an unalienable right of women? Bullshit, sorry. I quite think that the government should be able to control institutionalized murder. At the very least, I don't think teenage girls should be able to get abortions without parental consent or even knowledge. I'm sorry to say this dude, but I think you lack knowledge of the common arguments for pro-life and pro-choice (or just the opposition to your own view). See, and this is why morals is a foolish thing to argue. The pro-life position boils down to "right to life" while the pro-choice position boils down to "right to free choice".

The choice to do what you will with your own body, and to choose whether or not to have a child. You're basically being narrow-minded by actually believing that all these women, as well as anyone who doesn't agree with you, believes that having an abortion is equivalent to murder. There are more reasons why murder is unethical besides an arbitrary "right" to life.

And I'll look into that Uniq...it just doesn't seem realistic that just under half of the babies conceived are not born due to complications. What did you google search exactly? Look at his paragraph again. There is a link where it says google search to a website. The statistics are reliable, and fairly agreed upon. I have read plenty of other sources which all say the same thing. It's just usually not a brought up topic when discussion abortions for some reason...

And no. Application matters. Using your logic, if it's alright to use technology to abort children, it's alright then to use technology to completely obliterate Iran?
So if we could "completely obliterate Iran" with animals or our body parts it would be ok?! Stop making excuses to ignore the obvious truth: your issue has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with the consequences of using said technology.

We wouldn't want to completely obliterate Iran under any circumstance, using technology or not. And you don't want abortion to occur, regardless if it's technological or "natural" (again, there is no such thing)

-blazed

[Dark7]

im guessing bdog lives inthe midwest and is hardcore christain.

[Wizzy`]

im guessing bdog lives inthe midwest and is hardcore christain.

you guessed wrong.

[bdog1321]

im guessing bdog lives inthe midwest and is hardcore christain.

Did you even read the thread?
BTW I'm in new york.

[Dark7]

Did you even read the thread?
BTW I'm in new york.

no i didnt bother, still probally hardcore christain and no nothing of science. If you did, you wouldnt mind killing a small ball of cells that would probally go rob some liquor store one day and end up going to jail ultimatly wasting the honost hard working tax-payers money.

[uniquinous]

Anti-woman? So you seriously think that the right to kill a baby is an unalienable right of women? Bullshit, sorry. I quite think that the government should be able to control institutionalized murder. At the very least, I don't think teenage girls should be able to get abortions without parental consent or even knowledge.Pregnant women = emancipated (in many states) = no need to tell parents. The decision shouldn't be the parents. Originally, the law stated that the mother had to get the consent of the fetus's father as well. That was completely removed (thankfully).

And I'll look into that Uniq...it just doesn't seem realistic that just under half of the babies conceived are not born due to complications. What did you google search exactly?I believe it was "miscarriage statistics". Why is it that hard to believe though? Because you haven't heard of it before? Take a guess how long a couple has to try to conceive a child before they are termed infertile. You'd think after trying once or twice that would be enough to draw the line, right? It's a year. A couple can try time and time again, but the medical definition of infertile is a year of attempts. Now that could be due to a number of reasons, but miscarried embryos (pre-fetal stage) is in there. When people say "ball of cells", that's literally what it is - there's no 100% mechanism for that ball of cells to go on to become anything else.

And no. Application matters. Using your logic, if it's alright to use technology to abort children, it's alright then to use technology to completely obliterate Iran?whoa whoa whoa. you're changing up the claim again. original claim was that people *shouldn't* use it because it's "unnatural". I disproved that claim because 1) the body does have a natural mechanism, known as miscarriage, and 2) we use technology all the time just fine. Now if you want to point to a *different* reason why you shouldn't always use technology, that's fine, but the original claim is shot down.

[bdog1321]

no i didnt bother, still probally hardcore christain and no nothing of science. If you did, you wouldnt mind killing a small ball of cells that would probally go rob some liquor store one day and end up going to jail ultimatly wasting the honost hard working tax-payers money.

....So now the occupation of choice for the next generation is thievery? Come on, man....

[bdog1321]

Pregnant women = emancipated (in many states) = no need to tell parents. The decision shouldn't be the parents. Originally, the law stated that the mother had to get the consent of the fetus's father as well. That was completely removed (thankfully).

I believe it was "miscarriage statistics". Why is it that hard to believe though? Because you haven't heard of it before? Take a guess how long a couple has to try to conceive a child before they are termed infertile. You'd think after trying once or twice that would be enough to draw the line, right? It's a year. A couple can try time and time again, but the medical definition of infertile is a year of attempts. Now that could be due to a number of reasons, but miscarried embryos (pre-fetal stage) is in there. When people say "ball of cells", that's literally what it is - there's no 100% mechanism for that ball of cells to go on to become anything else.

whoa whoa whoa. you're changing up the claim again. original claim was that people *shouldn't* use it because it's "unnatural". I disproved that claim because 1) the body does have a natural mechanism, known as miscarriage, and 2) we use technology all the time just fine. Now if you want to point to a *different* reason why you shouldn't always use technology, that's fine, but the original claim is shot down.

....the father SHOULD have a say. The fact that he does not is just another travesty in the misguided attempt to empower women. Without the father there is no baby. Without the father the human race would not be. The father is half of the baby. Just because the baby grows inside the woman, that gives HER the right to kill it? No, no, no.

Yes, I know what a miscarriage is. And I guess my parents are infertile? They had to try 4 years to have me, my father says. While a miscarriage has the same effect as an abortion, ( I realize my fragmented argument about the natural mechanism, I did not explain far enough) they do not occur for the same reasons. A miscarriage is when the baby is destroyed because it could not survive in the outside world. It just so happens that 94% of abortions are not performed for that reason. :rolleyes:

Yeah I know you're smarter than I am. I'm a 15 year old. But this wordplay isn't beyond me.

[meat.eater]

I will never be able to convince anyone specifically as to what their abortion beliefs are because there really are so many different ways to justify or not justify pro-life and pro-choice mindsets, and each one is dependent on the individual's ethics.

HOWEVER.

I will never understand, ethically, a person who is both pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Pragmatically, perhaps, as there are fiscal and policy-driven reasons for and against the death penalty. But ethically, I cannot understand pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

[Unforgottner]

Lawl, this thread started off about homophobia and is now about abortion.

Go TAO forums.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I will never understand, ethically, a person who is both pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Pragmatically, perhaps, as there are fiscal and policy-driven reasons for and against the death penalty. But ethically, I cannot understand pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

There's a distinction to be made between the status of life for each. A fetus isn't usually viable for most of the first two trimesters, meaning it wouldn't necessarily be able to survive if it were birthed at that point. Thus, it's not a life that's being terminated, but an assortment of the basic components that make up a life. It has some basic potential to become a life in the future, but it has neither attained life nor active potential to be alive.

The living person who would be executed as per the death penalty is obviously alive, so killing them would be cruel and unusual punishment.

There's one argument that clearly distinguishes the two as different down to the core concepts. Now I'll ask the same of you: I have absolutely no clue, as I'm sure many other people would agree, how someone can be both "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty". Can you clear this up for me?

[Dark7]

....So now the occupation of choice for the next generation is thievery? Come on, man....

if you were mildly educated you would know from statistics that crime is down in states that abortion is legal in. In majority of cases where there is an abortion the parents are unfit to raise the child and if they have the kid then the kid tends to be raised in an unsuitable envirnment thus leading to my example of theivery...

[bdog1321]

if you were mildly educated you would know from statistics that crime is down in states that abortion is legal in. In majority of cases where there is an abortion the parents are unfit to raise the child and if they have the kid then the kid tends to be raised in an unsuitable envirnment thus leading to my example of theivery...

Circumstantial. There are other reasons for reduced crime than abortion. Are you kidding me? Alright, a guy who was arguing the affect of abortion on crime rates said that if a woman denied an abortion that had a girl, the girl would be at increased rates to become an unwed mother. Since the legalization of abortion, the rate of unwed mothers has increased. Crime? There are more advanced ways to fight crime being developed each day. You really take something coinciding with a reduction in crime and attribute it to your argument? Someone seems to be desperate.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect Read this page. Donohue and Levitt make good points, but all of them are exposed to be lawyer-like (obama, anyone?) double-speak. In most cases, the exact opposite of what they contended occurred.

[uniquinous]

....the father SHOULD have a say. The fact that he does not is just another travesty in the misguided attempt to empower women. Without the father there is no baby. Without the father the human race would not be. The father is half of the baby. Just because the baby grows inside the woman, that gives HER the right to kill it? No, no, no. The father can have a say - there's nothing preventing that. But the woman doesn't need to get permission from the man. Now let me ask you: what do you think would happen if this weren't the case? Let's say both people needed to consent to obtain an abortion. OK, three possibilities here:
1) both people agree to have the child. ok, no issue.
2) both people agree not to have the child. again, no issue.
3) both people disagree as to what should happen.
Alright, if the "vote" is split 50/50 - who do you think should be able to tip the scale? The person who will be carrying the fetus for 9 months, have her body used, go through a good amount of sickness and pain... or the person who watches on (optionally) from the sidelines? Who do you think should have a minimally larger say in the matter?

A miscarriage is when the baby is destroyed because it could not survive in the outside world. It just so happens that 94% of abortions are not performed for that reason.wait wait wait. If a baby has a horrible genetic disorder found by prenatal testing, and has an average of two years of life if brought to term, do you find that "surviving in the outside world"? What about a child that would be born with hiv, or drug addiction, or fetal alcohol syndrome? How about a child that has the potential to be healthy, except the parents are too poor for basic needs such as, I dunno, food and clothing (let alone healthcare and immunization). Abuse? Neglect?

As I said, the body can only detect and act on specific insults/defects. You seem to see the need for abortion as trivial reasons. Perhaps what I should be asking is: For what reasons do you believe women abort their pregnancies?

[The Jacquerie]

The father can have a say - there's nothing preventing that. But the woman doesn't need to get permission from the man. Now let me ask you: what do you think would happen if this weren't the case? Let's say both people needed to consent to obtain an abortion. OK, three possibilities here:
1) both people agree to have the child. ok, no issue.
2) both people agree not to have the child. again, no issue.
3) both people disagree as to what should happen.
Alright, if the "vote" is split 50/50 - who do you think should be able to tip the scale? The person who will be carrying the fetus for 9 months, have her body used, go through a good amount of sickness and pain... or the person who watches on (optionally) from the sidelines? Who do you think should have a minimally larger say in the matter?

wait wait wait. If a baby has a horrible genetic disorder found by prenatal testing, and has an average of two years of life if brought to term, do you find that "surviving in the outside world"? What about a child that would be born with hiv, or drug addiction, or fetal alcohol syndrome? How about a child that has the potential to be healthy, except the parents are too poor for basic needs such as, I dunno, food and clothing (let alone healthcare and immunization). Abuse? Neglect?

As I said, the body can only detect and act on specific insults/defects. You seem to see the need for abortion as trivial reasons. Perhaps what I should be asking is: For what reasons do you believe women abort their pregnancies?

If it's a difference between life and death, I don't believe pain and suffering by the mother comes into play. Of course this is probably because I am male, but this is where morals come into play. It is different for many people, I am just one of those who think that the father should have a say. If there is a disagreement I think that life should always win out [B]if there is not a life threatening situation to the mother or the child[B] This is where your second point comes into play, which I agree with wholeheartedly. If the baby has a chronic condition either limiting or crippling the rest of it's life, I believe it is better to not have it go through with that life, not to mention saving the mother the trouble of going through birth.
EDIT: yeah this is my secondary. :P

[Warcow]

Get me statistics on percentages of babies that die of other reasons while in the womb.
Well?

"It has been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without the woman even realizing she was pregnant. In fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, he is the most prolific abortionist of all." -- Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation.

His reference is to an article on spontaneous abortion. I would imagine such a figure does not include still births or other health related complications with the mother.

Would you like a shovel? You seem to enjoy digging your hole ever so much.

[Unforgottner]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/265512047_469a4c2286.jpg?v=0

WE'RE HERE! WE'RE QUEER! GET USED TO IT.

[bdog1321]

"It has been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without the woman even realizing she was pregnant. In fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, he is the most prolific abortionist of all." -- Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation.

His reference is to an article on spontaneous abortion. I would imagine such a figure does not include still births or other health related complications with the mother.

Would you like a shovel? You seem to enjoy digging your hole ever so much.

Come back when you have something other than estimates. Point? Miscarriages or you say spontaneous abortions, happen because there is something wrong with the baby. Clinical abortion is performed 93 percent of the time for convenience when there is nothing wrong with the baby. So miscarriages happen. Apparently it's nature's way of getting rid of flawed fetuses. It is estimated that 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, therefore it is deemed alright to end even more with clinical abortions? Good one.

[Dark7]

Come back when you have something other than estimates. Point? Miscarriages or you say spontaneous abortions, happen because there is something wrong with the baby. Clinical abortion is performed 93 percent of the time for convenience when there is nothing wrong with the baby. So miscarriages happen. Apparently it's nature's way of getting rid of flawed fetuses. It is estimated that 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, therefore it is deemed alright to end even more with clinical abortions? Good one.

nice bullshit statistic, also even if that # is somewhat close to the actual statistic that you didnt pull outta your ass, it doesnt mean theres nothing wrong with the parents who will raise this kid... i can tell you im sure as hell not ready to raise a kid.

[uniquinous]

So miscarriages happen. Apparently it's nature's way of getting rid of flawed fetuses.Or a flawed environment. If the embryo can't embed into the uterus, it gets miscarried. Bad environmental factors (drugs, trauma, etc) can similarly cause loss of pregnancy. So why is it ok for all of those factors that create poor quality of life and viability to cause a pregnancy termination, but not others such as social, viral, or deformation, or genetic defects?

I can't help but notice you ignored a question I posed previously. If you had to choose between loss of fetal (what you consider) "life" vs loss of fetal (what you consider) "life" PLUS maternal death due to complications because abortion is outlawed, which would you choose? Cuz, it's gonna happen whether you like it or not. The question is: do you reduce women dying as well, or turn a blind eye with your "morals" stating it shouldn't happen to begin with?

[bdog1321]

way to not read the thread before you post idiot. if you did you'd Have seen my link to those stats. You fail. Btw uniq i was talking to dark. I'm on my phone, so i'm just posting this and leaving, I'll read your post later.

[Warcow]

Come back when you have something other than estimates. Point? Miscarriages or you say spontaneous abortions, happen because there is something wrong with the baby. Clinical abortion is performed 93 percent of the time for convenience when there is nothing wrong with the baby. So miscarriages happen. Apparently it's nature's way of getting rid of flawed fetuses. It is estimated that 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, therefore it is deemed alright to end even more with clinical abortions? Good one.

The 50% is an estimate, but its a scientific estimate from a peer reviewed medical article which I can source. The 20% is an actual statistic from that particular article. Much as Uniq pointed out, yours is the fabricated statistic.

C.P. Greibal et al., "Management of Spontaneous Abortion," American Family Physician, vol.72, no.7 (October 1, 2005), pp. 1243-50

There is my source, how about you produce one.

If we were meant to practice abortion, would we not possess an internal natural way of doing it

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. Hell, in light of some of the stupidity displayed here, we ought to push for abortions to be legal up to the (you can't be more than what, 14? 15?) 56th? 60th? trimester.

*EDIT* So we're clear, I don't support abortion as a last resort birth control, I do however support it in cases where the mother is incapable of bringing a healthy child to term. Also, cases of rape or incest, when there is serious risk to the mother, or when the mother is incapable of providing for the child after birth.

[bdog1321]

Really, sincerely great job pointing out what others already have. I mean it, man. But in all seriousness my statistic is linked to the source i got it from, if any of you were intelligent enough to read before you post. Notice uniq didn't protest my statistic? She or he i have on idea lol knows more about this than all of us, You're just playing hypocrite telling me i'm stupid then denying my real stat. But You're missing the entire point oh condescending one, your stat doesn't mean shit because That's not even what we're discussing anymore. Way to fail as hard as dark.

[uniquinous]

first, i think you may have overlooked my previous post (cuz I posted at a weird time and you posted right after it in response to something before it). if not, disregard this.

second, I'm only assuming your stat (which tends to change from post to post within the 90% range) is just an approximation you're making based on what % you feel is due to one of the reasons you find more appropriate in regards to abortion. So erm, not to agree with you or warcow here, but... I just kinda went with it.

That being said, warcow has produced rather solid evidence.

[Warcow]

Really, sincerely great job pointing out what others already have. I mean it, man.

Actually I brought in an actual scientific article to answer your question, If you don't want your bullshit called for what it is, don't post it on a forum. I'm not sure how skimming 250+ response thread is linked to intelligence, time spent maybe. I've browsed the relevant part of the thread, and even if I hadn't there wasn't anything there from you worth reading. Condescending? Yup, bigots don't deserve my respect. You don't get to decide whats relevant to the conversation, if you don't like it . . . don't post.

[bdog1321]

Actually I brought in an actual scientific article to answer your question, If you don't want your bullshit called for what it is, don't post it on a forum. I'm not sure how skimming 250+ response thread is linked to intelligence, time spent maybe. I've browsed the relevant part of the thread, and even if I hadn't there wasn't anything there from you worth reading. Condescending? Yup, bigots don't deserve my respect. You don't get to decide whats relevant to the conversation, if you don't like it . . . don't post.

1. I had a source, so did you. Neither of our statistics are bullshit.
2. You apparently didn't skim well enough because you seem to have missed it.
3. I am not a bigot. I am not intolerant.
4. You are a bigot, you are rude and condescending and provoke others into flame matches with you because you do not tolerate my opinion.
5. If you post shit which was talked about a day, or longer ago that we have resolved, it is no longer relevant. I'm sorry, but anyone is qualified to make that statement. If you cannot follow the conversation....Why don't YOU not post?

[bdog1321]

first, i think you may have overlooked my previous post (cuz I posted at a weird time and you posted right after it in response to something before it). if not, disregard this.

second, I'm only assuming your stat (which tends to change from post to post within the 90% range) is just an approximation you're making based on what % you feel is due to one of the reasons you find more appropriate in regards to abortion. So erm, not to agree with you or warcow here, but... I just kinda went with it.

That being said, warcow has produced rather solid evidence.

No, there were three statistics within my source. Percentage of abortions due to incest/rape, percentage of abortions due to health problems to the mother, and percentage of abortion due to convenience. These were talked about in different pairs, causing the numbers to be different. Like I said 93% of abortions were due to convenience, that is the exact number. I said 94% of abortions were not performed due to health problems with the mother, which combines the first and third.
EDIT: Sorry for the double-post.
EDIT2: Sorry I missed your question Uniq, I didn't ignore it. IMO abortions that would kill the mother if birth occurred should be permitted.

[Jeffery]

1. I had a source, so did you. Neither of our statistics are bullshit.
2. You apparently didn't skim well enough because you seem to have missed it.
3. I am not a bigot. I am not intolerant.
4. You are a bigot, you are rude and condescending and provoke others into flame matches with you because you do not tolerate my opinion.
5. If you post shit which was talked about a day, or longer ago that we have resolved, it is no longer relevant. I'm sorry, but anyone is qualified to make that statement. If you cannot follow the conversation....Why don't YOU not post?
1) You posted no legit source citing the statistics you gave
2) You mjust have skimmed past yourself not posting it
3) You are a bigot, homophobic and an ignoramus.
4) It is not being a bigot to call you an idiot. It would be if he called every "one of your kind" a m idiot though.
5) You have yet to post anything that doesn;t show yourself as anything but a young ignorant bigot. Every post you make has simply further proven this. But we can hardly blame you, as your upbringing was an obviously deficient one.

[bdog1321]

1) You posted no legit source citing the statistics you gave
2) You mjust have skimmed past yourself not posting it
3) You are a bigot, homophobic and an ignoramus.
4) It is not being a bigot to call you an idiot. It would be if he called every "one of your kind" a m idiot though.
5) You have yet to post anything that doesn;t show yourself as anything but a young ignorant bigot. Every post you make has simply further proven this. But we can hardly blame you, as your upbringing was an obviously deficient one.

1. Again, I posted my source. If you think it's fake, take it up with them.
2. Bullshit.
3. I am none, although I may seem to show symptoms of the third at times. :crazy:
4. You do not know the definition of bigot. He called me an idiot because he was irritated that I have an opinion he disagrees with. This fits. You are certainly the bigot here if there is one.
5. I'd quite like it if you leave the personal effects out of it, my upbringing has nothing to do with my opinions as I think for myself.

[Jeffery]

1. Again, I posted my source. If you think it's fake, take it up with them.
2. Bullshit.
3. I am none, although I may seem to show symptoms of the third at times. :crazy:
4. You do not know the definition of bigot. He called me an idiot because he was irritated that I have an opinion he disagrees with. This fits. You are certainly the bigot here if there is one.
5. I'd quite like it if you leave the personal effects out of it, my upbringing has nothing to do with my opinions as I think for myself.
1) No, you did not post a legitimate source
2) Yes, you are full of bullshit, I am glad we agree.
3) It is always true that all three of those are often the last to know they are such. Your own 'friends" should have been able to clue you into this fact.
4) big⋅ot
   /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uht] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Warcow is not utterly intolerant of you or your opinion, just your citation of non-existent factoids, and an inability to back up such citations
5) Bigots are 99% of the time the result of bigoted parenting. And your upbringing is shining through quite clearly with every ignorant post you make.
6) I again refer to your "friends" in RL who have come to the same conclusions we here have. That you are homophobic and bigoted. While you have no real reason to continue proving this to us here, perhaps you should ask them why they perceive the same thing we have here.

[uniquinous]

peoples peoples. let's ease the flaming down a bit. as some people have mentioned, this conversation has happened before here, and I have to say that bdog is perhaps the most open minded person i've had it with on TAO. Many other people are very closed minded, and want to just spout their beliefs without listening to a word of anything else - bdog does not fall into this category.

With that being said, I think it would be extremely helpful if bdog just re-posted the source in his next post, for clarity. If it's not credible, we can kindly point it out at that time. But if he says he has a source, let's not prematurely discredit it.

Like I said 93% of abortions were due to convenience, that is the exact number. I said 94% of abortions were not performed due to health problems with the mother, which combines the first and third.Ah see this explains my confusion, because I noticed the slight change in number without change of explanation, and thought you were just approximating your beliefs. This makes sense tho.

IMO abortions that would kill the mother if birth occurred should be permitted.eh, let me rephrase. abortions will happen whether legalized or not. the problem is, when abortions are illegal (as seen by this country historically, or other countries currently), women attempt abortions through poor methods and actually wind up increasing maternal death because of that attempt. In other words, abortion doesn't dramatically decrease, but deaths of women increase because of botched attempts. So what's the lesser of two evils? Abortion? Or abortion with increased maternal death?

[bdog1321]

1) No, you did not post a legitimate source
2) Yes, you are full of bullshit, I am glad we agree.
3) It is always true that all three of those are often the last to know they are such. Your own 'friends" should have been able to clue you into this fact.
4)
Warcow is not utterly intolerant of you or your opinion, just your citation of non-existent factoids, and an inability to back up such citations
5) Bigots are 99% of the time the result of bigoted parenting. And your upbringing is shining through quite clearly with every ignorant post you make.
6) I again refer to your "friends" in RL who have come to the same conclusions we here have. That you are homophobic and bigoted. While you have no real reason to continue proving this to us here, perhaps you should ask them why they perceive the same thing we have here.

1. Prove that my source is not legitimate.
2. Cute.
3. You continue to call me homophobic, yet you do not even know me. If you read the thread, what is your answer for why my lesbian friend does not call me homophobic?
4. Again. It is a legitimate source. Until you can prove that it is not, it stands.
5. Always that 1% then, isn't there? You can stop pretending that you know me now, asshole.
6. My friends in RL are sadly misinformed about ALL of these issues. I have asked them why. They had no reasons. Now stop your hate. I'm really getting tired of being flamed by kids who make claims people who I live with aren't even qualified to make.

EDIT: here is my source Uniq http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

And you make a potent argument. Do you have any stats on how many women die? Like what do they do for alternate abortions?

[Jeffery]

1. Prove that my source is not legitimate.
2. Cute.
3. You continue to call me homophobic, yet you do not even know me. If you read the thread, what is your answer for why my lesbian friend does not call me homophobic?
4. Again. It is a legitimate source. Until you can prove that it is not, it stands.
5. Always that 1% then, isn't there? You can stop pretending that you know me now, asshole.
6. My friends in RL are sadly misinformed about ALL of these issues. I have asked them why. They had no reasons. Now stop your hate. I'm really getting tired of being flamed by kids who make claims people who I live with aren't even qualified to make.

EDIT: here is my source Uniq http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

And you make a potent argument. Do you have any stats on how many women die? Like what do they do for alternate abortions?
1) Cite a legitimate source, full accredited
2) I know I am. Wanna go out for a sodapop?
3) Funny, I call you it. And people who KNOW you call you it.
4) You saying it is doesn't make it so. Cite it properly please.
5) You are not the 1%. Sorry kiddo.
6) They have the same reasons we do, your constant bigoted statements, including homophobic statements. I don;t hate you, and no one discussing this with you right now is a "kid". Uni, Warcow and myself are older than you.
7) If it talks like a homophobe, posts like a homophobe, and lives like a homophobe, maybe just maybe it's a hompphobe.

[bdog1321]

1) Cite a legitimate source, full accredited
2) I know I am. Wanna go out for a sodapop?
3) Funny, I call you it. And people who KNOW you call you it.
4) You saying it is doesn't make it so. Cite it properly please.
5) You are not the 1%. Sorry kiddo.
6) They have the same reasons we do, your constant bigoted statements, including homophobic statements. I don;t hate you, and no one discussing this with you right now is a "kid". Uni, Warcow and myself are older than you.
7) If it talks like a homophobe, posts like a homophobe, and lives like a homophobe, maybe just maybe it's a hompphobe.

/sigh this is paradoxical. truce?
If I am what you say I am, the first step to recovery is admittance, no?

[Jeffery]

/sigh this is paradoxical. truce?
If I am what you say I am, the first step to recovery is admittance, no?
/no truce

This is a discussion, not a war. You came here wanting to know why for the fifty-billionth time someone called you a homophobe.
Yet you don;t want to discuss that, you simply want to argue a micro-definition of the words parts.

I am 100% serious here, and mean no insults. But please:

1) Where did you learn your views on homosexuality?
2) Do you avoid homosexuals if able to do so?
3) Have you ever found out someone you knew was homosexual, then treated them differently that before?
4) Have you ever voiced or acted out violently against someone because they are homosexual?
5) Why do you think homosexuality is wrong?
6) What harm has homosexuality caused you? Someone you know? Anyone ever anywhere?

[uniquinous]

well bdog, my first response was reluctant because you cited an anti-abortion website. As you can imagine, such a site is naturally going to be biased against abortion, displaying facts that favor its agenda. The type of source warcow posted was from a peer-reviewed journal. That means every fact is heavily scrutinized by people just looking for an excuse to call it false.

The redeeming aspect of your site is that it cites its source, being planned parenthood. We have no way of knowing how numbers were used, or if there was any statistical manipulation though.

Jeffery: I think great strides have been made with his beliefs on homosexuality. In this thread alone, he has gone from a mindset of thinking marriage should be between heterosexuals for reproduction only, to being open to marriage being for any two consenting adults. Even the people who called him a homophobe did so in jest. He may have a prejudiced history, but I think you can agree he is seeing things in new lights now.

As for abortion, I don't know if "bigot" or "prejudice" are really the right words...

[bdog1321]

/no truce

This is a discussion, not a war. You came here wanting to know why for the fifty-billionth time someone called you a homophobe.
Yet you don;t want to discuss that, you simply want to argue a micro-definition of the words parts.

I am 100% serious here, and mean no insults. But please:

1) Where did you learn your views on homosexuality?
2) Do you avoid homosexuals if able to do so?
3) Have you ever found out someone you knew was homosexual, then treated them differently that before?
4) Have you ever voiced or acted out violently against someone because they are homosexual?
5) Why do you think homosexuality is wrong?
6) What harm has homosexuality caused you? Someone you know? Anyone ever anywhere?

1. I searched myself, the internet, and probed those around me for information and made my decision based on what I got back.
2. Absolutely not. One of my acquaintances I work with frequently in school is homosexual.
3. No.
4. Definitely not. I do not agree with it, I am not intolerant.
5. A lot of my opinions on it I am not even sure of myself anymore. I used to think that because of the research on the hormone imbalance that it was an imperfection, even until a few days ago. Now though that I am older than I was when i formulated my original opinion, I ask myself that because I am christian and I believe that God created us all a certain way, that was the hormone imbalance not god's work as well? I'm not sure anymore....
6. To answer this I will need to know what sort of harm you are meaning. Physical, mental, both?
EDIT: Well for the source I wasn't really looking for anti-abortion websites, I just googled reasons for abortion or something to that affect.

[uniquinous]

5. A lot of my opinions on it I am not even sure of myself anymore. I used to think that because of the research on the hormone imbalance that it was an imperfectionit's not a hormone imbalance. People who undergo sex changes tend to go on heavy hormone therapy to change their appearances, and that doesn't change their sexuality.

Jeffery: homosexuality has caused a good deal of damage and violence (just, many times, at the expense of the person who's different...)

[Jeffery]

it's not a hormone imbalance. People who undergo sex changes tend to go on heavy hormone therapy to change their appearances, and that doesn't change their sexuality.

Jeffery: homosexuality has caused a good deal of damage and violence (just, many times, at the expense of the person who's different...)
If it is the person who is 'different" being damaged, then wouldn;t it be the homophobia that is causing damage, not the homosexuality?

[bdog1321]

it's not a hormone imbalance. People who undergo sex changes tend to go on heavy hormone therapy to change their appearances, and that doesn't change their sexuality.

Jeffery: homosexuality has caused a good deal of damage and violence (just, many times, at the expense of the person who's different...)

Well then I need to go do some more finding out for myself.
EDIT: Uniq there's a cyberer on army if you're on here and not checking the TAO screen. Er. Was. Nevermind.
EDIT2: I heard the hormone imbalance theory from a homosexual.

[uniquinous]

If it is the person who is 'different" being damaged, then wouldn;t it be the homophobia that is causing damage, not the homosexuality?yeah, i wasn't really disagreeing with you. more like... nevermind.

Well then I need to go do some more finding out for myself.i may be out of the loop, but last I heard, no definite reason was known. some people suspected hormones, genetics, environment, etc. We don't actually know (last I heard).

[bdog1321]

yeah, i wasn't really disagreeing with you. more like... nevermind.

i may be out of the loop, but last I heard, no definite reason was known. some people suspected hormones, genetics, environment, etc. We don't actually know (last I heard).

True, I just chose to go with what the homosexual had said at the time them self and built on it.

[Jeffery]

yeah, i wasn't really disagreeing with you. more like... nevermind.

i may be out of the loop, but last I heard, no definite reason was known. some people suspected hormones, genetics, environment, etc. We don't actually know (last I heard).
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm

The 'paper" that is referred to constantly:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896?dopt=Abstract

[bdog1321]

Well that's all for me tonight....later.

[uniquinous]

The 'paper" that is referred to constantly:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896?dopt=Abstract
interesting. that's a pretty good lod score. good linkage. still - i wonder if environment still plays a part? it's really easy to do a case control study (find the people in question, start looking backwards) and find things work out, compare to a cohort study (take a large population of people, and see if ____ marker/treatment can predict outcome).

[Jeffery]

interesting. that's a pretty good lod score. good linkage. still - i wonder if environment still plays a part? it's really easy to do a case control study (find the people in question, start looking backwards) and find things work out, compare to a cohort study (take a large population of people, and see if ____ marker/treatment can predict outcome).
Nature vs Nurture: Homo style?

There are many cases of members of very strict religious groups that completely shun homosexuals having members "turn gay". If it clearly was "nurture" that lead to this, then you would assume this wouldn;t happen nearly as often as it does.

Then there is the evidence of homosexuality among animals. Many animal species "mate" homosexually. This would also point towards a "nature" cause.

Even in nature animals don't use sex just for procreation. Many animals mate, or even masturbate, clearly outside of mating.

While there may not yet be a 'definite' cause for homosexuality, I would lean much heavier towards nature in a nature vs nurture discussion.

[TheBlazedAce]

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect Read this page. Donohue and Levitt make good points, but all of them are exposed to be lawyer-like (obama, anyone?) double-speak. In most cases, the exact opposite of what they contended occurred.
Bdog, listen. Please, do yourself this favor: when you read something on, especially wikipedia of all places, an initial source that happens to be a controversial topic, take the time to look a bit into it.

Donohue and Levitt are not lawyers. Neither of them. The paper you're referring to (the first criticism, probably one of the only papers that even considered trying to link abortion to increased crime rates) has stayed unpublished for over four years (and is co-authored by a lawyer). As uniq pointed out earlier, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a big deal.

Donohue and Levitt's first paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as their responses to the few criticisms made. Not only that, but their hypothesis was tested among different countries, ones which abortion was made legal at different time periods. Furthermore, they tested how much an influence states which had high amounts of abortion versus states that had low amounts differed.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact of the matter is, abortion lead to a reduced crime and murder rate. Period. READ THIS (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/john-lott/) for more info.

-blazed

[Lieutenant]

This is fucking hilarious. It's like watching an old man fighting against a 12-year old kid deciding who gets to have the ice cream.

As to my opinion about this? Being homosexual is kinda sad and sort of lame for the race of man. But being homophobic is just as lame and sad as the last part.

[TheBlazedAce]

This is fucking hilarious. It's like watching an old man fighting against a 12-year old kid deciding who gets to have the ice cream.

As to my opinion about this? Being homosexual is kinda sad and sort of lame for the race of man. But being homophobic is just as lame and sad as the last part.
And why exactly is it "kinda sad and sort of lame for the race of man"?

Sorry to say this, but you sound homophobic to me.

-blazed

Edit: Yes, I did say that knowing what was posted in the first post of the thread. I enjoy irony...

Edit2: Warcow, been a while hasn't it. How you been my old friend?

[Lieutenant]

And why exactly is it "kinda sad and sort of lame for the race of man"?

Sorry to say this, but you sound homophobic to me.

-blazed

Edit: Yes, I did say that knowing what was posted in the first post of the thread. I enjoy irony...

I'm not homophobic. Whether I sound homophobic or not in a game is pretty much of no importance to me. Also, maybe I should repair what I wrote earlier. I don't think they're a shame and disgrace for the race of man, but I do think that there are very beautiful women in this world to actually look at men with desire. So that's why i wouldn't understand why someone would want to be gay.

And something i'd like to call out: I don't see why the fuck someone would like to point out in forums that "He's not homophobic" and make a thread about it. That's just wanting to call attention.

EDIT: Just so you know I'm not here to create a new argument, I just wanted to express my opinion. I know that I'd have my ass kicked in arguments in this section, so the least I want is a discussion against me for something I brought up. Really, the only thing I wanted was to say my opinion about the matter.

[TheBlazedAce]

I'm not homophobic. Whether I sound homophobic or not in a game is pretty much of no importance to me. Also, maybe I should repair what I wrote earlier. I don't think they're a shame and disgrace for the race of man, but I do think that there are very beautiful women in this world to actually look at men with desire. So that's why i wouldn't understand why someone would want to be gay.

And something i'd like to call out: I don't see why the fuck someone would like to point out in forums that "He's not homophobic" and make a thread about it. That's just wanting to call attention.

EDIT: Just so you know I'm not here to create a new argument, I just wanted to express my opinion. I know that I'd have my ass kicked in arguments in this section, so the least I want is a discussion against me for something I brought up. Really, the only thing I wanted was to say my opinion about the matter.
First of all, what you said and what you meant to say, were two very distinct things. I apologize, there clearly was a miscommunication.

Secondly, I sort of realize what you're saying. But how is one's sexual preference for one sex an insult to the opposite sex?

-blazed

[Jeffery]

I'm not homophobic. Whether I sound homophobic or not in a game is pretty much of no importance to me. Also, maybe I should repair what I wrote earlier. I don't think they're a shame and disgrace for the race of man, but I do think that there are very beautiful women in this world to actually look at men with desire. So that's why i wouldn't understand why someone would want to be gay.

And something i'd like to call out: I don't see why the fuck someone would like to point out in forums that "He's not homophobic" and make a thread about it. That's just wanting to call attention.

EDIT: Just so you know I'm not here to create a new argument, I just wanted to express my opinion. I know that I'd have my ass kicked in arguments in this section, so the least I want is a discussion against me for something I brought up. Really, the only thing I wanted was to say my opinion about the matter.
Why would someone want to be a woman? Why would someone want tobe black? Why would someone want to be born blind???

It's not a choice.

[bdog1321]

And why exactly is it "kinda sad and sort of lame for the race of man"? Sorry to say this, but you sound homophobic to me. -blazed Edit: Yes, I did say that knowing what was posted in the first post of the thread. I enjoy irony... Edit2: Warcow, been a while hasn't it. How you been my old friend? Why are you so quick to label people? I see you took it back but still, that just serves to prove my point. YOU are the reason i made this thread, you the person who calls someone homophobe AFTER i pointed out the correct definition, whether you are doing it because of an urge to be condescendingly funny, a refusal to use the right terminology, or an attempt to undermine me as you said yourself you had seen my post, people like you are to the extreme annoyance in this situation to people like me. So now you've just proved the point i was trying to make in that first Post.

[TheBlazedAce]

Why are you so quick to label people? I see you took it back but still, that just serves to prove my point. YOU are the reason i made this thread, you the person who calls someone homophobe AFTER i pointed out the correct definition, whether you are doing it because of an urge to be condescendingly funny, a refusal to use the right terminology, or an attempt to undermine me as you said yourself you had seen my post, people like you are to the extreme annoyance in this situation to people like me. So now you've just proved the point i was trying to make in that first Post.
There is no such thing as a "correct definition". The definition in the dictionary is the one more commonly used. And furthermore, the actual definition from dictionary.com:

homophobia: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

OR

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.


Take your pick. I agree that labeling is not the way to go about things usually, but it in my eyes, it's honestly a revenge to the pathetically over-used term "gay" as an insult.

I call anyone who acts this way homophobic for the same reason that I would call a racist out if I saw one. People almost always deny being racist, and just as that is now considered a pathetic way to view the world, soon homophobic will be considered in the same regard. Hopefully, it'll help stop people from being homophobic.

I really don't care that you can make up a definition of homophobic (I checked again, you have NO source to back up your so-called definition). People have attacked others for being homosexual. No one has ever been attacked for being homophobic. It's just a word used to make people feel guilty for acting in a disrespectful or intolerable way.

I call people homophobic to actually do the opposite of label them. I hope that by hearing someone call them homophobic when they say or do something, they might think twice before acting that way again, realizing that society doesn't accept such a practice.

Let me ask you this: Why should I tolerate bigotry? Why shouldn't I call it out when I see it? Why not try to force people to see the error of their ways?

-blazed

Edit: I re-read your first post. I don't believe anything you said. I don't believe there's any serious evidence to prove homophobia is a mental illness. It's simply an intolerant view of certain people. It's bigotry, pure and simple. You can make up definitions for all the bigotries out there, claiming they have something to do with mental disorders, but you would just be lying. And people have already shown you that homophobia has nothing to do with chemical imbalances.

[bdog1321]

There is no such thing as a "correct definition". The definition in the dictionary is the one more commonly used. And furthermore, the actual definition from dictionary.com:


Take your pick. I agree that labeling is not the way to go about things usually, but it in my eyes, it's honestly a revenge to the pathetically over-used term "gay" as an insult.

I call anyone who acts this way homophobic for the same reason that I would call a racist out if I saw one. People almost always deny being racist, and just as that is now considered a pathetic way to view the world, soon homophobic will be considered in the same regard. Hopefully, it'll help stop people from being homophobic.

I really don't care that you can make up a definition of homophobic (I checked again, you have NO source to back up your so-called definition). People have attacked others for being homosexual. No one has ever been attacked for being homophobic. It's just a word used to make people feel guilty for acting in a disrespectful or intolerable way.

I call people homophobic to actually do the opposite of label them. I hope that by hearing someone call them homophobic when they say or do something, they might think twice before acting that way again, realizing that society doesn't accept such a practice.

Let me ask you this: why should I tolerate bigotry? Why shouldn't I call it out when I see it? Why not try to force people to see the error of their ways?

-blazed

First of all, people generally don't react the way you want them to. People are reluctant to change.

I am not saying you should tolerate bigotry, just refrain from using the word in the wrong situation, as you are doing here.

If you took a class called psychology, you would know what the word phobia means. Homophobia is a fabricated word just like gay is, (in the case of gay, people took a word meaning happy to replace queer so it wouldn't sound so mean) used to label people just the way that they label racists. Most of the time the people they label as racists aren't racists either. Homophobia is a psychological term by the sheer root words that make it up. Homo means same, in this case same sex, and phobia means an unnatural fear resulting in irrational panic attacks when confronted with said object or person or situation. The fact that the dictionary says it's just a fear is another victory for the creators of the word.

EDIT: And you're just being unreasonable now if you're still denying the hormonal imbalance.

[TheBlazedAce]

First of all, people generally don't react the way you want them to. People are reluctant to change.

I am not saying you should tolerate bigotry, just refrain from using the word in the wrong situation, as you are doing here.

If you took a class called psychology, you would know what the word phobia means. Homophobia is a fabricated word just like gay is, (in the case of gay, people took a word meaning happy to replace queer so it wouldn't sound so mean) used to label people just the way that they label racists. Most of the time the people they label as racists aren't racists either. Homophobia is a psychological term by the sheer root words that make it up. Homo means same, in this case same sex, and phobia means an unnatural fear resulting in irrational panic attacks when confronted with said object or person or situation. The fact that the dictionary says it's just a fear is another victory for the creators of the word.

EDIT: And you're just being unreasonable now if you're still denying the hormonal imbalance.
I have taken psychology. This has nothing to do with the latin roots of the word.

Look up the word phobia. Stop making up definitions. There is no mention of "panic attacks" (unless you mean panicking, in which case you should have said so). As for the so-called "hormonal imbalance", provide a source, or don't expect me to believe you. If you're going to tell me you showed a source somewhere, tell me what page or post# it was. I'm willing to bet it wasn't a legitimate source, if you posted one. I know, because I've done quite a bit of research myself on this subject.

And by the way, if someone is afraid of heights, and I call them an acrophobic, I don't think you would have an issue with it. Homophobia would literally translate (from the latin roots) to "An irrational fear of homosexuals".

The word phobia from dictionary.com:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

So stop pretending that homophobic means anything other than what it's being used to call others.

-blazed

[bdog1321]

I have taken psychology. This has nothing to do with the latin roots of the word.

Look up the word phobia. Stop making up definitions. There is no mention of "panic attacks" (unless you mean panicking, in which case you should have said so). As for the so-called "hormonal imbalance", provide a source, or don't expect me to believe you. If you're going to tell me you showed a source somewhere, tell me what page or post# it was. I'm willing to bet it wasn't a legitimate source, if you posted one. I know, because I've done quite a bit of research myself on this subject.

And by the way, if someone is afraid of heights, and I call them an acrophobic, I don't think you would have an issue with it. Homophobia would literally translate (from the latin roots) to "An irrational fear of homosexuals".

The word phobia from dictionary.com:


So stop pretending that homophobic means anything other than what it's being used to call others.

-blazed

You didn't pay attention in psych then. No matter, I did. I believe Jeffery provided a source, if you're too thick to have seen that, ask him, or Uniq, as Uniq saw it too. And basically. Irrational fear. NOT what ANYONE here has displayed. Way to display your skills at failing.

[savanna]

shucks
this is STILL alive?
why!

[uniquinous]

There are many cases of members of very strict religious groups that completely shun homosexuals having members "turn gay". If it clearly was "nurture" that lead to this, then you would assume this wouldn;t happen nearly as often as it does.

Then there is the evidence of homosexuality among animals. Many animal species "mate" homosexually. This would also point towards a "nature" cause.

Even in nature animals don't use sex just for procreation. Many animals mate, or even masturbate, clearly outside of mating.

While there may not yet be a 'definite' cause for homosexuality, I would lean much heavier towards nature in a nature vs nurture discussion.mmm, you're beginning to convince me of that more and more.

I do think that there are very beautiful women in this world to actually look at men with desire. So that's why i wouldn't understand why someone would want to be gay.Cuz let's face it, if they remove themselves as your competition, you have a shot!

But really I think the key phrase is "I wouldn't understand", cuz it's kinda obvious you don't... Why do you think a woman would find a man attractive? Why can't another man find a man attractive for the same reasons?

EDIT: And you're just being unreasonable now if you're still denying the hormonal imbalance.there's no hormonal imbalance... we have yet to see any evidence of that. Jeffery pointed out the best source thus far, and it points to genetics (and I believe sex chromosome inactivation, but I honestly didn't have time to read it yet).

as for this debate on "phobia", I believe bdog is using the most extreme version of the word - the kind that psychologists use to diagnose the real nutjobs. So in the diagnostic, symptom-associated craziness, bdog is correct. But someone can be mildly afraid of something and still be considered phobic, and that's a perfectly reasonable use of the word as well. In other words, it has both professional and colloquial meaning, so both of you are correct...

[TheBlazedAce]

You didn't pay attention in psych then. No matter, I did. I believe Jeffery provided a source, if you're too thick to have seen that, ask him, or Uniq, as Uniq saw it too. And basically. Irrational fear. NOT what ANYONE here has displayed. Way to display your skills at failing.
I will try to explain a few points to you my misguided friend:

1. Don't claim something you don't know to be true. Even though I specifically requested that if you're going to refer to a previous source, you should tell me what post/page to find it, you ignored this request. I decided to do a quick check of all of jeffrey's posts in this thread (thank god for firefox's find function). He never posted any such source. And neither have you. You've only posted one source thus far in the entire thread, and it was about abortion statistics, and a biased one at that.

2. Stop reducing yourself to ad hominem attacks. It's unbecoming of you good sir. And there is a distinct difference between calling someone homophobic (when they indeed display such qualities) and going "way to display your skills at failing". What is the point of this? It only serves to make you seem childish.

And if you paid such attention in psych, then why don't you actually show a SOURCE proving yourself correct. Psych 101 isn't exactly classified information.

3. As a response to the following: "Irrational fear. NOT what ANYONE here has displayed":

I asked for a rational explanation, and received an irrational one. This means the fear is indeed "irrational".

Dude, honestly, stop trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and start trying to actually make a point.

-blazed

[meat.eater]

A lot of you like seeing yourself type rather than actually discussing something. Do I agree with him? Not really. Do I find him "wrong"? Not really. Be adults. That comment is mainly directed at Jeffery.

There's a distinction to be made between the status of life for each. A fetus isn't usually viable for most of the first two trimesters, meaning it wouldn't necessarily be able to survive if it were birthed at that point. Thus, it's not a life that's being terminated, but an assortment of the basic components that make up a life. It has some basic potential to become a life in the future, but it has neither attained life nor active potential to be alive.

The living person who would be executed as per the death penalty is obviously alive, so killing them would be cruel and unusual punishment.

There's one argument that clearly distinguishes the two as different down to the core concepts. Now I'll ask the same of you: I have absolutely no clue, as I'm sure many other people would agree, how someone can be both "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty". Can you clear this up for me?

My befuddlement comes from the concept of having the option to terminate a life (or potential life) in the control of the woman, the housing body. By that logic, shouldn't the control of the execution of a life be in control of the state, the housing body? The ethical belief of the value of life is muddy with both these political values, in my opinion. I've asked many people this question and I still haven't received an answer that answers the ethics of it.

"Not necessarily be able to survive" as an argument is kind of like RG saying "it's possible that corruption happened" as an argument. Regardless of whether it's a life or not yet... it's a potential life. I'm pro-choice, and I'm not refuting that. Nobody makes the abortion argument of "well, it could have died anyway."

Pro-life and pro-death penalty makes more sense to me than pro-choice and anti-death penalty. In that situation, the ethical belief of allowing a life a chance to live doesn't overlap the ethical belief of executing a life that has done bad. No fetus has done bad, obviously.

[Wizzy`]

Meat.eater, I guess this is as good a place as any to profess my love towards you.

We've had our ups and downs..we've had our arguments and we've had our talks. I really enjoyed our talks, meat. A lot. So much that I grew so fond of you as to just read your posts pretty much everyday. And when I found out Sinyra was dating you, I kind of flipped. Thats why I've been kind of mean towards her, and hostile towards you. I'm a very jealous person and I hope that since I am letting you know my feelings towards you we can work out our differences and start talking again. I really hope that you read this.

[Jeffery]

A lot of you like seeing yourself type rather than actually discussing something. Do I agree with him? Not really. Do I find him "wrong"? Not really. Be adults. That comment is mainly directed at Jeffery.



Another one who obviously never read the thread before commenting. Congrats on being you Meat.Spinner

[sayter]

I wouldn't be getting anyone pregnant.
If by some chance I was irresponsible and the sex didn't involve some form of contraceptive and my significant other got pregnant then I would be at fault. Regardless of my situation, I would encourage my other to go through with the pregnancy because that abides by my moral standards. My life would be over but I got what I deserved by irresponsibility. It wouldn't come as a shock. I wouldn't try to pawn my responsibility off on others. It would be no one's fault but my own.

Unless you DID use contraceptives and they failed? it does happen.

Frankly I am insulted by your supposed "moral superiority" on this matter. Women should not be forced to have an infant they don't want, any more than you should be forced to have gay sex with an elephant.



That said, I will never argue against responsibility. But the majority of consenting adults have an "oops" moment in that regard. Why? Because these things happen. If the baby will have a crappy life, with financial destitution and other potential ugliness, I see no reason for a woman to be forced to have said child. I'd rather she have the option to abort for both her own sanity, and to save a child from a life of hardship and misery. But abortion is not a means of birth control, ever. Using it as such is foolish, dangerous, and a poor health choice.

[iceman2001]

Pro-life and pro-death penalty makes more sense to me than pro-choice and anti-death penalty. In that situation, the ethical belief of allowing a life a chance to live doesn't overlap the ethical belief of executing a life that has done bad. No fetus has done bad, obviously.

On a moral standpoint, I totally agree. Being pro choice and anti death penalty doesn't make sense.


However, the way I feel someone can hold both of these positions (as I do) is unfortunately due to pragmatism. Do I like the idea of killing unborn babies? Absolutely not. But I see it as a neccessary evil in society. I'd prefer an early 1st term abortion over actually having the kid and not being to care for it in the slightest.

The same pragmatic approach is why I'm anti-death penalty. Death penalty appeals can often go on for over 20 years. There's one guy who got convicted in 1974....and he's still alive (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/deathrow/)The legal bills involved in trying to put someone to death far are HUGE. It's actually costs more than putting somebody to death than have them in prison for life. To fix this, we either have to compromise the appeal system, or abolish the death penalty. Given the choice, I think we should get rid of the death penalty.


That being said, I'm not even sure you disagree with this point. I think perhaps you meant just on an ethical standpoint.

[meat.eater]

Another one who obviously never read the thread before commenting. Congrats on being you Meat.Spinner

I've been reading and contributing to this thread a lot more than you have, Mr. List-Off-The-Ways-In-Which-People-Different-From-You-Suck. Real productive. Let me know when we can take the training wheels off of your "basic communication trike."


Ice, yeah, as I said in my first post, there are lots of practical viewpoints that can justify being pro-choice and anti-death penalty (ie: room in prisons, finance, etc), but I was just commenting on the ethical standpoint, yar.

[Wizzy`]

I've been reading and contributing to this thread a lot more than you have, Mr. List-Off-The-Ways-In-Which-People-Different-From-You-Suck. Real productive. Let me know when we can take the training wheels off of your "basic communication trike."


Ice, yeah, as I said in my first post, there are lots of practical viewpoints that can justify being pro-choice and anti-death penalty (ie: room in prisons, finance, etc), but I was just commenting on the ethical standpoint, yar.

You can't ignore your true feelings forever.

[bdog1321]

I will try to explain a few points to you my misguided friend:

1. Don't claim something you don't know to be true. Even though I specifically requested that if you're going to refer to a previous source, you should tell me what post/page to find it, you ignored this request. I decided to do a quick check of all of jeffrey's posts in this thread (thank god for firefox's find function). He never posted any such source. And neither have you. You've only posted one source thus far in the entire thread, and it was about abortion statistics, and a biased one at that.

2. Stop reducing yourself to ad hominem attacks. It's unbecoming of you good sir. And there is a distinct difference between calling someone homophobic (when they indeed display such qualities) and going "way to display your skills at failing". What is the point of this? It only serves to make you seem childish.

And if you paid such attention in psych, then why don't you actually show a SOURCE proving yourself correct. Psych 101 isn't exactly classified information.

3. As a response to the following: "Irrational fear. NOT what ANYONE here has displayed":

I asked for a rational explanation, and received an irrational one. This means the fear is indeed "irrational".

Dude, honestly, stop trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and start trying to actually make a point.

-blazed

I ask you, what fear is there? i am not afraid of gay people

What did you search under the find tool?

For the psychology question, there are certain things that anyone should know after they take the class. Things that, if you took the class, you wouldn't be asking for a source for. This is one of them. I'm not sure though, maybe your teacher just wanted to avoid this, to be politically correct. Ours didn't.

But here's a few. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-phobia.html read.

[Microsoft-2]

Im only afraid of gay people if they try to cover iti up

[Jeffery]

I've been reading and contributing to this thread a lot more than you have, Mr. List-Off-The-Ways-In-Which-People-Different-From-You-Suck. Real productive. Let me know when we can take the training wheels off of your "basic communication trike."


Ice, yeah, as I said in my first post, there are lots of practical viewpoints that can justify being pro-choice and anti-death penalty (ie: room in prisons, finance, etc), but I was just commenting on the ethical standpoint, yar.
Show me where I "listed ways that people different from me suck". Seriously. Either that or STFU.

[uniquinous]

My befuddlement comes from the concept of having the option to terminate a life (or potential life) in the control of the woman, the housing body. By that logic, shouldn't the control of the execution of a life be in control of the state, the housing body? Legally, the government doesn't recognize the well being of a fetus until it is approaching viable human life. That's precisely why late term abortion is banz0r3d. In the early stages, they have no say in the matter. People can argue religious beliefs till they're blue, but most biologists and ethicists in the field generally don't consider a ball of cells a human being. Since the government has no say in what you do to not-humans, it keeps its hands out in the early months. That being said, I didn't exactly understand your question, so if that didn't answer it, please restate.

"Not necessarily be able to survive" as an argument is kind of like RG saying "it's possible that corruption happened" as an argument. Regardless of whether it's a life or not yet... it's a potential life.Actually, miscarriage rates are estimated up to 40%. 10% more and it has an equal "potential" to live or die. My point is that people only see and believe what they want. I just find it silly that the argument is based off "it's a potential life" (as you say). Where else in law, or even common reasoning, do we use such wording?

"You can't knock down that building it is a potential historical monument in 200 years."
"Doc we want you to kill grandpa even though he's healthy/happy, cuz he's a potential death in the next 5-10 years"
"I'm sure we can eat this chicken now as it's potentially cooked..."

Potential doesn't mean anything. In fact, using "potential life" directly shows that it isn't a life at that moment. And this brings me to my next point, in response to the death penalty thing. I don't see them as having anything to do with one another. One deals with a clump of cells, the other deals with a living human being. I see no comparison or relation there.

I've been reading and contributing to this thread a lot more than you have, Mr. List-Off-The-Ways-In-Which-People-Different-From-You-Suck. Real productive. Let me know when we can take the training wheels off of your "basic communication trike." custom user title ftw!

I ask you, what fear is there? i am not afraid of gay people I don't think anyone is calling you a homophobe anymore... Just saying that your interpretation of the word is using the strictest of definitions.

[bdog1321]

I don't think anyone is calling you a homophobe anymore... Just saying that your interpretation of the word is using the strictest of definitions.

I dunno....Blazed keeps trying to find more reasons why I could be. But if he isn't, alright. I still think that page presents some good information that supports what I said that it indeed is the psychological definition.

[TheBlazedAce]

I ask you, what fear is there? i am not afraid of gay people
First of all, I have yet to call you homophobic. But I will explain that contempt, disgust, and fear are all symptoms of the same problem: a lack of understanding. If you are disgusted, or simply hate all gay people, I'm going to call you homophobic. I honestly attribute this kind of reaction to fear, whether you actually believe you're afraid of gay people or not. Fear is a broad term, and as mentioned above, you need to stop taking the word by its most strictest definition.


What did you search under the find tool?
"Jeffrey" so I could find Jeffrey's posts... What is so complicated about this? You lied and told me there was a source when there wasn't one. And now, instead of looking back to find the truth, that there indeed wasn't one, you care more about trying to question my methods. Again, arguing for the sake of arguing instead of actually making a point...

Why are we going back and forth like this?

For the psychology question, there are certain things that anyone should know after they take the class. Things that, if you took the class, you wouldn't be asking for a source for. This is one of them. I'm not sure though, maybe your teacher just wanted to avoid this, to be politically correct. Ours didn't.

But here's a few. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-phobia.html read.
One of the definitions matches almost verbatim what I posted. Stop giving excuses for such a simple, obvious request. Instead of defending yourself, you try to attack me in every chance you get. Stop it. It's ridiculous. Why do you think I'm asking you for a source? Because you're mistaken and perhaps if you look at a source you'll understand that.

And I didn't need to take a psychology class to understand the latin roots for the word homophobic. My god.

-blazed

edit: I don't really care about labeling you or anyone else as anything specific. I really don't. But at least you have to admit the definition you gave in your first post is not the correct one. Even your own sources show that these phobias are not necessarily congruent with an anxiety attack (it says phobia is one of many anxieties, so please take a moment to understand it doesn't mean you necessarily start having an anxiety attack). Because honestly, dude, if phobia was as extreme as you're referring to, then they would have made up a new word by now, like, a mini-phobia, which just talked about an irrational fear...

[bdog1321]

First of all, I have yet to call you homophobic. But I will explain that contempt, disgust, and fear are all symptoms of the same problem: a lack of understanding. If you are disgusted, or simply hate all gay people, I'm going to call you homophobic. I honestly attribute this kind of reaction to fear, whether you actually believe you're afraid of gay people or not. Fear is a broad term, and as mentioned above, you need to stop taking the word by its most strictest definition.


"Jeffrey" so I could find Jeffrey's posts... What is so complicated about this? You lied and told me there was a source when there wasn't one. And now, instead of looking back to find the truth, that there indeed wasn't one, you care more about trying to question my methods. Again, arguing for the sake of arguing instead of actually making a point...

Why are we going back and forth like this?


One of the definitions matches almost verbatim what I posted. Stop giving excuses for such a simple, obvious request. Instead of defending yourself, you try to attack me in every chance you get. Stop it. It's ridiculous. Why do you think I'm asking you for a source? Because you're mistaken and perhaps if you look at a source you'll understand that.

And I didn't need to take a psychology class to understand the latin roots for the word homophobic. My god.

-blazed

Alright then I misinterpreted you.

And I'm not just arguing with you! He quoted a paper that links genetics to being gay! I can't help it if you didn't see it.

I'm sorry, but saying you fail is not my idea of an attack. You're now using the strictest sense of the word.

Apparently latin failed you then, because those two roots put together make a psychological term and the psychological term is apparently not what the latin translation would have you believe.

[meat.eater]

Show me where I "listed ways that people different from me suck". Seriously. Either that or STFU.

Kay.

1) You posted no legit source citing the statistics you gave
2) You mjust have skimmed past yourself not posting it
3) You are a bigot, homophobic and an ignoramus.
4) It is not being a bigot to call you an idiot. It would be if he called every "one of your kind" a m idiot though.
5) You have yet to post anything that doesn;t show yourself as anything but a young ignorant bigot. Every post you make has simply further proven this. But we can hardly blame you, as your upbringing was an obviously deficient one.

1) No, you did not post a legitimate source
2) Yes, you are full of bullshit, I am glad we agree.
3) It is always true that all three of those are often the last to know they are such. Your own 'friends" should have been able to clue you into this fact.
4)
Warcow is not utterly intolerant of you or your opinion, just your citation of non-existent factoids, and an inability to back up such citations
5) Bigots are 99% of the time the result of bigoted parenting. And your upbringing is shining through quite clearly with every ignorant post you make.
6) I again refer to your "friends" in RL who have come to the same conclusions we here have. That you are homophobic and bigoted. While you have no real reason to continue proving this to us here, perhaps you should ask them why they perceive the same thing we have here.

1) Cite a legitimate source, full accredited
2) I know I am. Wanna go out for a sodapop?
3) Funny, I call you it. And people who KNOW you call you it.
4) You saying it is doesn't make it so. Cite it properly please.
5) You are not the 1%. Sorry kiddo.
6) They have the same reasons we do, your constant bigoted statements, including homophobic statements. I don;t hate you, and no one discussing this with you right now is a "kid". Uni, Warcow and myself are older than you.
7) If it talks like a homophobe, posts like a homophobe, and lives like a homophobe, maybe just maybe it's a hompphobe.

[Jeffery]

Kay.
Funy. none of those are lists of me saying people whom are different than me suck. Perhaps you forgot to read again. In fact, if you further read, that very discussion went somewhere very positive.

Maybe, if you learn to read what was written before deciding what it is, you can point out specifically where I told him he sucks. Hrm? Maybe?

[meat.eater]

Funy. none of those are lists of me saying people whom are different than me suck. Perhaps you forgot to read again. In fact, if you further read, that very discussion went somewhere very positive.

Maybe, if you learn to read what was written before deciding what it is, you can point out specifically where I told him he sucks. Hrm? Maybe?

Oh, excuse me. You only called him a bigot, ignoramus, said he had poor parents, full of bullshit, implied that he had no friends, said he had bigot parents, called him homophobic in a negative connotation, and insulted the way in which he formulated his opinions... all in a way that was more volatile than anyone had been speaking to anyone else before... Pardon me for wrapping all of that together into the statement of "suck."

But I suppose it's impossible for you to be intolerant and infantile, right?

[uniquinous]

yeah jeffery, i gotta agree with meat on this one - it was the general tone i got out of your posts as well. :unsure:

[Lonely Tylenol]

My befuddlement comes from the concept of having the option to terminate a life (or potential life) in the control of the woman, the housing body. By that logic, shouldn't the control of the execution of a life be in control of the state, the housing body?

No. One is literal (the woman housing the child) whereas the other is figurative (the state 'housing' the criminal). If you want this distinction to be made apparant in your mind, remove the "house" from both. The unborn child, before viability, cannot survive if the mother is removed (or, rather, if it is removed from the mother); after viability it can survive with outside assistance, like every other functioning baby, as it no longer relies on the mother as a direct form of life support. The criminal, when removed from the state, can survive on his own; our government is useful for a lot of things that improve quality of life (rather, it's supposed to be), but at no point in our lives does the government pump life-giving nutrients directly into your body to keep you alive.

Being a student of ethics I could tell you that the point at which life begins remains hotly debated to this date, with the three primary "starting points" debated being conception, viability and birth. Those that argue that ontological life begins at conception usually argue either that the moment the sperm and the egg combine to form a zygote, the thing takes "human" characteristics--such as 46 chromosomes, or, more commonly in an emotional appeal, a "soul"--or in Justice Noonan's case, that a probability shift occurs between ejaculation (1 in ~200m that any given sperm fertilizes the egg) and conception (4 in 5 that the zygote will be born without spontaneous natural abortion).

I reject the shift in probability argument on the grounds that the 1 in 200m chance that a sperm fertilizes an egg is weighed against other sperm--each of which also has a chance to fertilize the egg. The odds that a woman will be impregnated upon male ejaculation, given that she's fertile and ovulating, are decidedly greater than 1 in 200 million, since the odds that a sperm will fertilize an egg are decidedly greater than the odds that a specific sperm will fertilize an egg, and I reject the "humanity" of the month-old zygote because there is no objective way to say that it has a "soul" at any point before birth, or even after.

Those that argue that life begins at birth usually argue that, before birth, a child/zygote does not fit a certain criteria for which ontological life is judged--which consists largely of self-awareness, self-determination, and independent thought and action. A zygote is largely incapable of any of these until the third trimester, and doesn't exhibit all of them until birth. I accept the criteria for the most part, but reject the measure at birth because after viability, a birthed infant has a very real potential to exhibit all of these characteristics independent of the mother's life-giving nutrition and protection. That said, I obviously accept the viability argument--that a life is termed once it can survive on its own outside the mother's womb.

The ontological status of life and when it begins is essential to the abortion debate in ethics, because the point at which life begins is termed as the beginning of self-determination, and the point at which Kantian respect for persons applies and the treatment of that person as a means to an end is expressly forbidden in ethical circles. After "life" begins, the person (unborn or otherwise) is entitled to every right to live and to thrive as the mother and everyone around them.

All of this is irrelevant to the capital punishment debate, since no matter where you draw the line for the beginning of life, the person on death row has most definitely crossed it, and Kantian respect for persons applies. To terminate a life at that point would be to treat that person as a means to an end (usually as a deterrent for future prospective criminals). This is not expressly argued in ethical circles, which is precisely why pro-capital punishment advocates typically argue for capital punishment as a deterrent and a means of justice to the victim and ignore the respect for persons as it applies to the criminal, which, ironically, is precisely the opposite of what pro-lifers do in the abortion debate (as they argue respect for persons applies indefinitely and, in some cases, in spite of the welfare of the mother).

I hope that clears up your confusion!

If anyone needs me, I'll be playing all my old Final Fantasy games until my eyes bleed out of my skull. In other words, don't need me. ;)

Mahalo!

[mushroom_girl]

I have some gay friends, girls and guys. My boyfriend cannot be around gay people because they make him uncomfortable, girls and guys. So we've gotten into numerous arguments over this topic....

When I asked him why, he simply said because being gay is something that he just doesn't understand, and anything that he doesn't understand makes him very uncomfortable. He doesn't say that homosexuality is wrong...he just doesn't get it. I've learned to just ignore his intolerance, because I've seen that he's uncomfortable with people who are unlike him in multiple ways. It doesn't mean he hates people that are different, he's just uncomfortable because he doesn't know how to relate.

Bigot is a very strong word for that. I'm sure it makes sense for some homophobes...but not for all. So calling bdog a bigot might not be appropriate either. :\

[Lonely Tylenol]

Bigot is a very strong word for that. I'm sure it makes sense for some homophobes...but not for all. So calling bdog a bigot might not be appropriate either. :\

We're a bit past that part, dear. ;)

If you want advice on how to help your boyfriend get over his homophobia, I would suggest that he pretends all your gay friends are straight, or assumes ambiguity as to their sexuality. He doesn't need to pretend indefinitely, just long enough to interact with them enough to realize that their lives and their mannerisms are the same as his, regardless of sexual orientation--and that the only difference inherent between him and them is the gender of the people they're attracted to. Maybe this will help him to realize that they're not really any different from him, and that they just feel the way they do for the same reason that he does about you, or women in general.

'Course, he might not. I'm not too big on overcoming fear. I've been afraid of water since I was seven and morbidly afraid of strangulation (with a side of anything touching my neck) since I was thirteen or fourteen, but then, those fears are grounded in experience, not a lack thereof.

[bdog1321]

Lol well have fun guys, I'm taking a break from TAO for a while.... Be back in a month or so.

[TheBlazedAce]

Alright then I misinterpreted you.

And I'm not just arguing with you! He quoted a paper that links genetics to being gay! I can't help it if you didn't see it.

I'm sorry, but saying you fail is not my idea of an attack. You're now using the strictest sense of the word.

Apparently latin failed you then, because those two roots put together make a psychological term and the psychological term is apparently not what the latin translation would have you believe.
Since you're gone, I doubt you will see or respond to this, but in case you do I would like you to enlighten me:

Go ahead and quote my definition, and then yours. Then tell me what the difference is... Because mostly, I've just been pointing out how the definition you used in your first post doesn't match the one you're sourcing.

I also don't see how considering "you fail" as an ad hominem attack is using a strict definition of the word. It's not very complicated.

Anyway, good luck wherever you're going. Enjoy your life...

-blazed

[I MaFiA I]

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/homosexuals_are_gay.jpg

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm done with FFIX. What happened to this thread? There was a lot of good discussion coming out of it.

You know, outside the blatant flaming.

[TheBlazedAce]

I'm done with FFIX. What happened to this thread? There was a lot of good discussion coming out of it.

You know, outside the blatant flaming.
The guy we were slowly convincing left...

-blazed

[savanna]

LT!
you necropheliac you!

[Match Strike]

ok, that picture Mafia posted is really funny.

[Copeland]

I think homophobic people need to get their heads out of their asses. They aren't better than anyone. Having a different sexual preference has absolutely no relevance to being scared of someone, or feeling you're better than someone. I'm straight, and I have absolutely no problem with gay people. I don't know why homophobic people feel that they are one step above gay people, just because they think their sexuality choice is better. Uh oh, might I get flamed because I said "choice"? Whatever. Either way, whether it's because of genetics, or choice, gay people are people, just as we are, and they aren't any worse, at that. If you think otherwise, get over yourself.

[Ächilles]

In my opinion, the argument as to whether homosexual couples should be allowed to argue is not only irrelevant, but entirely moot.

Gay couples should be allowed every single right straight couples possess. You cannot call this the land of the free, and then deny one group of people the right to wed while simultaneously allowing the others to. So long as the group isn't infringing upon anyone elses rights, and isn't causing harm, there is neither just nor constitutional cause to deny them.

It's a hormone imbalance? Who cares? It's a chemical deficiency at birth? Who cares? Are they hurting anyone? By gay couples marrying, does it destroy your quality of life? Absolutely not. If gay marriage were legalized without any media attention, you wouldn't have the slightest idea it happened. It wouldn't change your life in any way.

Twins occur in the womb because of chemical imbalances. Should twins be denied the right to marry? How about people with bipolar disease? They suffer from hormone inbalances, should we tell them they're not allowed to wear shorts because they're different? Maybe we should tell black people they can't vote, too.

Thusly, the argument is irrelevant. All men and women are born equal, and each social class and sexual orientation are also equal. You are no different than they are, and because of that universal truth, are in no place to tell them what they can and cannot do. You think it's unethical? I think praying to God is unethical, does that mean that we should shut down every church? Opinions differ. People are different. You can't force the world to work your way, and damn everyone else as evil and bad. Simply accept, it's a lot easier than all the hate you'll spew.

[uniquinous]

necropheliac you!you're using the term wrong. see in psychology, "phile" means....

jk

So long as the group isn't infringing upon anyone elses rights, and isn't causing harm, there is neither just nor constitutional cause to deny them.See this is the problem. This is where the conservative mindset on this issue agrees with you. By allowing homosexuals to marry, it directly degrades their own marriage, in their eyes. Therefore, since they believe it is causing harm and infringing on their right to marry, it shouldn't be allowed.

Now of course any reasonable person would say "wait, how does that couple half way across the country lesson your marriage?". I'd love to hear the answer someday.

[Ächilles]

See this is the problem. This is where the conservative mindset on this issue agrees with you. By allowing homosexuals to marry, it directly degrades their own marriage, in their eyes. Therefore, since they believe it is causing harm and infringing on their right to marry, it shouldn't be allowed.

Now of course any reasonable person would say "wait, how does that couple half way across the country lesson your marriage?". I'd love to hear the answer someday.

And by conservatives forcing their beliefs upon the world, it directly degrades my quality of life because I'm forced to live my life knowing that their faith degrades my sense of reason and quest to learn new things. But they're not harming me or my quality of life, so I've got to learn to accept, don't I?

This is why the argument is irrelevant. They might think that it is wrong and lessens the meaning of their union, but unless they can prove some type of physical or mental damage that they themselves or the state of their marriage has sustained, it is a moot point.

Because of this, it is nothing but them whining that the rest of the world doesn't share the same mindset. There is no justification for them demanding the rest of the country adhere to their beliefs and sets of morals. Religion and state have been clearly separated, and the state has to grant equality to the beliefs of all who abide by the law. Homosexuals who pay their taxes, don't engage in crime, and lead honest lives are entitled to the same rights, and there is not argument otherwise. They fit every single constitution parameter. A human being who lives honestly.