View Full Version : What have they done to Westerns
Has anyone seen this movie "Bareback Mounting" I think its called, My heros like John Wayne, Jack Elam, Eli Wallach , must be spinning in their graves, about Homosexual Cowboys, what are they trying to do to us? Destroy everything us laddies held dear when we were wee, how can a wee lad play cowboys now a days, with a powder puff instead of the trusty old six gun
pedromcgrory
17-Jan-06, 21:51
heard it was like watching paint dry ,so think il gie it a miss
Alice in Blunderland
17-Jan-06, 21:57
Oh dear golach Bareback mounting indeed,its called progress,and I reckon the spelling is quite different but not as funny as yours!!!!lol......
landmarker
17-Jan-06, 22:07
'Brokeback' mountain I believe. They must have been going at it some!
My wife tells me these cowpokes are openly snogging on the prairie.
I wonder if the cinemas are providing sick bags?
I'm afraid as much as I accept homosexual men are amongst us, the sight of them kissing turns my stomach. Maybe she was just winding me up.
Alan Ladd will be spinning in his grave. Shane...Shane..... LOL
(mind you, thinking about it, how many of those old western hero movie stars were homosexuals?
Wasn't Randolph Scott Cary Grant's boyfriend?
I dont think I'll see this film which is a pity because I understand the photography is stunning.
connieb19
17-Jan-06, 22:12
Nice to see the main actors got Golden Globes last night though!!!
I can't help thinking "ouch", it must be painful walking!!:eyes
What next?? "The Good, The Bad and the OOO Isnt he Lovely" [lol]
I think i will give it a miss not my thing .
It stars Jake Gyllenhaal, he of Donnie Darko and Jarhead fame, and Heath Ledger so might be worth going to see just for that.
But I doubt very much the local cinema will show it.
My wife tells me these cowpokes are openly snogging on the prairie.
I wonder if the cinemas are providing sick bags? I don't suppose it'd be necessary. [evil] I assume that anyone who might need a sickbag would be well advised to just go and see something else.
I'm afraid as much as I accept homosexual men are amongst us... Accept? Landmarker, I think it is you who is on the windup. [disgust]
landmarker
17-Jan-06, 22:31
Accept? Landmarker, I think it is you who is on the windup. [disgust]
'Acknowledge' would have been better choice of word.
Thank you for correcting me drutt.
A real review of the film Brokeback Mountain, without golach's snide remarks, rude jokes and complete misrepresentation of what the film is about:
- Mick LaSalle, Chronicle Movie Critic
Thursday, December 8, 2005
Brokeback Mountain: Drama. Starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. Directed by Ang Lee. (R. 135 minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Brokeback Mountain" is already being talked about as the "gay cowboy movie," shorthand that neither does it justice nor gives the right impression. It makes it sound either cavalier or easy to categorize, when the relationship depicted in the movie is a lot more complicated and difficult to pinpoint.
It's about two men who are in love, and it makes no sense. It makes no sense in terms of who they are, where they are, how they live and how they see themselves. It makes no sense in terms of what they do for a living or how they would probably vote in a national election.
It makes no sense, except in one place in the world, the place where it started, on Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming. And though they come down from that mountain and go about their lives, they keep going back to it, over the course of years, because however much the love doesn't make sense, it's real -- so real, it makes their lives unreal. There are kids, marriages, jobs, nights of drinking, heterosexual flings, in-laws and holidays to celebrate, and they do everything they're expected to do, but numb. Then every so often, they meet back up on the mountain and get to be themselves for a few stolen days.
The situation carries a lot of emotional power, largely because it's so specific and yet undefined. The two guys -- cowboys -- are in love with each other, but we don't ever quite know if they're in love with each other because they're gay, or if they're gay because they're in love with each other.
It's possible that if these fellows had never met, one or both would have gone through life straight. That's one way of looking at the movie, though only one. In any case, because their attraction is not defined as some inevitable consequence of sexual orientation but as something that just happens to them, we see them as irreplaceable to each other -- like Romeo and Juliet. There's no notion that either could go out tomorrow or 10 years from now and find someone else.
"Brokeback Mountain," based on Annie Proulx's 1997 story, is directed by Ang Lee in a style that pays attention to the nuances of expression, to the thoughts and emotions being articulated between the words and in the pauses. This is necessary, because cowboys don't do much talking. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal play Ennis and Jack, respectively, who meet when they're hired to tend a herd of sheep in Wyoming in 1963. They're both tight-lipped fellows, but Ledger is the more closed off of the two. He adopts a manner of speaking that suggests repression, a pressing down of the vocal cords as though jealous of any word that might escape. It's up to interpretation whether he knows, at first, the thing that he's trying to hide. In any case, nature will out, and it does one night, with a suddenness bordering on violence, when the two men share a tent.
The idea of two Marlboro men having sex in a tent is, in itself, an unexpected twist on a traditional image of American manhood. They cook beans, make coffee, share rodeo stories and do all the things that cowboys usually do. They are Western outdoorsmen in the true American tradition, and they can't be transplanted, which makes their love all the more difficult. You can't be a gay couple in a small Western town in 1963, and you can't be a cowboy in New York or San Francisco.
Both actors do memorable work, but Ledger has the better role, and he makes the strongest choices. He gives Ennis a voice and mannerisms that are utterly idiosyncratic, and then inhabits those choices psychologically, making sense of the locked-down speech, the haunted look and the strong but diffident manner. He completely transforms himself. It's a performance that was thought through in detail and then lived in the moment, and it's one of the most beautiful things in movies this year.
Lee's attention to the unspoken carries over into the domestic scenes, of the men with their respective wives. As with the men, there are things the wives don't dare say out loud, as well, but we can read their thoughts and see the toll the years take. Anne Hathaway, the star of the innocuous "Princess Diaries" movies, plays Jack's wife, in a committed portrait of a woman getting blonder and blonder, and more bitter and pinched, over the course of some 15 years. It's a brilliant and insightful performance, a time-lapse photography demonstration of what happens to someone who expected to be loved, but wasn't.
-- Advisory: Sex scenes, adult subject matter, strong language.
'Acknowledge' would have been better choice of word.
Thank you for correcting me dear.
Dear? Do you think you could find another 'better choice of word'?
landmarker
17-Jan-06, 22:49
Dear? Do you think you could find another 'better choice of word'?
Drutt.
Is that more acceptable.
Oh, and I just read from htwood that this movie was shot in Wyoming.
'Like no place on earth' it says on the welcoming boards at the state line, and they are right. Fantastic.
Drutt.
Is that more acceptable.
Seeing as that's my name, yes, absolutely! :lol:
Thanks for that ht. First Ive heard of it and will check it out when it comes to Thurso.
Its good to see Hollywood doing Westerns about real stuff in comparison to the Westerns of my day when John Wayne was presenting a false image of American history to millions of unsuspecting children who, like Golach, thought they were heroes.
I only discovered the truth years later when I read a book called Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee.
landmarker
17-Jan-06, 23:44
I only discovered the truth years later when I read a book called Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee.
Gleeber - check out 'Crazy Horse mountain' South Dakota on the web it is, or will be a staggering testament to the native American's who were so grievously wronged. I went there in 2000. It's up the road from Mount Rushmore and will dwarf it when it's finished in about fifty years time. All those Presidents heads would fit inside this magnificent monument.
I visited Little Big Horn too, but had to find out the other side of the story.
Here's a link..... http://www.crazyhorse.org
Has anyone seen this movie "Bareback Mounting" I think its called, My heros like John Wayne, Jack Elam, Eli Wallach , must be spinning in their graves, about Homosexual Cowboys, what are they trying to do to us? Destroy everything us laddies held dear when we were wee, how can a wee lad play cowboys now a days, with a powder puff instead of the trusty old six gun
From some of the rumours it would seem that both John Wayne and Randolph Scott rode side-saddle from time to time and could be seen walking like like Groucho Marx due to "saddle-soreness"
I'll wait to see the film before casting an opinion but don't see a problem with the concept that two Cowboys might be homosexual. It is no more unrealistic than John (never more than two hours from a Philishave) Wayne or Lee (Camper) Van Cleef
Maybe "True Grit" Cowboy films portraying Murder, Rape and Lynch Mobs is a better inspiration for the budding Milky Bar Kids of today.
ps Even Clint Eastwood was seen with a pair of chaps between his legs in a Fistful of Dollars!!
All those Presidents heads would fit inside this magnificent monument.
George W's wouldn't touch the sides inside a midgie's jockstrap!!
sassylass
20-Jan-06, 05:28
Gleeber - check out 'Crazy Horse mountain' South Dakota on the web it is, or will be a staggering testament to the native American's who were so grievously wronged. I went there in 2000. It's up the road from Mount Rushmore and will dwarf it when it's finished in about fifty years time. All those Presidents heads would fit inside this magnificent monument.
I visited Little Big Horn too, but had to find out the other side of the story.
Here's a link..... http://www.crazyhorse.org
There was an interesting television documentary about the Crazy Horse Memorial. It presented a different perspective to wit:
Lakota reaction to the Memorial is mixed. An Oglala activist is adamant that the Memorial is a desecration. She asks,
"How can man even conceive of building something on land that is sacred? How can man ever build something more beautiful or sacred than what God has created? […] This is the very land that Crazy Horse was fighting for. Instead of desecrating what he considered sacred land, and blowing up mountains in a total violation of the beliefs that he held, if the Ziolkowskis wanted to honor him, why don't they try to have the land returned to Crazy Horse's people?" (White Face, Rapid City Journal 1998).
If you'd like to read more about it, check out
http://www.lakotaarchives.com/lakrushcraz2.html
sassylass
20-Jan-06, 05:36
...and apologies for digressing from the original topic. I have not seen Brokeback Mountain, but hear it has a profound message if one can get beyond homophobia and the scenery is fab.
Sassylass. I don't think your post on the Crazy Horse Monument were off topic.
We honest upright white-eyes were always having to put those sneaky savage treacherous redskins in their place.
They just wouldn't stay in those nice reservations we gave them.
And ask what they did to the women-folk, well it was so horrible they couldn't even bear to show it.
It was only in the mid sixties with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement that Western changed to a more balanced view point as Holywood followed the public mood.
Add to that the rise of the Spaghetti Westerns and we suddenly had to resort to slaughtering those greasy unwashed dangerous Mexican Banditos.
But perhaps that was just because it was easier to find Mexican looking actors where they were filmed.
teddybear1873
20-Jan-06, 09:18
Sassylass. I don't think your post on the Crazy Horse Monument were off topic.
We honest upright white-eyes were always having to put those sneaky savage treacherous redskins in their place.
They just wouldn't stay in those nice reservations we gave them.
And ask what they did to the women-folk, well it was so horrible they couldn't even bear to show it.
It was only in the mid sixties with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement that Western changed to a more balanced view point as Holywood followed the public mood.
Add to that the rise of the Spaghetti Westerns and we suddenly had to resort to slaughtering those greasy unwashed dangerous Mexican Banditos.
But perhaps that was just because it was easier to find Mexican looking actors where they were filmed. Must show the girlfriend this topic, she's a red indian...woo woo the arrows are coming Jaws
Ah the real Americans, you don’t hear too much about them. I visited an exhibition in Glasgow some years ago entitled Home of the Brave (a parody of Land of the Free, Home of the Brave). The exhibition laid bare the facts/history associated with the aboriginal demise after the discovery (sic) of America.
Some real prejudice coming to the fore in this thread – don’t you think that there were/are gay cowboys?
hungryhiller
20-Jan-06, 11:11
Finally a few words of considered sense from two members. Wake up Caithness.......is it really a good idea to hang on to such out-dated and, frankly, ignorant attitudes as the gross homophobia displayed above.... mentioning no names? Calm down Dear.....it's only a movie....and nobody can make you watch it! I hope the cinema has the guts to show this film....it's already doing big box office. I doubt if the local gay community will raise it's voice or anything else on this issue......they probably are far to busy having consensual fun in private. HH
Ah the real Americans, you don’t hear too much about them. I visited an exhibition in Glasgow some years ago entitled Home of the Brave (a parody of Land of the Free, Home of the Brave). The exhibition laid bare the facts/history associated with the aboriginal demise after the discovery (sic) of America.
I'm very envious of the Americans of that period, they only had to pop outside.
We in Europe had to search all over the world for our fun.
And, what's more, Hollywood didn't make exciting films about us.
How about a few British Wild West films.
On second thoughts, perhaps not. Some folks on the Isles might be a touch offended at that description. :D
landmarker
20-Jan-06, 18:55
The idea for the memorial in South Dakota came from the elders of the native American tribes thermselves. It wasn't the idea of the sculptor, Zorkowski.
They approached him and offered funding. That's the story I gleaned anyway.
I think the transformation of a lump of rock into a huge monument to Crazy Horse is apropriate. All of the area is sacred, including Mount Rushmore. The reasoning behind the Lakota chiefs wishes were 'we want the world to know the red men had heroes too'
And: You dont need to be 'homophobic' a word which is being overworked as much as 'racist' to find the mechanics of homosexuality off putting. This western was funded by a Hollywood liberal elite who have an agenda,who are not content to see Homosexuality out of the closet, they want it to be regarded as mainstream and 'normal' Well, I'm sorry, it just isn't 'normal'.
You dont have to 'homophobic' to say that either. I dont give a monkeys what consenting adults do in their own space, or project in art house movies or mainstream cinema, if there are those curious enough to go and see it in large numbers, fair enough.
Just because I wont be one of 'em doesn;'t make me homophobic. A 'phobia' is an 'irrational fear' and I'm not frightened of homosexuals, I'd just rather avoid them.
Me I prefer to avoid spiders - I am arachnophobic.
landmarker
21-Jan-06, 18:54
Me I prefer to avoid spiders - I am arachnophobic.
Thats a phobia I share . Any bigger than a fingernail and I'm scared of 'em, dont want 'em on me. <shudder> Smaller and I dont mind them in the least.
And: You dont need to be 'homophobic' a word which is being overworked as much as 'racist' to find the mechanics of homosexuality off putting. This western was funded by a Hollywood liberal elite who have an agenda,who are not content to see Homosexuality out of the closet, they want it to be regarded as mainstream and 'normal' Well, I'm sorry, it just isn't 'normal'.
You dont have to 'homophobic' to say that either. I dont give a monkeys what consenting adults do in their own space, or project in art house movies or mainstream cinema, if there are those curious enough to go and see it in large numbers, fair enough.
I'm not frightened of homosexuals, I'd just rather avoid them.
Landmarker well done my sentiments exactly
I am not keen on westerns as i was forced to watch then as a bairn along with james bond and star trek i don't mind james bond so much now.
If golach aligns himself so closely with what landmarker is saying he will have to admit he is prejudiced at the very least towards homosexuals. Prejudice is awful and when directed against perfecly legal human activities, I believe it says more about the prejudicer than it does about the victim.
I find landmarkers stance as less than astute and it brings up something much deeper in the human psyche than most of us want to be aware of. His attitude though (Queerly) recognisable, is, I believe, dangerous. Without prejudice the Nazis would have been unable to carry out their dasterdly deeds against their victims.
Homosexuality is an activity our modern Western world is trying to integrate more closely with normal human experiences and, more importantly, stop its persecution. Its unlikely that the human race will ever be over-run with homosexuals because of the nature of nature. nature though will probably always have its homosexuals and its landmarkers.
Theres not much difference between landmarker and me cos it all happens in the head but prejudice when its allowed to take root in the real world has been responsible for untold misery and because of that needs to be challenged when it rears its ugly head on caithness.org.
Its down to acceptance and thats not going to be easy. Discrimination on sexual grounds is totally unnecessary, and creates unecessary conflict.
Ill bet most homosexuals dont even hold hands in public let alone carry out activities that seem to stimulate landmarker and golachs masculine imagination.
I try not judge someone by their sexual preferences as long as its within the law. I feel better for it.
If golach aligns himself so closely with what landmarker is saying he will have to admit he is prejudiced at the very least towards homosexuals. Prejudice is awful and when directed against perfecly legal human activities, I believe it says more about the prejudicer than it does about the victim.
I find landmarkers stance as less than astute and it brings up something much deeper in the human psyche than most of us want to be aware of. His attitude though (Queerly) recognisable, is, I believe, dangerous. Without prejudice the Nazis would have been unable to carry out their dasterdly deeds against their victims.
Homosexuality is an activity our modern Western world is trying to integrate more closely with normal human experiences and, more importantly, stop its persecution. Its unlikely that the human race will ever be over-run with homosexuals because of the nature of nature. nature though will probably always have its homosexuals and its landmarkers.
Theres not much difference between landmarker and me cos it all happens in the head but prejudice when its allowed to take root in the real world has been responsible for untold misery and because of that needs to be challenged when it rears its ugly head on caithness.org.
Its down to acceptance and thats not going to be easy. Discrimination on sexual grounds is totally unnecessary, and creates unecessary conflict.
Ill bet most homosexuals dont even hold hands in public let alone carry out activities that seem to stimulate landmarker and golachs masculine imagination.
I try not judge someone by their sexual preferences as long as its within the law. I feel better for it.
Hmmm never been called a Nazi before, I'll have to think about that one Gleeber,:confused:
Ill bet most homosexuals dont even hold hands in public
Loads of hetrosexuals hold hands out here, and kiss each other when they meet.
Dear? Do you think you could find another 'better choice of word'?
thought you'd been quiet for too long. nice to see you're still in form, splitting hairs as usual!
And: You dont need to be 'homophobic' a word which is being overworked as much as 'racist' to find the mechanics of homosexuality off putting. This western was funded by a Hollywood liberal elite who have an agenda,who are not content to see Homosexuality out of the closet, they want it to be regarded as mainstream and 'normal' Well, I'm sorry, it just isn't 'normal'.
You dont have to 'homophobic' to say that either. I dont give a monkeys what consenting adults do in their own space, or project in art house movies or mainstream cinema, if there are those curious enough to go and see it in large numbers, fair enough.
Just because I wont be one of 'em doesn;'t make me homophobic. A 'phobia' is an 'irrational fear' and I'm not frightened of homosexuals, I'd just rather avoid them.
I agree totally with this.
I agree totally with this.
I couldn't agree more myself!!
I really should have paid more attention in the English Comprehension Classes. At the time it didn’t seem to matter because I seemed to manage to interpret what people were saying quite well.
Did I miss something? I think I must have because I can’t find the post where somebody suggested that anybody should persecute homosexuals.
Perhaps I’m just a "Fascist Homophobe" whatever one of them may be.
There are many things in life that I personally find distasteful.
It appears to me that there is a small but growing section of Society who seem to have a need to portray anybody who voices that opinion as some Dark Age leftover with a determination to bring back Public Hangings and Burning at the Stake.
Does anybody know if the Local Colleges run Evening Classes in English Comprehension?
Perhaps somebody can point me in the direction of a Regime where I can attend one of their Crash Courses in “Political Correctness Retraining”.
I’m assured that they have a very record of retraining the mind but that there may be extemely painful physical side effects.
If golach aligns himself so closely with what landmarker is saying he will have to admit he is prejudiced at the very least towards homosexuals. Prejudice is awful and when directed against perfecly legal human activities, I believe it says more about the prejudicer than it does about the victim.
I find landmarkers stance as less than astute and it brings up something much deeper in the human psyche than most of us want to be aware of. His attitude though (Queerly) recognisable, is, I believe, dangerous. Without prejudice the Nazis would have been unable to carry out their dasterdly deeds against their victims.
Homosexuality is an activity our modern Western world is trying to integrate more closely with normal human experiences and, more importantly, stop its persecution. Its unlikely that the human race will ever be over-run with homosexuals because of the nature of nature. nature though will probably always have its homosexuals and its landmarkers.
Theres not much difference between landmarker and me cos it all happens in the head but prejudice when its allowed to take root in the real world has been responsible for untold misery and because of that needs to be challenged when it rears its ugly head on caithness.org.
Its down to acceptance and thats not going to be easy. Discrimination on sexual grounds is totally unnecessary, and creates unecessary conflict.
Ill bet most homosexuals dont even hold hands in public let alone carry out activities that seem to stimulate landmarker and golachs masculine imagination.
I try not judge someone by their sexual preferences as long as its within the law. I feel better for it.Since I don't have time to compose a considered post right now, I'll join in with the "me too" brigade.
Great post gleeber -- spot on as usual.
I think homophobic prejudice is largely an age and cultural issue. It's much more prevalent in older people who were brought up in less enlightened times. As such, it's already much less common than it used to be. :)
Just because I wont be one of 'em doesn;'t make me homophobic. A 'phobia' is an 'irrational fear' and I'm not frightened of homosexuals, I'd just rather avoid them.
Depending on which dictionary you use, the meanings can be:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/homophobia?view=uk
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
I do not judge people because of their sexual orientation, just in the same way I would not judge someone because of their age, colour, creed, race, culture, nationality, religion, whether they are able bodied or not, etc etc.
Homosexuals are human beings and deserve to be treated just like the next person, ie, to be treated in the same way you expect to be treated.
Oh, and I agree with Gleeber.
Does anybody know if the Local Colleges run Evening Classes in English Comprehension?
Perhaps somebody can point me in the direction of a Regime where I can attend one of their Crash Courses in “Political Correctness Retraining”.
I’m assured that they have a very record of retraining the mind but that there may be extemely painful physical side effects.
Let me know if you find one.. Maybe I'll come along with you..
Depending on which dictionary you use, the meanings can be:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/homophobia?view=uk
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
I do not judge people because of their sexual orientation, just in the same way I would not judge someone because of their age, colour, creed, race, culture, nationality, religion, whether they are able bodied or not, etc etc.
Homosexuals are human beings and deserve to be treated just like the next person, ie, to be treated in the same way you expect to be treated.
Oh, and I agree with Gleeber.
Source of Definition
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Of the Founder 150 years ago, Robert A Woods it is said,
"He soon fell under the influence of William Jowett Tucker, whose approach to social economics was deeply critical of charity organization and traditional philanthropy. Instead he looked 'bolder social change' to bring about 'economic justice'.
Woods was beginning to search for a philosophy that could combine both social and individual salvation."
I make no comment!
I hold a very strong aversion to getting soaked, can I get my strong feeling of "Rainophobia" be given a mention in a Dictionary please!
I can't wait to be labelled a "Fascist Rainophobe" it can be used as a special piece of derision all of my own! It would make me unique!
I might get mentioned in the Medical Journals as a person with a completely new phobia!
I could write a books and make Millions,
"How I came out as a Closet Rainophobe",
"The Secret Life of a Rainophobe",
"How to be a Rainophobe without being Discovered",
"How to Defeat the Spreading Scourge of Rain, Join the Rainophobes!"
They might even make new laws to stop me spreading my Evil Beliefs!
I can't see it as a Hate Crime, perhaps it would be better termed as a "Wet Crime".
I'll have to give some serious consideration to the terminology which should be used to abuse my deviant beliefs!
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 15:37
Sandra misses the point in the definition stakes. The word 'phobia' to which I was alluding has become to mean something else when it's prefixed with 'homo' It is now used in an irrational way. Perhaps a current definition of 'homophobia' would be "expression of any form of mild criticism of homosexuality will be described as such"
Of course, as Jaws observed, I did not and never would advocate 'persecution' of this group of people. I honestly don't know why
people only read what they want to read and do not appreciate the finer nuances of the English language.
To link my attitudes with those of 'Nazi's' is perfectly ludicrous, Gleeber.
As for the poster who said 'they' dont hold hands in public' .....
It is the current vogue for many people to defend to the hilt any minority grouping, just because they are in the minority. Defence from verbal abuse or physical assault is absolutely justified. Mild criticism and less than universal acclaim for what they do can surely be tolerated by the 'defenders' of such minorities. Not on this board it seems. Any hint of opposition to homosexuality as a mainstream activity is seized upon with silly brickbats and snap judgements.
In the line of my work down the years I have encountered the activities of some of the more predatory homosexuals. I have found myself in lorry parks overnight in town centres or rural places, often (if you're lucky) there is a public convenience nearby which one has little option but to use should nature call.
These facilities are often like a flame to a moth. Cars coming and going at all hours. Shadowy movements and brief laisons. Toilet blocks ruined with holes in the walls of cubicles. Settling down for a quiet 'sit down doo' is almost impossible at times.
These, men whose groin area seems to overule their brains often do much more than 'hold hands' in public places. Frankly, such activities are intimidating, obnoxious and I'd have thought extremely unhealthy. Strangely , I never experienced any of this in Scotland, southern England being the 'hotspot'. Cottaging they calls it, I believe.
As I said before, what consenting adults do in private is up to themselves.
If men want to lie down with men then so be it, it has gone on since the beginning of time almost. I just object to the flaunting and 'normalising' of this behaviour.I also advocate heterosexual sex should be conducted in private by however many parties consent to it.
If this post is too graphic then please forgive me. This is a real world post about real world homosexuals. Gay's if you must - though they seldom looked very gay to me. More furtive than anything else.
Oh well, that's about as much as I can contribute to this debate I think.
Since I don't have time to compose a considered post right now, I'll join in with the "me too" brigade.
Great post gleeber -- spot on as usual.
I think homophobic prejudice is largely an age and cultural issue. It's much more prevalent in older people who were brought up in less enlightened times. As such, it's already much less common than it used to be. :)
Ohh you have got my goat up now Doc [mad] ......Gleeber and his tirades and insults I can put up with...But Old!!!!!!!! ......you are just plain ageist and there is nothing worse.......well maybe...an Owld Nazi :lol:
I now understand why you wish to avoid homosexuals now that you have explained your reasons.
Based on your reason for wishing to avoid gay men, ie the seedy side of such a life, does that mean you would also wish to avoid heterosexual men and women who take part in the likes of dogging/swinging/wife swapping/prostitution?
Does it mean you wish to avoid all men because of those who are wife/child abusers, because of those who commit rape and murder etc?
As has said before in previous topics, heterosexual men can also be just as predatory, you just need to pop into your local pub or nightclub on a Friday or Saturday night to see that. Or think of the kerb crawlers in any red light area. Does that mean you wish to avoid them too?
Homosexuality will never be accepted as ‘normal’ by many people, whether that’s based on own choices, prejudice, life experiences or what the media portrays.
What I was trying to explain in the last part of my last post was acceptance of the person, without prejudice, ie without judging them based on such things as their age, colour, race, religion, sexual orientation. To accept them for who they are, not what they are or how they choose to live their life etc. To be treated exactly how you wish to be treated.
Golach, I must remonstrate with the good Doc, I think rather than Old I think "having had long experience in the vagaries of life" sounds far more impressive and far more in keeping with your status.
Landmarker, be very careful when leaving strange cities, I remember once doing that and my friend distinctly told his wile, "Whatever you do, don't look back!"
Did she listen, did she heck!
Salt anyone?
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 19:11
I now understand why you wish to avoid homosexuals now that you have explained your reasons.
Based on your reason for wishing to avoid gay men, ie the seedy side of such a life, does that mean you would also wish to avoid heterosexual men and women who take part in the likes of dogging/swinging/wife swapping/prostitution?
Does it mean you wish to avoid all men because of those who are wife/child abusers, because of those who commit rape and murder etc?
.
You have a low opinion of men then. It's an opinion I sometimes share actually. I feel women are superior beings in many ways but can we not be quite so sanctimonious about it?
'Dogging', 'swinging' and 'wife swapping' are very much fringe activities amongst heterosexual people. You must be aware of this fact or live on a different planet to me.I should think the women involved in this are complicit at best, perhaps even insitigative. Creatures of low morals. The ones I have seen on telly, who indulge in such activities are 'invariably' <careful, al) as ugly as sin!
The use of prostitutes by men is rather more widespread, though still very much a minority pursuit. I've never followed this route , though I was solicited once in Doncaster cattle market. She wor' a lardy lass who only wanted £2.00. I only had enough on me for fish & chips and declined her offer. I could not bring myself to pay for sex. Hamburger and steak is the auld analagy - it applies to Mrs. Landmarker.
Now we come to the bottom of the barrel with your 'rapists & child abuser' categories. Oh dear. Must you be so emotive? Hopefully, avoiding this bracket of bloke is not that hard because most of 'em are inside. A tiny proportion of manhood, yet you seek to imply I'd tar all of mankind with the same tainted brush. You're being silly Sandra.
Ask any 'homo' and he will tell you that the majority of those unnattached 'gays' drinking in bars in places like Canal Street, Manchester (the letter 'c' removed by a local wag)
are up for casual sex without consequences.
Therefore I stand by my generalisation.
'Dogging', 'swinging' and 'wife swapping' are very much fringe activities amongst heterosexual people. Just as the activities you previously described are very much fringe activities amongst gay people.
The use of prostitutes by men is rather more widespread, though still very much a minority pursuit. Not as much a minority as you'd expect, and far more likely among men who are married with families than is commonly thought. Bearing in mind that a high proportion of the prostitutes in this country have been trafficked here, I agree with this article (http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/nscoverstory.htm) that it's high time we prosecuted them for rape, rather than prosecuting and/or deporting the victims.
Ask any 'homo' and he will tell you that the majority of those unnattached 'gays' drinking in bars in places like Canal Street, Manchester (the letter 'c' removed by a local wag)
are up for casual sex without consequences. And you think that unattached straight men and women are sitting at home, getting an early night with a cup of hot chocolate?
Therefore I stand by my generalisation. Even though your points apply only to a minority of gays and may also apply to a similar proportion of straight people?
You dont need to be 'homophobic' a word which is being overworked as much as 'racist' to find the mechanics of homosexuality off putting. That’s very true. However, unless this film is a hard-core gay porno it has very little to do with the ‘mechanics’ of homosexuality. Your outrage here is not aimed at anything as specific as the ins and outs of homosexual ‘relations’ but at the relationship itself and that is homophobic.
Well, I'm sorry, it just isn't 'normal'. Haven’t we been down this route before? I believe my next question is: why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
I dont give a monkeys what consenting adults do in their own space, or project in art house movies or mainstream cinema If that is true then just what is your point?
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 19:57
[QUOTE=jjc]That’s very true. However, unless this film is a hard-core gay porno it has very little to do with the ‘mechanics’ of homosexuality. Your outrage here is not aimed at anything as specific as the ins and outs of homosexual ‘relations’ but at the relationship itself and that is homophobic.
Outrage? Who said I was 'outraged'. You seem to lack a sense of perspective when reading jjc. At no time have I professed 'outrage' Have you ever seen or heard a person who is 'enraged' Come to think of it I'd say you encounter them quite often.
My comments have been measured, tinted by personal experience and relayed (I think) in a reasonably calm, sometimes humorous way. ('Humour' - that's when you can laugh jjc, if you were wondering)
Oh, and tell yer mate Drutt that straight heterosexuals are not hangin' around toilet blocks looking for ten minute flirtations.
You asked what was my point? er....I think I just didn't want to see blokes necking on screen, then I got somehow sidetracked. This board is like that isn't it? How I enjoy it.
Outrage? Who said I was 'outraged'. You seem to lack a sense of perspective when reading jjc. At no time have I professed 'outrage' What word would you prefer? Distaste? Disgust? Revulsion?
It doesn’t really matter. Whichever word you would use to describe the prejudice you have expressed here is irrelevant – the essence of my post remains unchanged and you remain a homophobe.
Oh, and tell yer mate Drutt that straight heterosexuals are not hangin' around toilet blocks looking for ten minute flirtations. Tell her yourself… though I dare say her response will be to point out that most homosexuals aren’t either.
I think I just didn't want to see blokes necking on screen So don’t go… which is precisely the advice that Drutt gave you back on page one.
Oh, and by the way: why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 20:20
– the essence of my post remains unchanged and you remain a homophobe.
& Here endeth the lesson according to ST.JJC ??
I hope so. I've never enjoyed this kind of preaching, monotone, humourless & pious tripe.
I used to dislike going to church as a kid in the late fifties. Maybe that made me a
pewophobe.
Landmarker, there are some very nice people hang round Canal Street, especially in the Rembrandt and New York, New York.
Is the Bus Station still there or has it moved?
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 20:37
Landmarker, there are some very nice people hang round Canal Street, especially in the Rembrandt and New York, New York.
Is the Bus Station still there or has it moved?
To each their own Jaws. It's a section of the city I avoid - come to think of it I avoid it all now, whenever possible.
Chorlton Street bus station is still there. I recall a trip close by ten years ago to a record fair in the Piccaddilly Plaza. I was caught short and found a place for my response behind a large skip in a side street. The ground was literally littered with used condoms. An unsavoury site. Quite why some people choose life on 'the edge' like this, with drug ridden whores escapes me.
I've never enjoyed this kind of preaching, monotone, humourless & pious tripe.
I guess we’re even then because I really can’t stand your brand of irrational hatred. I’d had my fill of small-minded intolerance long before I left High School so why you think that your ‘enjoyment’ (or lack of it) is going to make me turn a blind eye now is simply beyond me. [disgust]
Oh, and by the way: why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 20:44
I guess we’re even then because I really can’t stand your brand of irrational hatred. I’d had my fill of small-minded intolerance long before I left High School so why you think that your ‘enjoyment’ (or lack of it) is going to make me turn a blind eye now is simply beyond me. [disgust]
For someone who went to 'University' you display a singular lack of any ability to interpret mood. I do not 'hate' anyone. Hatred is for those who would harm or even kill. Between acquiescence and hatred are many stages of human emotion. I'm growing weary of your inability to decipher the plainest of English.I have no idea how old you are but I'd guess you have not seen too many summers. Those you have seen have probably been very wet.
For someone who went to 'University' you display a singular lack of any ability to interpret mood. Which is strange because one of my favourite classes at Uni was Mood Interpretation. [smirk]
I do not 'hate' anyone. Hatred is for those who would harm or even kill. And you think that your posts here are harmless? If even one person feels the need to hide their true feelings because of your disgusting intolerance then you have done harm beyond measure. If even one person feels that their own homophobia is justified because of your disgusting intolerance then you have done harm beyond measure.
It may not be the person that you hate – but you certainly hate what they are.
Oh, and by the way: why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
Ask any 'homo' and he will tell you that the majority of those unnattached 'gays' drinking in bars in places like Canal Street, Manchester (the letter 'c' removed by a local wag)
are up for casual sex without consequences.
Therefore I stand by my generalisation.
Ask any "person out on saturday night" and he/she will tell you that the majority of those unnattached people drinking in bars in places like "Spoons, Camps, Hagars, Waterfront"
are up for casual sex without consequences.
For once you are right...it is generalized, just more than only to homosexuals... and so what? Does looking for sex make all these people moraly your inferior?
rich62_uk
22-Jan-06, 21:11
How would you feel if your child told you they was gay ? And wanted you to meet the partner of their dreams. Trish.
How would you feel if your child told you they was gay ? And wanted you to meet the partner of their dreams. Trish.
Apprehensive. What if I didn't like them... or they didn't like me? :eek:
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 21:35
Ask any "person out on saturday night" and he/she will tell you that the majority of those unnattached people drinking in bars in places like "Spoons, Camps, Hagars, Waterfront"
are up for casual sex without consequences.
For once you are right...it is generalized, just more than only to homosexuals... and so what? Does looking for sex make all these people moraly your inferior?
Inferior , no. Morally or otherwise.
More shallow perhaps, lacking depth, yes. One night stands are not/were not for me.
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 21:40
How would you feel if your child told you they was gay ? And wanted you to meet the partner of their dreams. Trish.
Is this all taking place on the same day?
Perhaps not.
I would continue to love and support any child of mine whatever their sexuality. Blood is thicker than water, than mild aversion, than judgemental
reportage.
If the partner of their dreams was an okay person with monogamous sentiments I'd be happy for both of them. I'd be supportive & help them make the best of an unsatisfactory situation and they'd know my opinion.
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 21:45
Which is strange because one of my favourite classes at Uni was Mood Interpretation. [smirk]
And you think that your posts here are harmless?
did you flunk it?
As for 'harmless' or not listen up: I'm just an opinionated truck driver who can string a few sentences together. I donrt expect anyone to take me as seriously as you obviously do jjc. I follow my instincts and my instincts are right for me. I dont want to 'harm' anyone with a counter view or lifestyle.
If anyone wants to criticise me I'll take it on the chin and perhaps respond.
I might even learn something. I'm not done with learning yet.
It all makes for an interesting exchange in my opinion.
I'd help them make the best of a bad job and they'd know my opinion. How do you think your relationship with your child would develop once they know that you consider their lifestyle to be ‘a bad job’… and, given that they would almost certainly know how you feel about homosexuality before telling you they were gay, do you think they’d have told you at all or would they have lived their lives in denial?
PS - I quoted you before you edited your post...
I dont want to 'harm' anyone with a counter view or lifestyle. But you don’t care enough if you do to think about what you are posting before posting it…
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 21:55
How do you think your relationship with your child would develop once they know that you consider their lifestyle to be ‘a bad job’… and, given that they would almost certainly know how you feel about homosexuality before telling you they were gay, do you think they’d have told you at all or would they have lived their lives in denial?
You are taking this hypothesis to ridiculous lengths. (no surprises there)
But..in the interests of nothing in particular my children - who are now in their thirties, having been a very young parent - do know my views but they also know I'm a bit of a softie. Thankfully both displayed heterosexual tendencies at a fairly young age so this was one less thing to worry about.
I'll let you have the last word on this if you want.Over to you 'cos I'm done I think. Do you think there is any common ground between us on anything?
What do you think of speed cameras?
By the way: Why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
rich62_uk
22-Jan-06, 22:00
I'd be supportive & help them make the best of an unsatisfactory situation and they'd know my opinion.
Then add into the equation it is a mixed race relationship....Trish.
You are taking this hypothesis to ridiculous lengths. How so? You said that you would help your child make the best of a ‘bad job’; I merely wondered how knowing you believe their lifestyle to be a ‘bad job’ would affect their relationship with you and whether, knowing that you would never approve, they would have told you in the first place. Neither seems to be all that ridiculous to me; uncomfortable for you to think about perhaps, but not ‘ridiculous’.
Do you think there is any common ground between us on anything? I’m sure there is, yes… we haven’t found it yet, but I am sure it is there.
Then add into the equation it is a mixed race relationship....Trish. I've just realised who Landmarker reminds me of (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/littlebritain/characters/maggie.shtml)...
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 22:13
How so? You said that you would help your child make the best of a ‘bad job’; I merely wondered how knowing you believe their lifestyle to be a ‘bad job’ would affect their relationship with you and whether, knowing that you would never approve, they would have told you in the first place. Neither seems to be all that ridiculous to me; uncomfortable for you to think about perhaps, but not ‘ridiculous’.
I’m sure there is, yes… we haven’t found it yet, but I am sure it is there.
You might notice I changed my initial 'bad job' comment to something slightly less perjorative. This was done within approximately one minute of posting. As you are ready to pounce immediately it seems I shall have to be quicker in the future.
Now, this thread is exhausted for me.
Trish, your hypothetical question will go unanswered. Make your own mind up. I suspect you already have.
rich62_uk
22-Jan-06, 22:17
.
Trish, your hypothetical question will go unanswered. Make your own mind up. I suspect you already have.
;)
Trish.
How would you feel if your child told you they was gay ? And wanted you to meet the partner of their dreams. Trish.
Trish a good question.....I honestly dont know how I would react, I am trying to visaulise as I type this.......and it would be abject shock and horror...as my first reaction, I thank the powers that be that I knowingly fathered two sons both healthy and straight Males.... the jury is still out on this one....I dont like Homosexuals......I also dont like milk in my coffee or tea, or eating Tripe, or drinking Lager, or now smoking does that make me a bad person
rich62_uk
22-Jan-06, 22:22
I love you golach lol ......... Rich.opps no its Trish. :lol:
I dont like Homosexuals......I also dont like milk in my coffee or tea, or eating Tripe, or drinking Lager, or now smoking does that make me a bad person Those are misleading comparisons though, aren’t they? I mean, there is a huge difference between not liking milk in your tea and not liking a person because of their sexuality.
Personally, I don’t much care for pineapples – but saying so doesn’t hurt anybody.
Those are misleading comparisons though, aren’t they? I mean, there is a huge difference between not liking milk in your tea and not liking a person because of their sexuality.
Personally, I don’t much care for pineapples – but saying so doesn’t hurt anybody.
I have never knowingly hurt a Homosexual in my life by not liking them
I have never knowingly hurt a Homosexual in my life by not liking them
No, simply not liking homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody... but when you publicly criticise their lifestyle because you disapprove of it (and this is not a specific comment about you, just a general observation) then you not only hurt any homosexuals who might read your comments but you also add momentum to the arguments of those whose intolerance is a little more in-your-face.
landmarker
22-Jan-06, 22:41
....whose intolerance is a little more in-your-face.
I like pineapples though !
Despite their spikey exterior they have real substance.
They remind me of someone.
Bananas are okay too, despite not being entirely straight.
I'm surprised you dont like pineapple jjc, I only hope no greengrocers or fruiterers are nursing hurt feelings at your comments.
I'm surprised you dont like pineapple jjc, I only hope no greengrocers or fruiterers are nursing hurt feelings at your comments. Are you suggesting that greengrocers and fruiterers are pineapples, or are you just desperately trying to make it seem like your homophobia is on a par with not liking the taste of certain foods? In fact, don’t bother answering; either is pathetic. :eyes
Of course, if you did want to answer a question you could always answer this one: Why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
Of course, if you did want to answer a question you could always answer this one: Why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
JJC, you are very quick in probing people about the lines they draw, the standards they hold. What are your standards? Where do you draw the line?
When does something become unacceptable to you?
Just curious. :)
Those are misleading comparisons though, aren’t they? I mean, there is a huge difference between not liking milk in your tea and not liking a person because of their sexuality.
Personally, I don’t much care for pineapples – but saying so doesn’t hurt anybody.
Can people who do not like homosexuals help their true gut feelings any more than the homosexuals themselves?
Can people who do not like homosexuals help their true gut feelings any more than the homosexuals themselves?
Perhaps not, but they can stop short of publicly condemning homosexuals just as homosexuals can stop short of stripping naked and romping in the street.
Of course, if you did want to answer a question you could always answer this one: Why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
JJC, how annoying are you!!
When does something become unacceptable to you?
Just curious. Given the current discussion, something becomes unacceptable when it hurts somebody else – as Landmarker’s comments could easily hurt homosexuals.
If you want to know specifically when homosexuality (or homosexual sex) becomes unacceptable to me then it would be when it is forced upon somebody (rape) or when it is done in a lewd and obtrusive manner – just as I don’t expect to see heterosexual couples ‘dogging’ in a car park, I don’t expect to see homosexual couples doing so either.
I have no problem with heterosexual women or homosexual men ‘coming on to me’ – I find either to be flattering (though pointless as Ms. JJC and I are very happily monogamous).
I have no problem with homosexual couples holding hands and kissing in public, just as I have no problem with heterosexual couples doing the same – though couples of either persuasion sucking each others’ faces off does tend to make me want to tell them to get a room.
I have no problem with gay marriage just as I have no problem with heterosexual marriage.
I think that the easiest way to sum this up is to say that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If I am fine with heterosexual couples doing something then I really have no problem with homosexual couples doing the same.
JJC, how annoying are you!!
Very.
Lasher, how useful are question marks?
Given the current discussion, something becomes unacceptable when it hurts somebody else – as Landmarker’s comments could easily hurt homosexuals.
If you want to know specifically when homosexuality (or homosexual sex) becomes unacceptable to me then it would be when it is forced upon somebody (rape) or when it is done in a lewd and obtrusive manner – just as I don’t expect to see heterosexual couples ‘dogging’ in a car park, I don’t expect to see homosexual couples doing so either.
I have no problem with heterosexual women or homosexual men ‘coming on to me’ – I find either to be flattering (though pointless as Ms. JJC and I are very happily monogamous).
I have no problem with homosexual couples holding hands and kissing in public, just as I have no problem with heterosexual couples doing the same – though couples of either persuasion sucking each others’ faces off does tend to make me want to tell them to get a room.
I have no problem with gay marriage just as I have no problem with heterosexual marriage.
I think that the easiest way to sum this up is to say that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If I am fine with heterosexual couples doing something then I really have no problem with homosexual couples doing the same.
Thanks. So it would be ok to disagree with you, as long as the person disagreeing isn't hurting anyone?
Or would the fact they've posted their disagreement on a public forum mean that the potential is there for hurting someone and so that would be unacceptable?
What if your views hurt those who disagreed with you?
Your question is no more valid than the commandent of the Belsen concentration camp claiming it was unfair of the authorities to prosecute him for the cruelty of the men who carried out his orders. He claimed his men were punished if they mistreated the victims before they were murdered. How sweet is that?
This thread is becoming an apology for bigots and homophobes and unexamined prejudice. Rather than ask prejudiced questions how about nailing your opinions to the board?
[QUOTE=Moira]Can people who do not like homosexuals help their true gut feelings any more than the homosexuals themselves?
I think thats the point of this discussion Moira. How true are those gut feelings we feel against homosexuals? Are they our own feelings or do they belong to our culture as a whole? Why should we full blooded hetreosuxual males and females discriminate against law abiding homosexuals if homosexuality is not an issue for us?
My comments have been measured, tinted by personal experience and relayed (I think) in a reasonably calm, sometimes humorous way. ('Humour' - that's when you can laugh jjc, if you were wondering)
Thats what worries me about landmarkers opinions. They are measured and relayed in a reasonably calm way. As for humour, the object of his humour are fellow human beings many of whose lives have been shattered by opinions like he and his cohorts spout.
I trust Golach will forgive me if I take a shot in the dark, and reading between the lines of his last post, say his agreement with landmarkers opinions were not measured, but influenced by the reasonable manner in which Landmarker presents his case against homosexuals. Im not so sure about Jaws and Katarina.
When I read stuff like landmarker posts I have to remember that I too could be influenced by such poison. Forunately my response to such garbage is also measured, although that wasnt always the case.
As a hetreosexual man I grew up in a climate where homosexuals were the focus of ridicule and shame just like landmarker is spouting. It was easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and see myself as morally superior to homosexuals, if not openly, certainly inwardly. Everyone did it.
About 4 years I met a loving homosexual couple who had lived together for over 20 years and who told me what it was like to be gay and the prejudices they have to live with on a daily basis. You have no idea landmarker about the pain and shame you and others who share the same opinions lay at the door of these lovely and law-abiding people.
Those opinions are venomous and display an intolerance towards law abiding people that someday will be treated with the same disgust as homophobes and their followers presently feel towards homosexuals.
Perhaps the most enlightened attitude to the correct use and misuse of grammar was made by a person who had been admonished for ending a sentence with a preposition.
The reply he scrawled when he returned the offending note was, "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"
Personally I would hate to disagree with his attitude.
Thanks. So it would be ok to disagree with you, as long as the person disagreeing isn't hurting anyone? It’s okay to disagree with me full stop… so long as you aren’t surprised when I disagree right back. ;)
Or would the fact they've posted their disagreement on a public forum mean that the potential is there for hurting someone and so that would be unacceptable? What if your views hurt those who disagreed with you? Is it so hard to see a difference between disagreeing with an individual on a messageboard where that individual has the opportunity to counter you and publicly despising an entire section of society because of their sexual persuasion?
It’s okay to disagree with me full stop… so long as you aren’t surprised when I disagree right back. ;) I'd be surprised if you didn't ;)
Is it so hard to see a difference between disagreeing with an individual on a messageboard where that individual has the opportunity to counter you and publicly despising an entire section of society because of their sexual persuasion?
No, its not hard at all, however are you not publicly despising an entire section of society because of their personal opinion? I'm not talking about active spreading of poison (which is would be unacceptable IMHO), just someone's personal opinion.
JJC, I really don't care how many times you bad rep me, i stiil stand by my original comments.:eyes
I believe that you should never 'knock' anything until you've tried it personally.:eyes
"What if your views hurt those who disagreed with you?"
Your question is no more valid than the commandent of the Belsen concentration camp claiming it was unfair of the authorities to prosecute him for the cruelty of the men who carried out his orders. He claimed his men were punished if they mistreated the victims before they were murdered. How sweet is that?
Why is it invalid to ask someone about how they would feel or react if their opinions hurt others?
I believe that you should never 'knock' anything until you've tried it personally.:eyes
Rheghead, do I hear a confession coming on? ;)
Rheghead, do I hear a confession coming on? ;)
Err, it is not me doing the knocking...:roll: ;)
Err, it is not me doing the knocking...:roll: ;)
Oh yeah good point.
It still sounded like you wanted to get something off your chest....you can tell us, we'll not judge you, we promise.......[para]
;)
are you not publicly despising an entire section of society because of their personal opinion? I'm not talking about active spreading of poison (which is would be unacceptable IMHO), just someone's personal opinion. Ignoring the fact that an entire section of society cannot have a personal opinion… no, I am not. I am criticising those who would take their personal opinions and voice them in such a way as to hurt others – as you say, spreading poison.
Now, Gleeber makes an interesting point; perhaps it is time that you 'nail your opinions to the board' – after all, your opening shot in this thread was to accuse me of being quick to probe others about the lines they draw and I am sure you wouldn't want to be seen to do the same. So, are you asking these questions because you disagree with me, because you agree with me or just because it seems to be fashionable to bait me at the moment?
Ignoring the fact that an entire section of society cannot have a personal opinion… no, I am not. I am criticising those who would take their personal opinions and voice them in such a way as to hurt others – as you say, spreading poison.
Now, Gleeber makes an interesting point; perhaps it is time that you 'nail your opinions to the board' – after all, your opening shot in this thread was to accuse me of being quick to probe others about the lines they draw and I am sure you wouldn't want to be seen to do the same. So, are you asking these questions because you disagree with me, because you agree with me or just because it seems to be fashionable to bait me at the moment?
Yes, it's because it's fashionable to bait you at the moment.
connieb19
23-Jan-06, 00:37
It stars Jake Gyllenhaal, he of Donnie Darko and Jarhead fame, and Heath Ledger so might be worth going to see just for that.
But I doubt very much the local cinema will show it.The local Cinema has it on their list of films showing shortly if anyones interested!!
.I dont like Homosexuals
Shouldn't that be Homosexuality rather than Homosexuals?
I find the idea of not liking people you have never met totally illogical. Just because someone is Homosexual it does not prevent them from being likeable people. They may be kinder, more genuine and more tolerant individuals than many of the supposed "straight" people of the world.
Times are moving on and I am sure that the next generation will be far more tolerant of the concept of Homosexuality and Bi-sexuality, just as we have become more relaxed about sex in general.
Britain seems to be one of the world's great "Dinosaurs" where censorship is alive and well and Victorian values still exist.
Yes, it's because it's fashionable to bait you at the moment.
Did it need the wink? I don't think it did. :lol:
The reason I asked was not because of this subject in particular, but more curiosity about your personal opinions, what really gets up your nose if you like. Thank you for indulging me.
I can see how my personal opinions about certain matters would cause controversy and perhaps cause hurt. So I wouldn't post them. Similiar to what you'd do in the same situation I suppose, that’s if you had any controversial opinions.
"What if your views hurt those who disagreed with you?"
Why is it invalid to ask someone about how they would feel or react if their opinions hurt others?
Sometimes certain attributes of human behaviour need challenging. Homsexuality has felt the brunt of that challenge for hundreds of years from "normal" people with cries of unatural or shameful.
Now theres a new climate coming to the fore of human understanding.. Ordinary people are wising up to the old traditional ways of our fathers and challenging opinions that are based in prejudice. Prejudice is very subtle and it doesnt make a person bad to be prejudiced. However by challenging such views people may become aware of the root of their prejudice and recognise it for the poison it spreads not only in the victims but also the perpetrator.
Either you recognise prejudice for what it is or you keep quiet for fear of being shamed by apparent apoligists like yourself. I prefer to challenge prejudice and if my prejudice hurts poor landmarker I trust the experience is an uncomfortable one for him. Highly unlikely though!
<snip>However by challenging such views people may become aware of the root of their prejudice and recognise it for the poison it spreads not only in the victims but also the perpetrator.
Either you recognise prejudice for what it is or you keep quiet for fear of being shamed by apparent apoligists like yourself.
Don't be fooled be appearences.
Shouldn't prejudice be challenged in all its guises?
To quote JJC "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"
Did it need the wink? I don't think it did. Nah, I got it ;)
I can see how my personal opinions about certain matters would cause controversy and perhaps cause hurt. So I wouldn't post them. Similiar to what you'd do in the same situation I suppose, that’s if you had any controversial opinions. Oh, I'm sure I do… and who knows, somebody might ask the right question one day and catch me unawares… maybe ;)
Gleeber, to clarify for everybody’s benefit, I will try to add a little clarity to my views on certain points.
I hold certain views on various subjects. These views are, for the most part, not rigid.
For the time being they are views I feel to be tolerably fair and acceptable to me. That is where the ‘not rigid’ part comes in.
I accept nobody telling me that I am wrong and that I have to change my mind.
At that point my views will immediately become, as far as that person is concerned, quite rigid and immovable.
That condition might well remain as far as that person is concerned, because that is what they have chosen to see in me, and who am I to contradict them.
They are convinced that their view of me is absolutely correct and I am quite happy to leave them with their delusion. That delusion is their prerogative.
Those who are willing to discuss, I will have a discussion with. Those who are willing to find out how strongly (or not) I believe something and are willing to find how I arrived at my conclusion I am willing to enlighten. Those who are willing to point out various reasons why I should alter my opinions, I am willing to listen to and where necessary move my position.
Where I find my views to be incorrect I will change them to a view that seems to me to be more accurate and those adjustments will continue until the day I die or am mentally incapable of doing so.
As fat as I am concerned the only absolute belief I hold is that no belief should be absolute.
Only when I become God will I feel I have the right to be absolutely correct.
Until then I am just another imperfect mortal with the right to make errors and learn from them.
I noticed a signature earlier which made me stop and think.
As I have gone through life I have found that as I have learned more then the less certain I have become about what I already know.
I reserve the right to try to elicit the views of others so that I may improve my knowledge, adjust my opinions and to gain from the wisdom of others.
Don't be fooled be appearences.
Shouldn't prejudice be challenged in all its guises?
To quote JJC "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"
Also quoting me:
"It's interesting to me to see just how many people feel that there is some kind of equality between making generalised statements about somebody's posts on an internet messageboard and making racist.. sorry, sweeping... statements about somebody based on their skin tone. Have we lost all sense of proportion??"
I think that the same sentiment would hold true here. Do you really believe that there is any similarity (worth mentioning) between judgements made about a person based on their words on a messageboard where they are free to counter those judgements and judgements made about an entire portion of society based on their sexuality?
Ignoring the fact that an entire section of society cannot have a personal opinion… no, I am not. I am criticising those who would take their personal opinions and voice them in such a way as to hurt others – as you say, spreading poison.
Now, Gleeber makes an interesting point; perhaps it is time that you 'nail your opinions to the board' – after all, your opening shot in this thread was to accuse me of being quick to probe others about the lines they draw and I am sure you wouldn't want to be seen to do the same. So, are you asking these questions because you disagree with me, because you agree with me or just because it seems to be fashionable to bait me at the moment?
For the record, my post was not to bait you - I just thought your "take" on Golach's earlier post was unfair. Apologies for not being able to do the "quote, snip, nip, tuck.... whatever" bit. Anyway, I don't post often - the main reason being I'm not always around the board to follow up what I've said and I'm not a huge fan of participating in the kind of debate which takes place here sometimes :eyes So I'll go back to Plan A - sit quietly in the corner & let all you great guys & gals get on with it. :~(
For the record, my post was not to bait you
I honestly didn't think it was. Yours seemed like a quite reasonable question and I hope my answer was sufficient. :D
Jaws,
You assume that the intent is to change the mind of the homophobe.
Personally, changing Landmarker's opinion of homosexuals comes a distant third to showing any homosexuals reading this thread that his views of them are not tolerated and showing as many readers as possible that his views are baseless and ignorant. If, in the process, he learns a valuable lesson then that is all well and good… but it certainly isn't the goal of the exercise.
Also quoting me:
"It's interesting to me to see just how many people feel that there is some kind of equality between making generalised statements about somebody's posts on an internet messageboard and making racist.. sorry, sweeping... statements about somebody based on their skin tone. Have we lost all sense of proportion??"
I think that the same sentiment would hold true here. Do you really believe that there is any similarity (worth mentioning) between judgements made about a person based on their words on a messageboard where they are free to counter those judgements and judgements made about an entire portion of society based on their sexuality?
Yes. The similarity is they disagree with a section of society, and you disagree with them and "bigots and homophobes."
You equate those with a contrary opinion with all others who hold the same.
You feel they are lumping a whole section of society into Room 101, and in retaliation you lump them and whole section of society, which you feel is like them, into Room 101.
You don't like them, or their kind do you?
Or have I misread what you're saying?
Jaws,
You assume that the intent is to change the mind of the homophobe.
Personally, changing Landmarker's opinion of homosexuals comes a distant third to showing any homosexuals reading this thread that his views of them are not tolerated <snip>.
Tell me JJC are you intolerant of Landmarker's feelings and views or him as a person. Or both?
Is it possible to seperate?
Is it possible to hate what a person does yet not hate the person?
George Brims
23-Jan-06, 02:21
Wow, getting loud in here isn't it?
Anyway to clarify one thing -
"Wasn't Randolph Scott Cary Grant's boyfriend?"
from an earlier post.
No. They lived in the same house but according to one of CG's many ex wives, they had women imported to that house by the truckload, much as David Niven and Erroll Flynn had booze delivered to theirs. She said something even more blunt and convincing, but it's too "adult" for this forum!
I will use a philosophy which was relayed to me via the book Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts (a terrific read by the way, which details his exploits after escaping from prison in Australia and ending up in India). The philosophy is that since the beginning of time (Big Bang or whatever) the Universe is developing, likewise since the dawn of man, the human race is developing, all rules and acceptable behavior are based on what will permit us to develop, by asking whether an action is right or wrong you should look at the consequences if everyone did it – if the consequences of everyone doing it were detrimental to the development of the human race it is bad, and if they were positive then it is right. Now whether you agree or disagree with the outcome it does provide some fascinating discussion points, I’ll start with MURDER is it right or wrong? - well obviously bad as if we all murdered each other then there would be nobody left, so it is wrong. How about ABORTION, well if every pregnant woman had an abortion that would also be wrong. I take it you get the picture? These are only the fundamentals as you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Now on the subject of Homosexuality, if we use that as an example and ask if it is right or wrong? If everyone was homosexual then we would not progress so it is wrong. Now I am talking about the act not the people engaged in the act. If you were to use the same logic on the act of discrimination it would come out as wrong.
You don't like them, or their kind do you?
Tell me JJC are you intolerant of Landmarker's feelings and views or him as a person. Or both? I guess I’ll answer these together as they are pretty much the same question… and my answer is this:
Do you honestly think that there is any comparison to be made between judging an individual based on their words in an ongoing conversation (in which they are quite free to rebut your judgements) and judging every homosexual in the land to be reprehensible based only on their preference for their own gender?
You might be wondering where I have answered your question. It is true that I have only offered another question in response but there’s a reason for that – I don’t accept the premise of your question. I simply don’t accept that there is any similarity between my judging Landmarker based on his words to me and judging an entire group of people based on bigotry and intolerance.
Now, with that in mind I’d like to say this: I’ve always believed that you are either somebody who rejects the type of intolerance shown by Landmarker or you aren’t. Which are you? It seems to me that you have gone out of your way to avoid stating your own opinion, choosing instead to focus on questioning mine. I don’t know whether it is your intent or not, but at the moment all you are doing is excusing Landmarker’s bigotry. How about you stand up and tell us what you think about homosexuals?
Only when I become God will I feel I have the right to be absolutely correct.
Until then I am just another imperfect mortal with the right to make errors and learn from them.
I have gone through life I have found that as I have learned more then the less certain I have become about what I already know.
I reserve the right to try to elicit the views of others so that I may improve my knowledge, adjust my opinions and to gain from the wisdom of others.
I just love your posts!
I will use a philosophy which was relayed to me via the book Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts (a terrific read by the way, which details his exploits after escaping from prison in Australia and ending up in India). The philosophy is that since the beginning of time (Big Bang or whatever) the Universe is developing, likewise since the dawn of man, the human race is developing, all rules and acceptable behavior are based on what will permit us to develop, by asking whether an action is right or wrong you should look at the consequences if everyone did it – if the consequences of everyone doing it were detrimental to the development of the human race it is bad, and if they were positive then it is right. Now whether you agree or disagree with the outcome it does provide some fascinating discussion points, I’ll start with MURDER is it right or wrong? - well obviously bad as if we all murdered each other then there would be nobody left, so it is wrong. How about ABORTION, well if every pregnant woman had an abortion that would also be wrong. I take it you get the picture? These are only the fundamentals as you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Now on the subject of Homosexuality, if we use that as an example and ask if it is right or wrong? If everyone was homosexual then we would not progress so it is wrong. Now I am talking about the act not the people engaged in the act. If you were to use the same logic on the act of discrimination it would come out as wrong.
India). The philosophy is that since the beginning of time (Big Bang or whatever) the Universe is developing, likewise since the dawn of man, the human race is developing, all rules and acceptable behavior are based on what will permit us to develop, by asking whether an action is right or wrong you should look at the consequences if everyone did it – if the consequences of everyone doing it were detrimental to the development of the human race it is bad, and if they were positive then it is right. Now whether you agree or disagree with the outcome it does provide some fascinating discussion points, I’ll start with MURDER is it right or wrong? - well obviously bad as if we all murdered each other then there would be nobody left, so it is wrong. How about ABORTION, well if every pregnant woman had an abortion that would also be wrong. I take it you get the picture? These are only the fundamentals as you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Now on the subject of Homosexuality, if we use that as an example and ask if it is right or wrong? If everyone was homosexual then we would not progress so it is wrong. Now I am talking about the act not the people engaged in the act. If you were to use the same logic on the act of discrimination it would come out as wrong.[/QUOTE]
Your philosophy theory does not hold water, as it presents a scenario that is never going to be realistic.
We can put forward a formula for a better world based on all people following a certain set of rules but it will never happen because we live in a chaotic and inexact society based on individuality and not a collective, like-minded one.
I would base the philosophy from the other side and look at whether a certain behaviour is harmful to others and whether it is a threat to the continuation of the species if allowed to continue. Homosexuality is clearly perfectly safe on both counts.
I would think that division of humanity through different religions, intolerance of differences between cultures and racial prejudice are infinitely more likely to lead to the extinction of the human species.
Of course, you are free to prefer the postulations of an escaped prisoner ;o)
asking whether an action is right or wrong you should look at the consequences if everyone did it – if the consequences of everyone doing it were detrimental to the development of the human race it is bad, and if they were positive then it is right. There’s a glaring hole in this philosophy – allow me to demonstrate it with a couple of examples.
If everybody in the world were to be a shop assistant then there would be no farmers to grow food and no distribution network to get it to us anyway. The human race would starve to death as soon as the food on the shop shelves ran out. Clearly that is detrimental to our development so, by your logic, being a shop assistant is ‘bad’.
If every man in the world were to be a rapist the human race would continue to develop – all be it along a different moral path. Therefore, by your logic, being a rapist is ‘right’.
Why is it that so many of our threads lately seem to end up in an arguement about homosexuality? Are we becoming obsessed by it or what? I'm beginning to be seriously concerned about the Caithness.orgers!
Katarina - to be fair here - this one started out with that topic :) It's just unusual that it's stayed on course - so far no mention of immigrants or Tescos - lol!
Give it time, Moira, give it time!
Id like to raise a similar question as i did on another thread - when is prejudice simply ignorance and can be challenged and when is it truly homophobia and racism?.
We form opinions based on our life experiences and what we read and absorb from other sources. When Golach says he doesnt like homosexuals maybe his experience leads him to say that. Meeting people like Gleeber described, a loving caring devoted homosexual couple you begin to wonder what is there not to like? Do we want to make judgements about people based on what they do in the bedroom? What would some people's reactions be were they to meet a very pleasant guy, who they liked and with whom they had a laugh and shared a common interest. Having struck up a friendship with the man they were then introduced to his "partner" and it was another man what would our reactions be? Or whether their current friends inrotduced a new homosexual partner what would they say and do. True homophobia is not simply ignorance - it is like the true committed racist - they cannot be challenged to see things in a different way.
I think that we sometimes throw around harsh emotive words and phrases like racist and homophobe without truly trying to challenge the issues that are raised. As if by saying "you are a racist" or "you are a homophobe" the person is going to sudenly say "oh im terribly sorry, you are right" It is however vitally important that we challenge things where we see opinions that could be racist or prejudiced. We have to try to discuss the things people say and people have to be prepared to come back and justify and explain their reactions otherwise we arent going to have a good debate. Simply saying "you are a racist" in whatever guise and hten another person throwing their hands up and saying "please yourself but im not playing anymore" isnt much fun at all.
To nail my colours to the mast as it were i have friends who are gay straight and bisexual and i like them cos they are charming lovely people who care for me and share my enthusiasm for life. I care not one little bit what they do in the bedroom as long as they dont expect me to join in!!!
Well said squidge you have the same feelings and beliefs as myself:Razz
I have a couple of very good friends who are homosexual. If one of my children was gay, I would not have a problem with that at all.
However, I do not want every second television program shoving it down my throat. And I do not think it's normal, since normal is what MOST people are. Just as having pink hair is not normal. But that does not mean there is anything wrong with the person.
Am I prejudice? I really would say - no. Undoubtedly there are some here who will disagree with me.
Firstly the philosophy is not mine, as I quoted. If you think it is mince then fair enough – I have found it useful. To try to rubbish it by using the shop keeper analogy is puerile. The rape one is worth considering, if everyone committed rape as the means of procreation there would be no family structure and this should be considered detrimental (IMHO), if everyone committed rape there would be turmoil, aggression and a state of anarchy, again detrimental to the advancement of the race.
I have just read again the final comment by Scorrie – oh how quick we are to condemn. You talk from a position of ignorance Scorrie, I from one of enlightenment.
To try to rubbish it by using the shop keeper analogy is puerile.
Why? In what way does it fall outside the boundaries of the philosophy? It may be an extreme example, but if you only test a hypothesis by applying conditions you already know to support you then you can’t really say that it holds water as a general philosophy.
I have just read again the final comment by Scorrie – oh how quick we are to condemn. You talk from a position of ignorance Scorrie, I from one of enlightenment.
What enlightenment do you have pray tell?
You know nothing about me cove. I am far from ignorant and am intelligent enough to know that your fugitive pal's theory does not have any relevance. You might as well apply Einstein's theories to try to predict whether Rangers will progress to the Champions League final this season.
Can you say that Homosexuality poses a threat to the continuation of mankind?
It is not like some virus that everyone is suddenly going to catch and we will end up with a world full of people uninterested and or unable in procreation.
From your post we know you have read one book. Great, when you have read what I have read, experienced what I have experienced and done the thinking I have done, then you might be in a position to state my relative ignorance as compared to your enlightenment. As it stands, your statement is utterly childish and illogical. Stick to the fitba, you are showing YOUR ignorance of what true wisdom is about.
I do not think it's normal, since normal is what MOST people are. Just as having pink hair is not normal. But that does not mean there is anything wrong with the person.
Am I prejudice? I really would say - no. Undoubtedly there are some here who will disagree with me.
I don’t think that it is prejudiced to say that something is not normal – that is simply a comment on its commonality and, as you say, having pink hair is not normal. I think that it becomes wrong when you use “it’s not normal” as justification for not accepting something and you clearly haven’t tried to do that. :o)
I guess I’ll answer these together as they are pretty much the same question… and my answer is this:
Do you honestly think that there is any comparison to be made between judging an individual based on their words in an ongoing conversation (in which they are quite free to rebut your judgements) and judging every homosexual in the land to be reprehensible based only on their preference for their own gender?
You might be wondering where I have answered your question. It is true that I have only offered another question in response but there’s a reason for that – I don’t accept the premise of your question. I simply don’t accept that there is any similarity between my judging Landmarker based on his words to me and judging an entire group of people based on bigotry and intolerance.
You're right, you didn't answer the question. I have answered your question already. Whether you accept the premise or not is irrelevant. Is it Landmarker you reject as a person, or his feelings and views?
Now, with that in mind I’d like to say this: I’ve always believed that you are either somebody who rejects the type of intolerance shown by Landmarker or you aren’t. Which are you?
I reject intolerance of people, but not of peoples actions. Which are you?
It seems to me that you have gone out of your way to avoid stating your own opinion, choosing instead to focus on questioning mine. I don’t know whether it is your intent or not, but at the moment all you are doing is excusing Landmarker’s bigotry. How about you stand up and tell us what you think about homosexuals?
Landmarkers views are his own, and he's entitled to them. I'm not excusing anyone. I'm asking you to justify the sense of showing intolerance to the intolerant. I am willing to be convinced if I can see some logic or end result behind it.
I'll be happy to answer your question.
Homosexuality isn't for me. But I would never discriminate against someone who felt that way. The same as I would never discriminate against you or Landmarker for how you feel. If you illegally acted on those feelings against Landmarker then I would reject those actions and vice versa.
Why don't you stand up and tell us what you feel about Landmarker and people like him?
Scorrie, you chose to rubbish the philosophy without reading it in its entirety i.e.you are ignorant of all the information. I have read it and am therefore in a more enlightened position. No slaging, a simple statement of fact.
I am not arguing against peoples right to be homosexual, simply saying that it is wrong, when using that method to determine right/wrong. You will notice that I havre also said that discrimination is wrong.
JJC ok I will humour you. You need to know if being a shop keeper or serving people is a good thing. Well if everyone helped each other and provided services for each other then yes it is right. It is not detrimental to society. If however everyone stole from each other then there would be a general state of anarchy and distrust so that would be bad. Does that help?
[QUOTE=jjc]I don’t think that it is prejudiced to say that something is not normal – that is simply a comment on its commonality and, as you say, having pink hair is not normal. I think that it becomes wrong when you use “it’s not normal” as justification for not accepting something and you clearly haven’t tried to do that. :o)[/QUOTE
Your last sentence shows how you've totally misconstued what I have said.
I accept other peoples preferences, but do not want to have it shoved down my throat. It might be an age thing as some one suggested earlier, but although I have good friends who are gay, I would shudder if I saw them kissing passionately. Holding hands or having a cuddle is ok.
Don't know why I feel like this - it's just there and I can no more help it than having feelings of disgust at some of the more explicit sex scenes shown on TV of hertrosexual couples. There's no need for it. I am not a prude, and will not be drawn into an arguement on this issue. It's just that some things are best kept in the privacy of ones own bedroom.
If you think it's okay, then that's your right, but you haven't the right to accuse anyone else of prejudice because of how they feel.
simply saying that it is wrong,
By who's authority is it wrong?
Keep up Rheghead - read my post about a philosophy I read about in a book called Shantaram. By using the test detailed previously it is wrong.
Whether you accept the premise or not is irrelevant. No, it really isn’t. Your question seems to be designed purely to lend support to Landmarker’s homophobia and that is a game I do not wish to play.
I'm asking you to justify the sense of showing intolerance to the intolerant. And I have done.
I have argued with Landmarker based on his words and I have done so on a forum where he is a member and is free to (and has) argue his point. That is a very far cry from publicly condemning all homosexuals because you don’t like their sexuality.
Your attempt to imply that they are the same is entirely without merit.
Why don't you stand up and tell us what you feel about Landmarker and people like him? Because the question is as transparent as a pane of glass and I have no desire to play ridiculous games that will lend credence to Landmarker’s bigotry.
My feelings toward Landmarker are based on actual conversations that I have had with him, they are not based on assumptions that you imagine I have about ‘people like him’. That you are unable (or unwilling) to see the difference between the two really is worrying.
Keep up Rheghead - read my post about a philosophy I read about in a book called Shantaram. By using the test detailed previously it is wrong.
What if everybody indulged in bisexuality? No problem then eh?
landmarker
23-Jan-06, 18:51
[QUOTE=scorrie]Shouldn't that be Homosexuality rather than Homosexuals?
Times are moving on and I am sure that the next generation will be far more tolerant of the concept of Homosexuality and Bi-sexuality, just as we have become more relaxed about sex in general.
QUOTE]
Oh, I'm sure you're right.
The soaring increases in STD's like Chlamydia ,Syphilis & Herpes reflect the fact that we have become more relaxed about sex in general. Not to mention the fact that we have so many single teenage mothers - one of the highest rates in Europe. The fact that AIDS is on the rise again. That magazines aimed at fourteen year olds and read, often by pre-pubescents tend to dwell on sex and all manner of advice columns. Some of which seem highly irresponsible.
Written by trendy luvvies from the metropolitan media set I'm sure many a parent has been surprised at the very least by the mags their children get hold of.
However we must all be tolerant of this because to criticise our brave new 'anything goes' culture is to be anti-diluvian. Or a dinosaur worthy of little more than contempt. Never mind eh? Dinosaurs often had broad backs and the weight of trendy contempt doesn't amount to much.
That said, sex is great. It makes the world go around really doesn't it? Between consenting adults at the right time in the right place there is surely no finer human pursuit. All the offshoots might be enjoyable too but I admit I'm stuck in the mainstream of heterosexuality.I'll just have to live with it.
I've read what's gone on here today and I am beginning to doubt the sanity of certain posters. One in particular.
As for Gleeber - if you think my posts are 'venomous' then you misunderstand the meaning of the word.
An honest reaction to a question about a movie has mushroomed into a lot of hot air. I'm responsible for a fair bit of it, admittedly. I gave my reasons & I've answered a few questions honestly. As Gleeber says 'I am calm' when I express my opinions.
I don't get hot under the collar about this topic but I do have a view as stated at some length. What does annoy me are the comments from people who do not read properly, or inwardly digest the words used.
I'm never going to change minds about this, or much else. Loving homosexual couples are a perfectly valid entity & as such free to live their lives in peace, from persecution in a way mirroring a heterosexual marriage. I even support 'civil partnerships' for goodness sake.So long as they are extended to other categories who might benefit from them.
I was exhausted last night , as reported, but girded my loins for one last thrust
<oooer missus> , one
last throw of the debating dice.
How was it for you?
What if everybody indulged in bisexuality? No problem then eh?
No becuase that would mean a breakdown in the family/social structure which is seen as central to most societies.
No becuase that would mean a breakdown in the family/social structure which is seen as central to most societies.
How come? What is a family/social structure these days? Single parents? Foster care? All not caused by Bisexuality! :Razz
OK What if folks stayed monogamous with one partner?
I say boredom, arguements and ultimately domestic violence because they will feel trapped in a relationship. We are back to the breakdown in family/social structure again aren't we?
It is up to you what you think Rheghead, it is one of the joys of living in a free society. I was simply sharing with you a tool I use to question right/wrong (not exclusivley though).
Of course as I said earlier, there is nothing to stop someone doing the wrong thing for the right reason!
No, it really isn’t. Your question seems to be designed purely to lend support to Landmarker’s homophobia and that is a game I do not wish to play.
And I have done.
I have argued with Landmarker based on his words and I have done so on a forum where he is a member and is free to (and has) argue his point. That is a very far cry from publicly condemning all homosexuals because you don’t like their sexuality.
Your attempt to imply that they are the same is entirely without merit.
I disagree.
Because the question is as transparent as a pane of glass and I have no desire to play ridiculous games that will lend credence to Landmarker’s bigotry.
Well I can't make you answer my question. Neither will I judge you for not answering it or imply that you hold certain opinions because you haven't answered it or repeat my question every couple of posts till you have answered it.
My feelings toward Landmarker are based on actual conversations that I have had with him, they are not based on assumptions that you imagine I have about ‘people like him’. That you are unable (or unwilling) to see the difference between the two really is worrying.
Your posts leave little room for assumptions.
Try not to worry yourself. :)
Scorrie, you chose to rubbish the philosophy without reading it in its entirety i.e.you are ignorant of all the information. I have read it and am therefore in a more enlightened position. No slaging, a simple statement of fact.
I am not arguing against peoples right to be homosexual, simply saying that it is wrong, when using that method to determine right/wrong. You will notice that I havre also said that discrimination is wrong.
Where does it say that I haven't read the book?
In any case you have summarised the philosophy and it is a very simple concept to grasp. It is equally simple to dismiss, as it has no relevance. The theory relies on a premise that does not exist and therefore has no application to the real world. If we had started out with Adam and Evan or Ada and Eve we would never have gone beyond the two. What has transpired with time has been natural and that natural process is inexact. People argue that you cannot be born Homosexual but the idea of being born Heterosexual as the "norm" doesn't really add up either in my book.
We tend to be stereotyped from day one, blue for boys, pink for girls, guns for boys, dolls for girls. I would suggest that many people are guided firmly away from expressing certain feeling as a child and are only able to freely comprehend and express their true sexuality later in life.
Sleaze, sexually transmitted diseases and predatory behaviour exist in both Hetero and Homo sexual activities. If people are happy and harming no one then that is more natural for me than someone living a life of misery and denying their true feelings. It seems illogical to even try to find something "wrong" with that in my opinion.
Oh for a society where tolerance ruled supreme.
Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was willing to be tolerant enough to allow others to have their own point of view and allowed people to live their lives as they wish.
Where does it say that I haven't read the book?
It is obvious from your posts. If you have you obviously did not understand it, my summary is very simplistic.
Strange that you only choose to argue on the homosexuality issue and not say Murder. If a someone a known mass murderer has a knife to the neck of say your son/daughter/mother or father and they are going to kill them - you have the ability to stop them by killing them with a gun, which you do, that is also WRONG. But you have done the wrong thing for the right reason.
scorrie wrote:
People argue that you cannot be born Homosexual but the idea of being born Heterosexual as the "norm" doesn't really add up either in my book.
Can you expand or ellaborate on this? I think it is possible to be born either/or but you seem to indicate something contradictory - I am just seeking to understand what you are saying. Are you dismissing the NATURE argument and saying that everyones sexuality depends on their NURTURE?
Scorrie wrote:
You might as well apply Einstein's theories to try to predict whether Rangers will progress to the Champions League final this season.
I did not take your advice but instead used monte carlo statistical analysis which told me that the probability of Rangers winning the CL this year was greater than any other Scottish team.
Whoever left the bad rep for my post No.41 could at least have had the intelligence to indicate which part they took exception to.
It would have been kinder of them to do that so I don't suffer weeks of sleepless nights wrestling with my conscience over which bit was so horrific.
If I don't know which hideous bit is so offensive then how can I remedy it?
I quite understand the Anon part but leaving me in such turmoil just isn't fair at all, it could do irreparable damage to my confidence! :eyes
Source of Definition
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Of the Founder 150 years ago, Robert A Woods it is said,
"He soon fell under the influence of William Jowett Tucker, whose approach to social economics was deeply critical of charity organization and traditional philanthropy. Instead he looked 'bolder social change' to bring about 'economic justice'.
Woods was beginning to search for a philosophy that could combine both social and individual salvation."
I make no comment!
I hold a very strong aversion to getting soaked, can I get my strong feeling of "Rainophobia" be given a mention in a Dictionary please!
I can't wait to be labelled a "Fascist Rainophobe" it can be used as a special piece of derision all of my own! It would make me unique!
I might get mentioned in the Medical Journals as a person with a completely new phobia!
I could write a books and make Millions,
"How I came out as a Closet Rainophobe",
"The Secret Life of a Rainophobe",
"How to be a Rainophobe without being Discovered",
"How to Defeat the Spreading Scourge of Rain, Join the Rainophobes!"
They might even make new laws to stop me spreading my Evil Beliefs!
I can't see it as a Hate Crime, perhaps it would be better termed as a "Wet Crime".
I'll have to give some serious consideration to the terminology which should be used to abuse my deviant beliefs!
Reference your posting #149 Jaws I am also like yourself perplexed as to how anyone could find offence with this posting. I have been castigated twice and anonymously also, causing me untold anquish and stress. I am at my wits end as I cannot make amends for the upset I have surely caused. Oh I wish I had the vocabulary of Gleeber!
Reference your posting #149 Jaws I am also like yourself perplexed as to how anyone could find offence with this posting. I have been castigated twice and anonymously also, causing me untold anquish and stress. I am at my wits end as I cannot make amends for the upset I have surely caused. Oh I wish I had the vocabulary of Gleeber!
That's why so many of my posts are done in the middle of the night. The anguish is sometimes unbearable and I wake up screaming. I have to get up and check I haven't done anything horrific without realising it.
I have to check every post letter by letter before the cold sweats were off.
The worst thing is that even the Doctor refuses to help solve the problem. :evil
Whitewater
24-Jan-06, 11:45
Reference your posting #149 Jaws I am also like yourself perplexed as to how anyone could find offence with this posting. I have been castigated twice and anonymously also, causing me untold anquish and stress. I am at my wits end as I cannot make amends for the upset I have surely caused. Oh I wish I had the vocabulary of Gleeber!
Agree with you 'golach' regarding 'Jaws' post, I see no offence in it.
frank ward
24-Jan-06, 12:25
Two cowboys, Opening dialogue:
"Yup?"
"Yep"
Whoever left the bad rep for my post No.41 could at least have had the intelligence to indicate which part they took exception to.
It would have been kinder of them to do that so I don't suffer weeks of sleepless nights wrestling with my conscience over which bit was so horrific.
If I don't know which hideous bit is so offensive then how can I remedy it?
I quite understand the Anon part but leaving me in such turmoil just isn't fair at all, it could do irreparable damage to my confidence! :eyes
Jaws, the weight and subtly of your argument was enough to offend me. I take exception to how clever it was. How dare you make me smile and think, "I wish I'd thought of that."
[para]
It is obvious from your posts. If you have you obviously did not understand it, my summary is very simplistic.
Strange that you only choose to argue on the homosexuality issue and not say Murder. If a someone a known mass murderer has a knife to the neck of say your son/daughter/mother or father and they are going to kill them - you have the ability to stop them by killing them with a gun, which you do, that is also WRONG. But you have done the wrong thing for the right reason.
What is to say that YOU understood it fully? Only the author could tell you that.
Come down from your high horse and stop trying to say that I have failed to understand anything. Based on your posts, your logical skills are not very strong and there is more than an air of childishness about your style.
Murder was not the subject of this post and you were using this famous philosophy to evaluate homosexuality as wrong. It clearly fails to do this and I note that you avoided answering whether homosexuality is a danger to the continuation of the human race here and now. Clearly if there were two blokes left in the world and they were both gay then it would be.
I am finished responding to you on this matter, you have wandered away into kiddy "oneupmanship" regarding Rangers and I think that is the level you should be concentrating your attentions on instead of playing psuedo intellectual based on one book written by a flown jailbird.
I agree with your first point, but I have read it and consider my interpretation of what was described to be accurate – but you are correct I could be wrong.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across; I still think this – if you fully understand it and disagree fair play. I still think that it provides a very simple tool for evaluating if something is right or wrong – that is my prerogative.
If you consider my logical skills poor, that is up to you. I can do nothing about that, nor do I care to. You do not employ me and I have no reason to prove anything to you. I will make a mental note to improve my logic. As for being childish – thank you, you are very free with compliments.
No the subject of the post was a movie which features the topic of homosexuality, supposedly a very good movie which I will watch, when I get the chance. If you read the entire thread you will see that at no time have I been detrimental to homosexuals, nor do I think they should be discriminated against. The philosophy is not as far as I know famous, I only came across it last year – have not heard of it before nor since. I did not avoid the question regarding whether I consider homosexuality to be a threat to the human race as I assumed it was alluded to in my posts – of course I do not. And by posing such a question it leads me to think that you really did not understand the point I was trying to get across.
It was you and not I who brought up the subject of Rangers and the CL – my response was accurate was it not?
Nice parting shot, you really are good at the compliments, I must now go and read another book.
I can only assume that you have taken offence to my initial post as you seem to have reacted completely OTT, if you disagree we disagree. I am happy enough with what I understand. To ridicule and rubbish something without at least knowing a modicum of the facts is tant amount to burning books – the facts remain.
For those of you who wish to delve a wee bit deeper than those who know all the answers you can start here:
http://www.shantaram.com/
I agree with your first point, but I have read it and consider my interpretation of what was described to be accurate – but you are correct I could be wrong.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across; I still think this – if you fully understand it and disagree fair play. I still think that it provides a very simple tool for evaluating if something is right or wrong – that is my prerogative.
If you consider my logical skills poor, that is up to you. I can do nothing about that, nor do I care to. You do not employ me and I have no reason to prove anything to you. I will make a mental note to improve my logic. As for being childish – thank you, you are very free with compliments.
No the subject of the post was a movie which features the topic of homosexuality, supposedly a very good movie which I will watch, when I get the chance. If you read the entire thread you will see that at no time have I been detrimental to homosexuals, nor do I think they should be discriminated against. The philosophy is not as far as I know famous, I only came across it last year – have not heard of it before nor since. I did not avoid the question regarding whether I consider homosexuality to be a threat to the human race as I assumed it was alluded to in my posts – of course I do not. And by posing such a question it leads me to think that you really did not understand the point I was trying to get across.
It was you and not I who brought up the subject of Rangers and the CL – my response was accurate was it not?
Nice parting shot, you really are good at the compliments, I must now go and read another book.
I can only assume that you have taken offence to my initial post as you seem to have reacted completely OTT, if you disagree we disagree. I am happy enough with what I understand. To ridicule and rubbish something without at least knowing a modicum of the facts is tant amount to burning books – the facts remain.
For those of you who wish to delve a wee bit deeper than those who know all the answers you can start here:
http://www.shantaram.com/
I don't feel I am over the top at all. Just a bit fed up being classed as ignorant of the facts. You seem obsessed with my lack of knowledge about your friends theory. The arguement you present for Homosexuality being wrong is one I discussed with at length with a group of scientists at Dounreay some 20 odd years ago. I have read some books, articles on the same lines in the years since but it is not a particularly appealing subject for me. Many philosophies have roots in the same areas and it is an area that does not provide a lot of mental enjoyment for me. I find philosophers to be exceeded only by politicians in the ability to waffle on without saying much. eg If you were to jump off a tall building there is a small chance that you might not fall but it is astronomically small, however we must accept that to fall is not certain. It makes for a dry yarn!!
I don't have all the answers and neither do I want them. I know that I have considered and dismissed that homosexuality is wrong. If wavicles can prove me wrong then I will have to accept that certainty ;o)
I find philosophers to be exceeded only by politicians in the ability to waffle on without saying much.
Scorrie, I really must disagree with you on the comments about politicians, but philosophers?
Philosophers spout thousands and thousands of words, mostly unintelligible to all but a handful of people, in the hope that people will nod their heads in approval and agree. They do this in the certain knowledge that the majority of people will do this so as not to display their ignorance.
The horrible truth is, and few are willing to admit this for fear of ridicule, the Emperor really does not have any clothes.
Scorrie, I really must disagree with you on the comments about politicians, but philosophers?
Philosophers spout thousands and thousands of words, mostly unintelligible to all but a handful of people, in the hope that people will nod their heads in approval and agree. They do this in the certain knowledge that the majority of people will do this so as not to display their ignorance.
The horrible truth is, and few are willing to admit this for fear of ridicule, the Emperor really does not have any clothes.
No need to worry about disageeing, we probably strayed apart somewhere along the "dichotomously variable continuum"
For those of you who wish to delve a wee bit deeper than those who know all the answers you can start here:
http://www.shantaram.com/ Cosmosophy? Lol, what a pile of pretentious poo. There's no more useless profession in this world than the philosopher of physics, and this guy isn't even an amateur. ;)
Seriously, I've just read his three "seminars" and there's nothing of substance in any of them. His understanding of physics and cosmology are very poor (at best), and many of his established "facts" are nothing of the sort. Furthermore, given his "criticisms" of atomic physics, and his use of the uncertainty principle, I suspect he's innumerate to boot.
Cosmosophy? Lol, what a pile of pretentious poo. There's no more useless profession in this world than the philosopher of physics, and this guy isn't even an amateur. ;)
Seriously, I've just read his three "seminars" and there's nothing of substance in any of them. His understanding of physics and cosmology are very poor (at best), and many of his established "facts" are nothing of the sort. Furthermore, given his "criticisms" of atomic physics, and his use of the uncertainty principle, I suspect he's innumerate to boot.
Scotsboy & DrSzin what in hivvens name has the balderdash above got to do with Cowboys and Western Movies?????
Scotsboy & DrSzin what in hivvens name has the balderdash above got to do with Cowboys and Western Movies?????
It pertains to the cowboy's philosophical thoughts as they sit round the campfire on a star lit night eating their bacon and beans.
There again, it could just be flatulence! [smirk]
wickerinca
24-Jan-06, 23:28
U have just sat and read all of the posts in this thread.. I am new to this forum lark and found some of you a bit unintelligible (and if that is the wrong word I apologise in advance!! I went to school under a stupid labour government that tried to teach all children to read and write "fonetically" and did not allow us the joys of grammar!!) And before anyone disses me on my perceived lack of education...I am quite highly trained but more in the field of Maths and Physics.
However back to the forum......some of you seem incapable of understanding what someone else is actually saying and try to twist their words to suit your own impression of that person. Are you lawyers? Me......I don't really care who anybody has sex with as long as it is concensual and nobody gets hurt. I did see the movie but found it a bit slow...hubby wouldn't come with me as he is uncomfortable with the mechanics of homosexuality (No he doesn't hate/dislike/avoid homosexuals....his hairdresser is one...he just doesn't care to watch them in action!!). Gosh.........I digress again!! All I really wanted to say was that there seemed to be more bigots on the pro-movie side as it was only their views which were politically correct.
Sorry but that is how it appears from reading the whole thread from the start. (Couldn't find a smiley for 'shrug and make a funny face')
It pertains to the cowboy's philosophical thoughts as they sit round the campfire on a star lit night eating their bacon and beans.
There again, it could just be flatulence! [smirk]
Once again Jaws I bow to your now obvious better understanding of the Physici and understanding of the more intelligent posters that are in here
No need to worry about disageeing, we probably strayed apart somewhere along the "dichotomously variable continuum"
So you watch Star Trek too. :lol:
Welcome aboard wickerinca just join in the general mayhem. If you can make sense of one quarter of us then you are doing well.
Don't worry about grammar you won't be the only one with problems there.
As for 'fonetics' isn't that the wonderful 'new' system they have decided they must change to? (Again)
They tried it in the late 1950s with French. Two years learning to write French with strange letters and funny symbols. Then, out of the kindness of their hearts, they decided to tell us that not even the French wrote it that way, so here's the way it's really done.
Two wasted years of learning how not to do it, and that's progress!
And don't worry about digressing, we are very good at that and you're opinions are as welcome and worthwhile as anybody else’s.
It got so lonely in the saddle when my horse died.
wickerinca
25-Jan-06, 03:47
Ahhhh! Sorry to hear about your horse!! Was he very old!!?? Must be hard work carrying the saddle yourself!!
Seriously, I've just read his three "seminars" and there's nothing of substance in any of them. His understanding of physics and cosmology are very poor (at best), and many of his established "facts" are nothing of the sort. Furthermore, given his "criticisms" of atomic physics, and his use of the uncertainty principle, I suspect he's innumerate to boot.
Don't disagree. the point I was alluding to in my earlier post was provided to him in the book entitled Shantaram - which is not detailed on the philosophy sections of the site.
Anyway, I found it worthwhile.
cullbucket
25-Jan-06, 11:22
Sorry to bring this (slightly) back towards the original thread, but I find that sometimes those who are unaccepting and fearful of homosexuals are subconsciously revulsed by their own latent desires.
American Beauty is a great film.....
However back to the forum......some of you seem incapable of understanding what someone else is actually saying and try to twist their words to suit your own impression of that person. Are you lawyers? Me......I don't really care who anybody has sex with as long as it is concensual and nobody gets hurt. I did see the movie but found it a bit slow...hubby wouldn't come with me as he is uncomfortable with the mechanics of homosexuality (No he doesn't hate/dislike/avoid homosexuals....his hairdresser is one...he just doesn't care to watch them in action!!). Gosh.........I digress again!! All I really wanted to say was that there seemed to be more bigots on the pro-movie side as it was only their views which were politically correct.
Sorry but that is how it appears from reading the whole thread from the start. (Couldn't find a smiley for 'shrug and make a funny face')
Well said wickerinca!;)
I have failed miserably. I had hoped that in some way I would have answered the question posed much earlier by JJC, namely why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?
My premise is that acceptable behavior was detailed in rules which were man-made, things which were not considered acceptable were legislated against. People seem to have an inbuilt instinct as to what is “right”. My use of the now infamous philosophy relayed to Gregory David Roberts in Shantaram was meant as a tool to detail how those kinds of decisions may have been made when there was some dubiety or clarification required. The fact that the majority of people are/were not homosexual will have swayed the consensus, so there fore I would say that in general something has to be normal to be acceptable. Anyway as I said I failed miserably.
Scorrie states that the argument that I put forward for homosexuality being wrong is flawed. i.e. the hypothesis that if everyone was homosexual it would not allow the human race to move forward is flawed. If that is the case, I would be interested to hear the null hypothesis being proved. If you have considered and dismissed the idea that homosexuality is wrong, then I assume that you considered that homosexuality is right, can you explain why?
I was also interested to note that the former bookie found something to do with probability a dry yarn.
Now now scotsboy, you know bookies always stack the odds in their favour.
I assume that you considered that homosexuality is right, can you explain why? No, I cannot. And the reason that I cannot is that you are asking me to explain thought-processes that I have never actually had.
I cannot think that I have ever sat down and asked myself the question “Is homosexuality right?” any more than I have asked myself whether being heterosexual is right – that’s not what I based my opinion on. What I asked myself was: Is homosexuality wrong?
OK, what was the thought process that you used to decide it was right?
wickerinca
25-Jan-06, 18:16
I know what you mean,jjc. There are just somethings that you don't think about because you have never had to......and then when someone asks you about it I get confused. I don't really know how I feel about it. I suppose to be totally honest it doesn't really bother me one way or another as long as it isn't shoved in my face (bit like religion, politics and all that other stuff really). Am I in a position to judge other people?....No! Do I have my own thoughts..Yes! Homosexuality does not repulse me....but then I am female and I do think that we tend to view it differently. Homosexuals do not repulse me, as a rule, but there has been the odd one or two that I have met that I found a little offputting.........but the same can be said for hets and bis that I have met also..so that is a person thing and not a lifestyle thing!! We have had gay marriages here for a couple of years and Rosie O'Donnell took a Cruise load of her friends and other gay couples to the city last year. Seemingly they had a great time and didn't get much hassle
landmarker
25-Jan-06, 18:58
...I am quite highly trained but more in the field of Maths and Physics.
I have just received a new hat via e.bay & I take it of to you.
I could never get my head around maths and physics (Arithmetic no probs)
though I can handle all the Engliush stuff - most of it anyway. (apart from 'invariably')
I dont think I've found an ally here but at least someone who can read and analyse properly the words laid before them. Amen & Thanks.
I have failed miserably. I had hoped that in some way I would have answered the question posed much earlier by JJC, namely why does something have to be normal to be acceptable?.
Is it acceptable that two people are allowed to have a consensual relationship behind closed doors which doesn't hurt anyone else and they go on to live in peace and die in peace?
If the answer to that is 'yes' then homosexuality must be acceptable.
There are many 'normal' heterosexuals who go on to hurt others through jealousy, violence and sexual depravation and who may live without peace die without it as well. Since that is the case, is heterosexuality acceptable?
landmarker
25-Jan-06, 19:04
Sorry to bring this (slightly) back towards the original thread, but I find that sometimes those who are unaccepting and fearful of homosexuals are subconsciously revulsed by their own latent desires.
American Beauty is a great film.....
You can't mean me if you've been reading my words properly but....
Ahh yes, the old chestnut. Intended to stifle debate.
I disliked Manchester United at one point in my life.
Does that mean I really , secretly longed to desert the Kippax and go and stand on the Stretford End terraces?
According to your theory er....perhaps. I might be a latent red !
Let me assure you my life and experiences have generated much more anti Man Ewe feelings than anti - homosexual. The former have troubled me much more. In some ways, they blighted my adolesence.
American Beauty was a good film, rather than 'great' in my humble opinion. I bought the video about four years ago and enjoyed it. I've never watched it again though since my wife thinks it's bobbins.
Maybe I shall dig it out soon.
Is it acceptable that two people are allowed to have a consensual relationship behind closed doors which doesn't hurt anyone else and they go on to live in peace and die in peace?
Of course it is - however that does not mean it is right. Would oyu feel the same of they were brother and sister?
Of course it is - however that does not mean it is right. Would oyu feel the same of they were brother and sister?
Daft questions require daft answers.
Yes, it would be right if they were the only people left alive.
Why is it daft. The point I am trying to make is that some things are deemed acceptable and others not. By your answer you not under normal conditions consider sexual activity between brother and sister to be acceptble.....why?
Why is it daft?
You tried to corner me into defending an indefensible red herring, that way you can claim that you are right. This is a straw man arguement.
The Straw Man Fallacy
Type: Red Herring (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html)
Etymology:
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched. Quote-Unquote:
"When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote." (James Lileks (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/02/1102/110201.html#110402))Example:
"Some of you may have seen the 90-minute ABC network television show…entitled 'Growing Up in the Age of AIDS'.… I was one of nine guests on that live program.… …[A] single 45-second sound bite cost me a long journey and two hectic days in New York City.
"Why…did I travel to The Big Apple for such an insignificant role? …I felt a responsibility to express the abstinence position on national television.… How sad that adolescents hear only the dangerous 'safe sex' message from adults who should know better.
"What follows, then, is what I would have said on television.…
"Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should be taught to abstain from sex until marriage? "…[N]ot one of 800 sexologists at a recent conference raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV infected person. … And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that 'safe sex' is within reach and that they can sleep around with impunity."
Source: James C. Dobson, in a fund-raising letter for "Focus on the Family", February 13, 1992.
Exposition:
Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion.
The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Argument), the arguer argues to a conclusion (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Conclusion) that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context. Subfallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Subfallacy):
As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness.
A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for exceptions, or counter-examples. Consider the statement forms:
All P are Q.
Most P are Q.
Many P are Q.
Some P are Q.
Some P are not Q.
Many P are not Q.
Most P are not Q.
No P are Q.The extremes are "All P are Q" and "No P are Q". These are easiest to refute, since all it takes is a single counter-example (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#CounterExample) to refute a universal proposition (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#UniversalGen). Moreover, the world being such as it is, unless P and Q are connected definitionally, such propositions are usually false. The other propositions are progressively harder to refute until you get to the middle two: "Some P are Q" and "Some P are not Q". To refute these requires one to prove the extremes: "No P are Q" or "All P are Q", respectively. So, extremists are those who take positions starting with "all" or "no". For instance, the extremists in the abortion debate are those who argue that no abortions are permissible, or that all abortions are.
Therefore, Straw Man arguments often attack a political party or movement at its extremes, where it is weakest. For example, it is a straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should ever be restricted, bar none. Such straw men are often part of the process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw Demon". Source:
T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0534551335/thefallacyfil-20) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 157-159.
I am not trying to catch out anyone, I am not seeking to prove anyone wrong or claim the moral high ground. The point that I am trying to make is that there are things which are deemed to be general unacceptalbe - why? These have manifest themselves as rules and laws, but those who originally made them must have based their decision on something - what?
wickerinca
25-Jan-06, 19:45
Religion? Have to lengthen my reply to 10 characters
wickerinca
25-Jan-06, 19:57
I dont think I've found an ally here but at least someone who can read and analyse properly the words laid before them. Amen & Thanks.[/quote]
:o) Don't think that you need an ally, Landmarker...or at least, you don't need someone to argue your case as you are more than capable of holding your own. Think that I may be a bit of an ally though as I agree with your wife about American Beauty.....acting was quite good though.
OK, what was the thought process that you used to decide it was right?
Erm... well, as I've already stated that I didn't make that decision I guess you meant to ask what thought processes I used to decide it wasn't wrong. With that in mind…
A great many (some which I doubt I am aware of), but here’s the main one:
Homosexuality does me no harm; neither does it harm my loved ones, society or homosexuals themselves – in fact, homosexuality doesn’t really harm anybody.
A great many (some which I doubt I am aware of), but here’s the main one:
Homosexuality does me no harm; neither does it harm my loved ones, society or homosexuals themselves – in fact, homosexuality doesn’t really harm anybody.
That being the case then why does it appear that societies throughout recorded time have been inclined to find it not acceptable to them?
That being the case then why does it appear that societies throughout recorded time have been inclined to find it not acceptable to them?
Since there is a genetic link to homosexuality, could there be a bigot gene?:eyes
Since there is a genetic link to homosexuality, could there be a bigot gene?:eyesWhy has that gene never been found
landmarker
25-Jan-06, 22:23
That being the case then why does it appear that societies throughout recorded time have been inclined to find it not acceptable to them?
Oh Dear, oh very dear.
I feel a counter argument coming on from somewhere. Net searches galore.
Go google for sodom and tomorra - the facts.
I await with baited breath.
Why has that gene never been found
There is no 'gay gene' I said there is a genetic link to homosexuality. But there could be a bigot gene, but I rather suspect it purely is nurture rather than nature...
Landmarker, by all accounts I'm a good-looking blonde. I've slept with women. Would you rather avoid me?
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.Of course he would avoid you.:o
Has anyone seen this movie "Bareback Mounting" I think its called, My heros like John Wayne, Jack Elam, Eli Wallach , must be spinning in their graves, about Homosexual Cowboys, what are they trying to do to us? Destroy everything us laddies held dear when we were wee, how can a wee lad play cowboys now a days, with a powder puff instead of the trusty old six gun
Golach, we are living in different times and they are not getting any better. Some people call it progress. I call it regression. At my age of 80 years I shouldn't have to be around much longer to see further deteriation. Good luck to you while you try to hang in there.
Since there is a genetic link to homosexuality
Really? Never heard of that.
JJC, I agree that it does no harm to anyone.
Scorrie states that the argument that I put forward for homosexuality being wrong is flawed. i.e. the hypothesis that if everyone was homosexual it would not allow the human race to move forward is flawed. If that is the case, I would be interested to hear the null hypothesis being proved. If you have considered and dismissed the idea that homosexuality is wrong, then I assume that you considered that homosexuality is right, can you explain why?
I was also interested to note that the former bookie found something to do with probability a dry yarn.
Bookies are only interested in something that yields a possible market. No person is going to bet on someone jumping from a tall building and NOT falling, equally it would be impossible to offer the other bet, ie that they WILL fall.
Before being a bookie, I was an analytical chemist. I studied Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics and Computing Science at University. For some reason, people, particularly academics, tend to be surprised that I ended up working in the betting industry.
To explain why I think Homosexuality is right I will start with a quote from your guru's site.
"We live in a finite, physical universe, and nothing in it is perfect or absolute"
That is my basis for starting the arguement. Nature is imperfect. If all people lived their lives solely to ensure the continuation of the species then it would be a life not worth living in my opinion. People who wanted to have sex solely for enjoyment would be "wrong", as every opportunity to maximise numbers would have to be taken. A man staying with a woman unable to bear children would be going against nature. Monogamous relationships would also be diluting the chances of breeding maximum numbers. People with inherited genetic problems would have to be prevented from bearing children in order to eliminate imperfections from the global gene pool.
In any case, who is to say that the survival of the human race is supposed to be infinite? Many other species have become extinct and not all of that was our doing (although we have done our best in many cases). Perhaps it is Natural for all species to eventually perish. Our time in existance is tiny compared to that of the planet we live on and millions of years from now we will probably be a tiny blip on the map of the history of the planet Earth.
My philosophy is simple, what has evolved has evolved naturally, everyone comes from the union of egg and sperm (except clones), what someone makes of that life is ultimately in their own hands.
If you think your inspiration's website is delving deeper then good luck to you. I have studied it and concluded that it is simply a load of old Shanta ;o)
Good post Scorrie.
I disagree on the bet bit though - there is a definate analogy between that blokes and Rangers chances in the CL......and you would take a bet on Rangers:)
landmarker
26-Jan-06, 23:19
Landmarker, by all accounts I'm a good-looking blonde. I've slept with women. Would you rather avoid me?
Rather 'avoid you' than what?
Avoid you in the same way as I'd endeavour to 'avoid' male homosexuals?
No, not at all.
Everyone has a story to tell after all.
If you are 'sleeping with women' and you are female, I can only compliment you on your good taste. Were I looking for a bed mate it would be an all female short list. I'm already sorted in that department, and have been for many a year.
We might not be tuned in to the same station Crayola but we do share the same wavelength. However, my batteries are aever so slightly run down and you may find reception patchy. Such is life.
That being the case then why does it appear that societies throughout recorded time have been inclined to find it not acceptable to them?
But not all societies have been so inclined; some have accepted homosexuality without question. Just look at the Spartans.
Of course, for those societies that have rejected homosexuality I'd be inclined to look at the way that we tend to reject most things that aren't the same as us.
But not all societies have been so inclined; some have accepted homosexuality without question. Just look at the Spartans.
Of course, for those societies that have rejected homosexuality I'd be inclined to look at the way that we tend to reject most things that aren't the same as us.
I take your point there jjc, that's why I included the work 'appear'. I am not certain if most past societies did reject homosexuality or if it was just an impression gained because our Society is, for the most part, educated using Judeo/Christian values.
I've never heard any mention of the attitude of the Incas and Aztecs towards such matters. Could it be that such matters were irrelevant because it could be 'proved that they were evil' because they carried out human sacrifice?
That, by the values of the time, was enough to condemn them without worrying about what they got up to in the bedroom.
The point being that because homosexual acts were not mentioned at the time the tendency generally is to accept that the acts were not there.
The next step is to arrive at the conclusion that, if they appear not to be there, then those societies must have rejected them as unacceptable.
And all that from the probability that the first Europeans there were far too busy shocking people with graphic descriptions of warm, beating, living hearts torn from human sacrifices to be bothered to mention less gory and dramatic matters.
Does it really matter what ancient societies thought about homosexuality? Modern society has nailed its colours firmly at the door of acceptance by legislating against the prejudice shown on caithness.org.
Itll take longer for the landmarkers amongst us to accept these changes but one things for sure, eventually they will die out.
I caught a straw poll on Sky News yesterday relating to Simon Hughes and his suitability to lead the liberal democrats based upon his "coming out" - I was shocked that 66% of those who had voted did not think he was suitable.
Just read in todays newspapers some interesting and to me not so shocking.
2004 HIV figures for Scotland were a total of 134 cases of HIV. Of this 97 were Homosexual, 19 were Drug related 18 were Hetrosexual.
This has not been brought up before by the pro Homosexual faction in this theme but this is another of the reasons that make me a bit suspect and fearful of Homosexuality.
wickerinca
27-Jan-06, 16:24
I caught a straw poll on Sky News yesterday relating to Simon Hughes and his suitability to lead the liberal democrats based upon his "coming out" - I was shocked that 66% of those who had voted did not think he was suitable.
I wouldn't have thought that his sexuality was the reason for the high number against his leadership attempt...........more to do with the fact that he lied so often about it!
I think people are pretty much acceptable of the fact that politicians lie.
wickerinca
27-Jan-06, 19:02
Can't argue with you there Scotsboy!!:lol: :lol: Who would be a politician eh??!!
...but I still think that it is the deceit that annoyed people more. You would think that we would be innured to such shananigans but no!! sometimes we just get fed up of the whole thing.
Think of poor whatshisname....??........Eh! The LD leader who likes a dram...eh! Kennedy that's it. Charles! Just think if you had told your employers that you had a drink problem and they asked you to resign...without offering you any medical help....or counselling!!
Gosh....I am off again....!! I should have just called myself Digress!!:roll:
landmarker
27-Jan-06, 19:05
Does it really matter what ancient societies thought about homosexuality? Modern society has nailed its colours firmly at the door of acceptance by legislating against the prejudice shown on caithness.org.
Itll take longer for the landmarkers amongst us to accept these changes but one things for sure, eventually they will die out.
This particular landmarker will never accept bring told what to think, nor what to say, in public or otherwise. I shall continue to trust my instincts and leave nouveau conformity to the sheep amongst us gleeber.
You are a blinkered person ,and one of the 'see what you want to see' brigade. How difficult it must be for you to realise that others do not quite see the world in the same narrow way that you do. That not everyone falls for the social whims of Islington politicos and their limp wristed friends.
I've nailed my colours to the mast in this thread and stand by everything I have said on the matter. I have tried to retain an air of some humour, calmness & objectivity.
You however, almost alone seem to take my views rather personally and are unable to resist the odd pathetic jibe. Water off a ducks back gleeber.
Gleeber, the reason I was asking about ancient civilisations, and by that I mean those who had not been touched by Judeo/Christian attitudes, was in the hope that somebody might have knowledge of their attitudes.
In our society, until around 40 years ago, homosexuality was an absolute taboo. Although nothing was said directly, the impression given was that the vast majority of humanity had always had that same attitude.
The question I was pondering was, were almost all other societies marching to the same tune as us, or did we just paint them as doing that in order to increase the justification for our attitudes.
Giving the impression that everybody is in agreement with your beliefs gives far more power to your arguments than saying everybody else thinks differently to me but they are all totally wrong.
Basically, were we twisting or ignoring the attitudes of others in order to justify our own stance on the subject.
sassylass
28-Jan-06, 04:01
Why does homosexuality have to be "right" or "wrong"?
Why can't it just be "different"?
Why do so many people assume that all homosexuality is only about sex and casual relationships?
Why don't they consider the possiblity of love and devotion and soulmates and commitment?
Why are some people so interested in such private aspects of other adults lives?
Twisting some of our opponents attitudes and ignoring others is fairly common in any debating chamber Jaws whether its caithness.org or The Houses of Parliament. However, like you suggest this modern attitude towards homosexuality appears to buck a trend that has been as much a human taboo as incest in our ancient civilisations.
That being said I still think landmarkers thoughts are more the norm, amongst men at least,than my own more compassinite thoughts towards homosexuals.
But, and as usual its a big but, the climate is changing. People are wising up to the prejudice we see exposed on this thread. Some, as we can easily see, will still agree with it, whilst others, although they may agree in silence, in practice they are on their way to changing lifelong discriminatory thoughts against homosexuals. People find that this type of prejudice is as destructive to the perpetrator as it is to the victim. As distasteful as it may be to landmarker my analogy of the attitude the Nazis had towards Jews stands, when we take his type of prejudice to its ultimate conclusion.
One of the reasons for this climate change towards homosexuality, and landmarker is right to accuse me of being involved in that change, is because old views like his are being challenged, and people are realising the old views they had were actually the views of their fathers or their workmates or their religions and not their own inner and deeply formed personal views towards homosexuality. Most people discover when they view homosexuality objectively that it poses no threat to them. Not all though! Thats the nature of homophobia!
Its not easy to change, and as has already been posted, some are happy to remain prejudiced against homosexuals forever. I believe there is an inherent danger in that fixed position of discrimination, not only against homosexuals but against humanity as a whole as should be obvious from my analogy. I find most homophobes are also very vocal towards immigration and unmarried mothers and any other group who have a less than average chance of being seen as normal. Any minority and less than normal activity, religion, race or creed are all targets and areas ripe for attack from that bit in the human psyche that discriminates against homosexuality.
Freud traced the source of this prejudiced thinking in his research over 100 years ago and although landmarkers accusations are that it stifles debate, I believe it adds to the debate.
As must be obvious by now my own opinions towards homosexuality are more orientated towards the nature of the homophobe than the nature of homosexuals.
For that reason I would be failing myself if the landmarkers amongst us were allowed free rein to post their subjective and prejudiced views on caithness.org without challenge.
Nice to see the main actors got Golden Globes last night though!!!
I can't help thinking "ouch", it must be painful walking!!:eyes
What next?? "The Good, The Bad and the OOO Isnt he Lovely" [lol]
Made me laugh that did !
landmarker
28-Jan-06, 16:40
gleeber: well done!
you now have the record for mentioning 'landmarker' a record number of times in any one post. I have obviously touched a raw nerve with you.
Get over it or carry on, your choice.
Prejudice does not have a 'logical conclusion' Prejudice is a human emotion & feeling of varying degrees.
My prejudice is relatively mild, but it is prejudice all the same. I'm not about to suggest we should have a 'final solution' for homo's as you seem to conclude. Far from it. Live and let live, preferably in private.
Continue your crusade by all means. I'm puzzleda s to what is driving it, because no-one seems to be taking much notice. I almost feel duty bound to respond after all those landmarker references.
Gleeber, I'll try and clarify what I was getting at because I sometimes fail or create confusion by the way I put things.
I agree with you that there is now a totally different outlook by society in the way homosexuality is treated.
What I was suggesting was that perhaps the way it is now coming to be viewed could well be the way most societies have viewed it. Could it be that our recent 'shock, horror' distaste was an artificial creation by the likes of Victorian Moralists who deliberately mislead people into believing that other "Societies' had always thought that way.
I wonder if we had been fed lies and deceit in order to persuade us that their particular views were correct and any other view was an abomination. Did they use the old trick of saying that everybody else has always thought that way, so it must be right, and distorting past views to substantiate that claim.
By doing that they could well have invented a 'human instict' of distaste and condemnation which had, in fact, never existed, and that we are now escaping into a more natural and realistic point of view on the subject.
Only just started looking at this thread - goes on a bit doesn't it? I'm puzzled by the continued references to "right and wrong". Most people are born heterosexual, many people are born homosexual, others are born bi; most people are born either obviously male or female, for many it isn't quite clear at birth so they are pushed - mentally and physically - one direction which frequently turns out to be wrong and sometimes later in life they feel the need to rectify the situation; some are born completely hermaphrodite (is that the word I'm looking for?). I don't see where right and wrong come into it. People who are born homosexual, usually realise at quite an early age that they are not quite like their friends and either when they are old enough they accept it or, sadly, under family pressure or whatever, try to fight against with sometimes tragic consequences.
Some people say you can't help being homosexual but it's OK so long as you remain celibate. Why? Why, just because you are born in a particular way should you be condemned to a life without the love of a partner?
Some people are born very tall, some very short (and I'm talking extremes here) and they encounter all sorts of rejection as a result but no-one says it's "wrong".
As to historical acceptance, love between men has been accepted in various civilisations for as long as history has been recorded and in some was considered more important than between men and women. Hopefully at last the prejudice which made it illegal in this country is now being overcome.
just want to say, being GAY is wrong, my opinion anyway. can't wait to see how many bad rep's i get for this post eh JJC!!:roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.