Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

1…2425272930…54

Comments

  • #782
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,493 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    King Mob wrote:
    Having biblical support does not preclude you or your views from being bigoted/hateful/homophobic/whatever.
    When did I say different?
    I'm saying in the case of Folau it's not.


  • #783
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,493 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    WinnyThePoo wrote:
    For the most you and the other 'homophobia redefiners' posts are read as satire, how can they not be.
    Every other word in the dictionary ending with phobia means fear of but homophobia means something different. I suppose that makes perfect sense to you.


  • #784
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    When did I say different?
    I'm saying in the case of Folau it's not.
    I have been trying to get you to detail your position on this for several pages.
    I asked you several times seceral times directly if this was your position.
    You ignored the question and continued on as if that was your position.
    You must forgive me for assuming that was your position and for not believing you now when you say its not only after your arguments got desperate.
    So we agree that religion doesn't preclude someone from being homophobic.

    Folaus position on homosexuality is exactly the same as the WBC's. It is backed by the same passage from the bible. And both are careful to maintain that they are refering to the sin and not the person.
    So if you are going to say that the WBCs postion is homophobic, then youre going to have to show how Folaus is different.


  • #785
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    eagle eye wrote: »
    WinnyThePoo wrote:
    For the most you and the other 'homophobia redefiners' posts are read as satire, how can they not be.
    Every other word in the dictionary ending with phobia means fear of but homophobia means something different. I suppose that makes perfect sense to you.


    Still doing it I see. Your not going to be able to redefine homophobia.


  • #786
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Every other word in the dictionary ending with phobia means fear of but homophobia means something different. I suppose that makes perfect sense to you.

    Firstly, you're wrong once again. e.g.
    Xenophobia: dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.
    Islamophobia:dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

    From an etymological perspective, once a phobia relates to a group of people it typically translates as dislike and prejudice.

    Secondly, this is the third time you've repeated the nonsense notion that your belief in the meaning of a word is correct and all other official sources are wrong. This is soap-boxing and against the rules of this forum. In this forum if you make an assertion and you're challenged on it, you're expected to be able back it up or drop it. This isn't religion, repeating a lie until you're blue in the face doesn't miraculously make it true.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Claustrophobia is fear of confined spaces.
    Arachnophobia fear of spiders.
    Agoraphobia fear of confined spaces.
    Homophobia is fear of homosexual people.

    Two out of four, D+. Good effort but maybe put a bit more work in next time.


  • #788
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Every other word in the dictionary ending with phobia means fear of but homophobia means something different. I suppose that makes perfect sense to you.

    And it makes perfect sense for you to ignore every other authority on the actual meaning of the word homophobia ?

    btw
    phobia
    an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
    "she suffered from a phobia about birds"
    synonyms: abnormal fear, irrational fear, obsessive fear, fear, dread, horror, terror, dislike, hatred, loathing, detestation, distaste, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repulsion; More

    So it also means hatred not fear


  • #789
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    Hate is incredibly easily stirred and causes immense damage. Those that purposefully incite it for any reason are every bit as guilty as those who act on it. Compassion, compromise and understanding take quite a bit more work. This is the underlying aim of secularism as I understand it. Religion and absolutism struggle with compromise, to their collective loss. Society less so.
    Secularism has no such aim. A secular worldview is simply "an indifference to religion". Again you are making words mean whatever you want them to mean. Its real Alice in Wonderland stuff.
    smacl wrote: »
    Firstly, you're wrong once again. e.g.
    From an etymological perspective, once a phobia relates to a group of people it typically translates as dislike and prejudice.
    Xenophobia: dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.
    Islamophobia:dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.
    Secondly, this is the third time you've repeated the nonsense notion that your belief in the meaning of a word is correct and all other official sources are wrong. This is soap-boxing and against the rules of this forum. In this forum if you make an assertion and you're challenged on it, you're expected to be able back it up or drop it. This isn't religion, repeating a lie until you're blue in the face doesn't miraculously make it true.
    What "official sources" would these be?
    A phobia is generally an aversion or an incompatibility with something, but in psychology the definition can be expanded to include an irrational fear of something. Eg. rubber is hydrophobic because it repels water, but tissue paper is hydrophilic.
    People should not normally be scared of water, but if a person had that irrational fear they could be labelled hydrophobic. The rabies virus is transmitted via its host's saliva, therefore it does not "like" its host diluting their saliva by drinking water, so it affects the hosts brain in a way that causes hydrophobia. That is perfectly rational for the virus, but its an irrational behaviour for the host.
    However, there is no such thing as "Lionophobia", because a fear or aversion of lions is a very rational response for humans. We have the innate and correct understanding that they are the predator, and we are the potential prey.

    Anyone seeing Islam as a potential threat to society, or seeing it as incompatible with western values, or having a dislike or aversion to it, is not being "irrational". It should now be obvious that the word islamophobia is a failure of logic, just like the word lionophobia is.
    A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

    Which brings us to your second failure of logic, where you say "once a phobia relates to a group of people". A phobia (in human context) does not relate to a group of people, it relates to a concept, characteristic or ideology which may be held by people. Unless of course, you have decided what you want it to mean, Alice in Wonderland style.

    I'd regard homophobia as a more genuine word/concept. But if some people have an aversion to homosexuality or homosexual acts, then maybe that is the natural order of things. IMO Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech trump current norms of political correctness, as long as those freedoms do not cross the line into hate speech. And that was the main point being made by the OP.
    Nobody here has demonstrated that Folau crossed that line. I don't think anybody has even alleged it. Instead they talk about "his contract" as if it was a sacred document. Without even knowing exactly what's in the contract, or whether it's terms and clauses are legal under the local (Australia - New South Wales) laws.


  • #790
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    recedite wrote: »
    I'd regard homophobia as a more genuine word/concept. But if some people have an aversion to homosexuality or homosexual acts, then maybe that is the natural order of things. IMO Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech trump current norms of political correctness, as long as those freedoms do not cross the line into hate speech. And that was the main point being made by the OP..

    we're talking about people, not a spider or a dog.

    If you can't see what is wrong with what you just typed then there's something seriously wrong with you. However, lets just apply it to other people shall we and see if you notice the issue?
    recedite wrote: »
    I'd regard racism as a more genuine word/concept. But if some people have an aversion to black people, then maybe that is the natural order of things. IMO Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech trump current norms of political correctness, as long as those freedoms do not cross the line into hate speech. And that was the main point being made by the OP..

    There was a time (and there is still for some backwards, ignorant people) where they see the change in views towards black people as political correctness gone mad.

    He asked that gay people repent or go to hell, this is as messed up as asking for black people to repent or go to hell. Its hate speech its really that simple.

    People are who they are, they are born as they are and asking them to repent for simply existing is messed up beyond belief.

    Of course we're also forgetting the fact that he said Atheists most repent or go to hell too, this is hate speech against anybody who is an Atheist. Asking somebody to repent for how they were born is wrong.


  • #791
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    Secularism has no such aim. A secular worldview is simply "an indifference to religion". Again you are making words mean whatever you want them to mean. Its real Alice in Wonderland stuff.
    What "official sources" would these be?

    National Secular Society for one. From their web page their brief definition is
    NSS wrote:
    1. Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate.
    2. Freedom to practice one's faith or belief without harming others, or to change it or not have one, according to one's own conscience.
    3. Equality so that our religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't put any of us at an advantage or a disadvantage.

    Much more on their site here. Atheist Ireland have a broadly similar secular agenda and are probably the closest local equivalent. Wikipedia expands on the Merriam-Webster definition as follows;
    Defined briefly, secularism means that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. One form of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another form of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices.[7][Notes 2] There exist distinct traditions of secularism in the West (e.g., French and Anglo-American) and beyond (e.g., in India).
    Anyone seeing Islam as a potential threat to society, or seeing it as incompatible with western values, or having a dislike or aversion to it, is not being "irrational". It should now be obvious that the word islamophobia is a failure of logic, just like the word lionophobia is.
    A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

    Not according RationalWiki it isn't, but then you're argument is itself more phobic than rational.
    Which brings us to your second failure of logic, where you say "once a phobia relates to a group of people". A phobia (in human context) does not relate to a group of people, it relates to a concept, characteristic or ideology which may be held by people. Unless of course, you have decided what you want it to mean, Alice in Wonderland style.

    You might want to lay off the Lewis Caroll for a bit Rec, because you're spouting utter nonsense. The phobias that I've listed which relate to groups of people are well understood and well accepted terms that can be found in any standard text. You might not like the words Islamophobia, Xenophobia and Homophobia on the basis they tend to highlight various forms of bigotry, but they are in broad usage and you'll find they have the meanings I've attributed to them in every major dictionary.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Of course we're also forgetting the fact that he said Atheists most repent or go to hell too, this is hate speech against anybody who is an Atheist. Asking somebody to repent for how they were born is wrong.
    As an atheist I'm not bothered. He is giving his advice, and I'm ignoring it.
    That's not hate speech. If he was calling for others to engage in "queer bashing" or "atheist bashing", that would be hate speech.


  • #793
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    broad usage
    Broad usage in some circles, maybe. That's not the same as correct usage, or universal usage.


    As for the lofty and crusading ideals you were earlier attributing to "secularism", none of your quotes from the National Secular Society backed up your view.

    I suggest if you now look to the literature of the "humanist" societies you might find what you're looking for. But then you'll have found the definition of a completely different word. Its a dilemma.

    Checkmate, dude ;).

    .


  • #794
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    recedite wrote: »
    Broad usage in some circles, maybe. That's not the same as correct usage, or universal usage.


    As for the lofty and crusading ideals you were earlier attributing to "secularism", none of your quotes from the National Secular Society backed up your view.

    I suggest if you now look to the literature of the "humanist" societies you might find what you're looking for. But then you'll have found the definition of a completely different word. Its a dilemma.

    Checkmate, dude ;).

    .
    Dear Jesus, you guys really do seem a tad desperate when you're arguing over a term that has been used for about 6 decades. I previously included an explanation of how the word was decided upon and it makes absolute sense. So be a pedant etc but the term is accepted and recognised. In the same way as xenophobia is also accepted.


  • #795
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    Broad usage in some circles, maybe. That's not the same as correct usage, or universal usage.

    Call me old school, but correct usage of words is using them to give their meaning as defined in the major dictionaries. Making up your own meaning for a word that is contrary to these well understood, defined and accepted meanings amounts to spouting nonsense.
    As for the lofty and crusading ideals you were earlier attributing to "secularism", none of your quotes from the National Secular Society backed up your view. .

    Guessing you didn't bother reading the linked page then, e.g
    NSS wrote:
    Secularism champions universial human rights above religious demands. It upholds equality laws that protect women, LGBT people and minorities from religious discrimination. These equality laws ensure that non-believers have the same rights as those who identify with a religious or philosophical belief.
    ;
    ;
    Secularism is simply a framework for ensuring equality throughout society – in politics, education, the law and elsewhere – for believers and non-believers alike.

    So basically, secularism, as defined by the NSS, stands in direct opposition to homophobia, islamophobia and various other forms of bigotry. It is by this definition compassionate (i.e. feeling or showing sympathy and concern for others).
    NSS wrote:
    Secularism is the best chance we have to create a society in which people of all religions or none can live together fairly and peacefully.
    Recedite wrote:
    Checkmate, dude

    Fool's mate more like.


  • #796
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    smacl wrote: »
    So basically, secularism, as defined by the NSS, stands in direct opposition to homophobia, islamophobia and various other forms of bigotry. It is by this definition compassionate (i.e. feeling or showing sympathy and concern for others).

    Compassion is the central theme of Christianity.

    How come secularists condemn Christianity and yet defend and support Islam?


  • #797
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    batgoat wrote: »
    Dear Jesus, you guys really do seem a tad desperate when you're arguing over a term that has been used for about 6 decades. I previously included an explanation of how the word was decided upon and it makes absolute sense. So be a pedant etc but the term is accepted and recognised. In the same way as xenophobia is also accepted.
    Dear batgoat, stop calling me Jesus.
    Xenophobia, now that you mention it, is the irrational fear, dislike or aversion of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Perhaps the opposite of curiosity (which killed the cat)
    Maintaining a good balance between the two confers a distinct evolutionary advantage.

    Xenophobia in the context of people, refers really to the culture and characteristics of the people. In fairness, that can be hard to separate from the people themselves, unless it is something they are willing to change.
    For example it would be entirely rational for a European gay person to be somewhat xenophobic (in a general way) towards the idea of large scale immigration from Islamic countries, or African countries. Given that such people would tend to bring a culture of homophobia with them.


  • #798
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Compassion is the central theme of Christianity.

    Expressions of Christianity, and Islam for that matter, that preach homophobia and intolerance of other peoples beliefs are not compassionate.
    How come secularists condemn Christianity and yet defend and support Islam?

    They don't. Secularism balances freedom from religion with freedom of religion as a mechanism for everyone in society to be able to get along.


  • #799
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,712 ✭✭✭storker


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Compassion is the central theme of Christianity.

    How come secularists condemn Christianity and yet defend and support Islam?

    There are people like that, but I think they're more leftist than secularist.


  • #800
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    Xenophobia, now that you mention it, is the irrational fear, dislike or aversion of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Perhaps the opposite of curiosity (which killed the cat)

    Really? Again lets have quick look shall we;
    Merriam-Webster wrote:
    Definition of xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
    Oxford English Dictionary wrote:
    Xenophobia: Dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.
    Collins wrote:
    Xenophobia is strong and unreasonable dislike or fear of people from other countries.
    Cambridge wrote:
    extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs, their religions, etc.

    Nor is curiosity in any sense and antonym for xenophobia. Need to work on your words a bit there, Rec. ;)


  • #801
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Wikipedia wrote:
    Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Xenophobia can involve perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup and can manifest itself in suspicion of the activities of others, and a desire to eliminate their presence to secure a presumed purity and may relate to a fear of losing national, ethnic or racial identity

    But lets take your Cambridge definition instead.
    extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs, their religions, etc
    Putting the qualifier word "extreme" in there would seem to imply that "some" suspicion is perfectly natural.
    And then they have the further clarification that it is the "customs religions etc" of the foreigners that is the root cause of the suspicion.


    Here's a thought experiment for you. Supposing "the foreigner" arrived and adopted local dress, customs, language, religion, culture etc.

    Would they still be a foreigner? What would be foreign about them?


    I think you're trying to widen the definition of xenophobia to include racism.
    Just as you earlier tried to widen the definition of secularism to include all of humanism.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Cool, so the thread is now reduced to recedite justifying xenophobia...


  • #803
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    batgoat wrote: »
    Cool, so the thread is now reduced to recedite justifying xenophobia...

    Next up I'm sure we can expect....justifying why its ok to call black people the N word
    :rolleyes:


  • #804
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    But lets take your Cambridge definition instead.

    Putting the qualifier word "extreme" in there would seem to imply that "some" suspicion is perfectly natural.
    And then they have the further clarification that it is the "customs religions etc" of the foreigners that is the root cause of the suspicion.


    Here's a thought experiment for you. Supposing "the foreigner" arrived and adopted local dress, customs, language, religion, culture etc.

    Would they still be a foreigner? What would be foreign about them?

    Couldn't tell you Rec, thankfully xenophobia isn't something I suffer from. I've traveled a fair bit so most of the time I'm dealing with different cultures, I'd be the foreigner. My experience for the most part has been that of a welcome guest and is something I try to emulate for people who come over here from abroad.
    I think you're trying to widen the definition of xenophobia to include racism. Just as you earlier tried to widen the definition of secularism to include all of humanism.

    I'm not trying to do anything, I'm taking time to look at what words actually mean. For example, is there an element of racism in xenophobia? Apparently so, from Wikipedia again "According to UNESCO, the terms xenophobia and racism often overlap, but differ in how the latter encompasses prejudice based on physical characteristics while the former is generally centered on behavior based on the notion of a specified people being adverse to the culture or nation". Look up xenophobia in a thesaurus and there it is again, with racism listed as a synonym. This isn't me trying to do anything other than deepening my own understanding based on multiple trusted references.


  • #805
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    So to sum up weve had:
    There's no such thing as hate speech.
    Saying gay people are going to be tortured isnt hateful.
    Theres a big conspiracy controlling academia and preventing them from publishing the reality about gay people.
    Racism and homophobia isnt intolerant if theres a religious reason.
    The word phobia doesnt mean what the dictionaries say it means.
    Homophobia and Xenophobia dont actually exist.

    And this was the thread for nonsense from LGBT people...


  • #806
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,237 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    King Mob wrote: »
    So to sum up weve had:
    There's no such thing as hate speech.
    Saying gay people are going to be tortured isnt hateful.
    Theres a big conspiracy controlling academia and preventing them from publishing the reality about gay people.
    Racism and homophobia isnt intolerant if theres a religious reason.
    The word phobia doesnt mean what the dictionaries say it means.
    Homophobia and Xenophobia dont actually exist.

    And this was the thread for nonsense from LGBT people...
    i suspect this is a postmodernist project; nothing is real, everything is relative and meanings are fluid.


  • #807
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    King Mob wrote: »
    So to sum up weve had:
    There's no such thing as hate speech.
    Saying gay people are going to be tortured isnt hateful.
    Theres a big conspiracy controlling academia and preventing them from publishing the reality about gay people.
    Racism and homophobia isnt intolerant if theres a religious reason.
    The word phobia doesnt mean what the dictionaries say it means.
    Homophobia and Xenophobia dont actually exist.

    And this was the thread for nonsense from LGBT people...

    'free speech' without consequences.

    Was another one.


  • #808
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i suspect this is a postmodernist project; nothing is real, everything is relative and meanings are fluid.
    To which inevitable conclusion, one can only refer onwards to Peter Pomerantsev's excellent book Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia

    and Gabriel Gatehouse's similar, more recent, look into the life and times of mirror-master, Vladislav Surkov:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003jhg/episodes/player

    As somebody said many years ago - if the US doesn't succeed in remoulding Russia in the US's image, then Russia will remould the US in Russia's.


  • #809
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    As somebody said many years ago - if the US doesn't succeed in remoulding Russia in the US's image, then Russia will remould the US in Russia's.

    They've both left it way too late. Sure if you believe some of the rhetoric on here both the Kremlin and the Whitehouse will be under Sharia law by next Eid :)


  • #810
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,599 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i suspect this is a postmodernist project; nothing is real, everything is relative and meanings are fluid.

    This word gets thrown around a lot. What does it mean, exactly?

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • #811
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,904 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    This word gets thrown around a lot. What does it mean, exactly?

    What would you like it to mean? :p


Advertisement