nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ancapailldorcha

smacl wrote: »

What would you like it to mean?

I genuinely have no idea. Seems like it gets used a lot by people who argue using someone else's (usually Jordan Peterson's) words as opposed to their own.

smacl

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I genuinely have no idea. Seems like it gets used a lot by people who argue using someone else's (usually Jordan Peterson's) words as opposed to their own.

It gets used in a derogatory sense to refer to those who prefer to push their own meaningless nonsense rather than go with the consensus afforded by objective reality. This lampooning probably all started with the Sokal hoax.

For example, on this thread, we've had three different posters asserting that dictionary definitions for well understood and widely used words were wrong and there own definition was superior. Walter Mitty stuff basically.

ancapailldorcha

smacl wrote: »

It gets used in a derogatory sense to refer to those who prefer to push their own meaningless nonsense rather than go with the consensus afforded by objective reality. This lampooning probably all started with the Sokal hoax.

For example, on this thread, we've had three different posters asserting that dictionary definitions for well understood and widely used words were wrong and there own definition was superior. Walter Mitty stuff basically.

If you ignore perspective then there's a whole commentariat class at the moment this could be applied to from Owen Jones to Ben Shapiro.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So to sum up weve had:
There's no such thing as hate speech.

There is such a thing:

Telling homosexuals that unless they repent of homosex when they visit Brunei they will be stoned to death for example

Saying gay people are going to be tortured isn't hateful.

Only when its Foreign Office advice to people intending to travel to Brunei.

homophobia isnt intolerant if theres a religious reason.

Homosex is considered co-equal with heterosexuality if there's a philosopical reason.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is such a thing:

Telling homosexuals that unless they repent of homosex when they visit Brunei they will be stoned to death for example

Only when its Foreign Office advice to people intending to travel to Brunei.

Homosex is considered co-equal with heterosexuality if there's a philosopical reason.

homosex :rolleyes:

Annasopra

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is such a thing:

Telling homosexuals that unless they repent of homosex when they visit Brunei they will be stoned to death for example

Only when its Foreign Office advice to people intending to travel to Brunei.

Homosex is considered co-equal with heterosexuality if there's a philosopical reason.

Please dont use derogatory and insulting terms like homosex

antiskeptic

No insult intended. In these fluid times some clarity is needed. Had I said a homosexual would be advised to refrain from sex on fear of stoning in Brunei, someone would have got on to say that a homosexual might well have hetrosex.

I'm at a loss as to why homosex would be considered insulting. Heterosex doesnt strike me as insulting either.

antiskeptic

Anyway. Anyone think foreign department advice given to homosexuals intending to travel to Brunei is hate speech?

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyway. Anyone think foreign department advice given to homosexuals intending to travel to Brunei is hate speech?

In what way would it be hate speech?

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyway. Anyone think foreign department advice given to homosexuals intending to travel to Brunei is hate speech?

why? is it phrased 'fagg0ts! don't go to brunei, you big crowd of poofters'?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

In what way would it be hate speech?

Let me put it another way. Would the Brunei Department of Tourism's issuing advice to homosexual visitors that they refrain from (homo)sex whilst visiting the country be hate speech?

There is a difference between considering the laws of Brunei pertaining to homosexual sexual activity hateful and the advice of the Department of Tourism issuing advice to homosexuals intent on visiting the country.

The former might be considered hateful. The latter, issued by a Dept not connected with devising and implementing legislation, pragmatic.

magicbastarder

i did have a chuckle over the letter brunei sent to the EU, stating there was a very high bar set for the evidence required for a conviction for gay sex. they specifically stated a conviction could only be gained based on the testimony of - quote - two men of “high moral standing and piety” acting as witnesses.

there's a question left hanging there which is so obvious it's bizarre.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...] homosex [...]

You could also refer to it as "bumsex" or maybe "fagsex" since I presume you're referring, not to lesbian sex, but to the kind of hot male-on-male penetrative homosexual action which religious people spend so much time thinking about.

Alternatively, you could try referring to it by a less prejudicial term like - well, same as everybody else does around here - "homosexual sex" and you might thereby earn a little respect for your points of view, or at least, avoid having your use of prejudicial or silly made-up words publicly ridiculed.

smacl

King Mob wrote: »

In what way would it be hate speech?

Nah, he's simply deflecting the criticism of his open support for the homophobia displayed by more extreme Christians in our society by pointing out considerably worse homophobia in another Muslim society. Personally, I'm of the opinion that all homophobia by all religious extremists, or anyone else for that matter, is unacceptable. We don't have much control over what goes on in Brunei but we do have a voice in our own society and should use it. Simple as.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let me put it another way. Would the Brunei Department of Tourism's issuing advice to homosexual visitors that they refrain from (homo)sex whilst visiting the country be hate speech?

No, as on the face of it, they aren't making a judgment about the person or the act.
It is however a result of a hateful law issued by people who engage in hate speech.

This is not comparable with your preferred hate speech.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a difference between considering the laws of Brunei pertaining to homosexual sexual activity hateful .

They are hateful.
Saying that gay people deserve punishment for either being gay or for having sex is hateful.
Actually punishing people for that is monstrous.

You are stretching very hard for a point to make here.
And maybe not the best idea to defend hate speech and your hateful belief by pointing to a place where those same kind of things lead to the persecution of gay people.

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let me put it another way. Would the Brunei Department of Tourism's issuing advice to homosexual visitors that they refrain from (homo)sex whilst visiting the country be hate speech?

well, telling people 'if you engage in completely consensual acts with no victims, where nothing bad actually happens any bystanders, just be aware that we may kill you for that' is a hateful thing to do, regardless of whether it's going to end up a fodder for an endless debate over precise meanings of the phrase 'hate speech' on an internet forum.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i did have a chuckle over the letter brunei sent to the EU, stating there was a very high bar set for the evidence required for a conviction for gay sex. they specifically stated a conviction could only be gained based on the testimony of - quote - two men of “high moral standing and piety” acting as witnesses.

there's a question left hanging there which is so obvious it's bizarre.

Those religious folk of “high moral standing and piety” do seem to have a rather obsessive interest in sex. I'm sure you'd have no problem finding a couple of them to "act as witness", though I daresay dogging is also frowned in in Brunei :pac:

magicbastarder

i do hope that for reasons of clarity, they are experts on the acts they are purportedly witnessing, lest their expertise be called into account.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Alternatively, you could try referring to it by a less prejudicial term like - well, same as everybody else does around here - "homosexual sex" and you might thereby earn a little respect for your points of view, or at least, avoid having your use of prejudicial or silly made-up words publicly ridiculed.

You would have to show me why the word homosex is prejudicial. It, to differentiate it from heterosex, which is a word.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to show me why the word homosex is prejudicial. It, to differentiate it from heterosex, which is a word.

Could you please at least define it?
Does it mean only sex between gay men? If so, what kinds of sex counts as "homosex"?
How about gay women? Do they count as having "Homosex"?
Do you believe "Homosex" between two women is also sinful?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to show me why the word homosex is prejudicial. It, to differentiate it from heterosex, which is a word.

If you bothered to check, you'd note that homosex isn't a word in most dictionaries. It is listed as a slang term in Collins, but that's about it. The entries in the Urban dictionary don't even give your implied meaning.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

No, as on the face of it, they aren't making a judgment about the person or the act.

Indeed. Now, back to Folau. He is issuing general advice to people who are going to be travelling to a place (the judgment seat of God) where their actions will be viewed differently than they are here and now.

He is not the legislator. His job is per the dept of tourism.

Unless you can show where he specifically condemns particular sinners for their particular sins himself. Where he becomes the judicial department, for example.

Saying that gay people deserve punishment for either being gay or for having sex is hateful.

You have been asked and have, as far as I know failed, to produce Folau saying they deserve punishment. He has published "the law of the land" produced by another department, the Legislature.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

If you bothered to check, you'd note that homosex isn't a word in most dictionaries. It is listed as a slang term in Collins, but that's about it. The entries in the Urban dictionary don't even give your implied meaning.

Forgive the error. Since heterosex exists, it's not a stretch to assume homosex exists. Indeed, it won't be long now probably until it does. Equality drive being what it is.

Prejudicial. Show how.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

He is not the legislator. His job is per the dept of tourism.

Lol.
His next job perhaps.
:rolleyes:

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Could you please at least define it?

I don't need to define homosexual sex anymore than I need to define heterosexual sex. When heterosexuals say "we went home and had sex" I take the context of their saying so to arrive at my own understanding of what happened.

So far so equal.

When I say homosex (a shortened version of homosexual sex) I mean exactly what I mean when I say heterosex (a shortened version of heterosexual sex)

So far so equal. Whatever lack of absolute clarity exists in the one, exists in the other.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't need to define homosexual sex anymore than I need to define heterosexual sex. When heterosexuals say "we went home and had sex" I take the context of their saying so to arrive at my own understanding of what happened.

So anything goes. Cool.

And lesbians? Is sex between sinful or not?

antiskeptic wrote: »

When we say homosex (a shortened version of homosexual sex)

When YOU say it.
No one else uses that term.

Why not just say "gay sex"?
Or you know... "sex".

batgoat

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. Now, back to Folau. He is issuing general advice to people who are going to be travelling to a place (the judgment seat of God) where their actions will be viewed differently than they are here and now.

He is not the legislator. His job is per the dept of tourism.

Unless you can show where he specifically condemns particular sinners for their particular sins himself. Where he becomes the judicial department, for example.

You have been asked and have, as far as I know failed, to produce Folau saying they deserve punishment. He has published "the law of the land" produced by another department, the Legislature.

That may be one of the most ridiculous arguments ever. Ask you're arguing that he's doing a travel advisory that heaven is incredibly homophobic in terms of legislation?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Why not just say "gay sex"?
Or you know... "sex".

Gay/Straight tend towards slang. The proper terms are homosexual and heterosexual.

What's offensive about homosex (given it's equivalent: heterosex?)?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to show me why the word homosex is prejudicial.

It probably comes down to what language is - a system shared between individuals with differing beliefs concerning what exactly each word means, and what political implications arise from the use of each word, in the context within which each is used.

In the case of your use of the term "homosex", we have - for example - this post which ridicules your use of the term and a second post which informs you that it's a prejudicial term and requests, politely, that you don't use it.

From the perspective of forum moderation, I'm happy that fourteen of your fellow posters agreeing with the ridiculing amounts to fairly conclusive proof that the word doesn't mean what you claim it means. Perhaps you could update your faulty understanding of the word in the light of the reaction from your fellow posters?

And anyway, if you want your point of view discussed with some degree of respect rather than laughed at, then it's really in your own interest to avoid using terms which invite ridicule.

antiskeptic

batgoat wrote: »

Ask you're arguing that he's doing a travel advisory that heaven is incredibly homophobic in terms of legislation?

He's not commenting on the merits or otherwise of the legislation. He's merely stating it as it is, by way of warning folk on the way there.

Your job is to show that that's hate speech.