NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an update on this old thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519489) (which was inappropriately named).

The girl sued the school after she was reprimanded for saying "That's so gay." The court has decided against her--saying she had no case.

Judge Rules in 'That's So Gay' Case
LISA LEFF Associated Press

(AP) - SANTA ROSA, Calif.-A judge ruled Tuesday that a high school student who sued after being disciplined and then mercilessly teased for using the phrase "That's so gay" is not entitled to monetary damages.

Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing said she sympathized with 18-year-old Rebekah Rice for the ridicule she experienced at Maria Carrillo High School. But, the judge said, Rice's lawyers failed to prove that school administrators had violated any state laws or singled the girl out for punishment.



"All of us have probably felt at some time that we were unfairly punished by a callous teacher, or picked on and teased by boorish and uncaring bullies," the judge wrote in a 20-page ruling. "Unfortunately, this is part of what teenagers endure in becoming adults."

The law "is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorily soothe deeply hurt feelings," Rushing said.

The case filed by Rice and her parents in 2003 brought widespread attention to a three-word phrase that some teenagers use to mean "stupid" or "uncool," but has come under attack as an insensitive insult to gay people.

The Rices argued that a teacher violated Rebekah Rice's First Amendment rights by sending her to the principal's office and putting a note in her school file. During a trial in February, Rebekah Rice testified she said "That's so gay" as a response to other students asking her rude questions about her Mormon upbringing.

Rushing said the school district was not liable for monetary damages because the law under which the Rices brought the lawsuit specifically excludes schools. In addition, she said that school officials are given wide latitude in deciding how to enforce non-discrimination provisions of the state education code.

The judge added that it didn't make sense to have the referral stricken from the girl's school record, since she graduated last year.

The lawsuit also accused the public high school of having a double standard because, it said, administrators never sought to shield Rebekah from teasing based on Mormon stereotypes. It also alleged that the Rices were singled out because of the family's conservative views on sexuality.

Rushing rejected each claim, going so far as to suggest that the Rices had created a miserable situation for Rebekah by advertising their dissatisfaction with the school's handling of the incident during her freshman year.

Neither the Rices nor their lawyer returned telephone calls seeking comment from The Associated Press.

2007-05-16T03:20:21Z
linky (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/05-16-2007/667d0015b499d88d.html)

Oh good... one less stupid lawsuit.

That's gay.

That's gay.

Don't be an ass.

1) you shouldn't use that phrase

2) the girl didn't deserve to win the lawsuit

3) your attempt at humor is too predictable and shallow

That's gay.

*reprimands NG*

good. She wouldn't have won, even if the case wasn't dropped.

*reprimands NG*

**represents NG in a lawsuit**

**loses**

**kicks a wall**

good. She wouldn't have won, even if the case wasn't dropped.

Maybe I was unclear. The case wasn't dropped. She did lose.

i sort of remember the original thread.

now that i see that she was suing over, in essence, the teacher being mean to her im glad that it got thrown out. it didnt deserve monetary compensation.

Don't be an ass.

1) you shouldn't use that phrase

2) the girl didn't deserve to win the lawsuit

3) your attempt at humor is too predictable and shallow

That's totally gay.

Don't be an ass.

1) you shouldn't use that phrase


Ahh, but that's really gay!

*sees where this thread is going. Bails NOW*

*sees where this thread is going. Bails NOW*

Yeah, I forget how easy it is to overestimate the maturity of NSG.

Yeah, I forget how easy it is to overestimate the maturity of NSG.To be fair you did say 'don't say that'. Now you should know better than to do that. It opens up a shit storm.

What's fucked up is that even I thought that joke was too easy.

Yeah, I forget how easy it is to overestimate the maturity of NSG.

I do try and participate constructively in discussions, but sometimes it's just so much fun to spam things up.

Yeah, I forget how easy it is to overestimate the maturity of NSG.

It's all your fault. You have no one to blame but yourself.

It's all your fault. You have no one to blame but yourself.

*aglees*

Rushing rejected each claim, going so far as to suggest that the Rices had created a miserable situation for Rebekah by advertising their dissatisfaction with the school's handling of the incident during her freshman year

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I wish the lawsuite went through, it's clear the school had a double standard by going after her for saying that, yet not going after the people who ridiculed her because she's Mormon. Well I guess that's one more word I need to striken from my list

Don't be an ass.

1) you shouldn't use that phrase


*Holds up Bill of Rights. Walks away.*

*Holds up Bill of Rights. Walks away.*

*points out Bill of Rights isn't relevant*

*walks away whistling*

*points out Bill of Rights isn't relevant*

*walks away whistling*

That's gay!

*points out Bill of Rights isn't relevant*

*walks away whistling*

(*Ignoring the moral abridgement there and proceeding to argue why I put it...*)
Erm, you didn't mention school in t3h qu0te. You said "shouldn't use", not "at school"; thus, you sounded like it was a phrase to NEVER use. Clarity, it's nice.

Moral abridgment?

Double standard based on arbitrary factor.

(*Ignoring the moral abridgement there and proceeding to argue why I put it...*)
Erm, you didn't mention school in t3h qu0te. You said "shouldn't use", not "at school"; thus, you sounded like it was a phrase to NEVER use. Clarity, it's nice.

Moral abridgment? The Bill of Rights isn't relevant in this discussion, Cat's not the government (yay!).

*Realizes he actually may know a small bit of constitutional law. Realizes Cat and Arthais' lawyering must be rubbing off. Decides to take a long shower.*

While it's good that the suit got dropped, the girl shouldn't have been punished. Saying "that's so gay" isn't the worse thing in the world.

(*Ignoring the moral abridgement there and proceeding to argue why I put it...*)
Erm, you didn't mention school in t3h qu0te. You said "shouldn't use", not "at school"; thus, you sounded like it was a phrase to NEVER use. Clarity, it's nice.

I meant exactly what I said. No one should use that phrase, just as one should avoid other epiteths.

It's not a First Amendment issue because I'm not saying you should be locked up or otherwise punished by the government for using the phrase. I'm just saying it is insensitive and offensive and should be avoided.

While it's good that the suit got dropped, the girl shouldn't have been punished. Saying "that's so gay" isn't the worse thing in the world.

Page 2 and the sensible thing to do was revealed? ALREADY??!!

Well, this thread will now only descend into the "I know what's good for you, SO SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I TELL YOU!" vs "OMG!!!! T3H 1984 crimethink thinkpol!!!111!!!!1!!1" argument.

(Personally, I prefer the second side myself)

While it's good that the suit got dropped, the girl shouldn't have been punished. Saying "that's so gay" isn't the worse thing in the world.

I imagine the logic is that they need to fight intolerance and its ilk wherever it's found.

Kinda like how George W Bush vowed to fight terrorism wherever it's found...

I meant exactly what I said. No one should use that phrase, just as one should avoid other epiteths.

It's not a First Amendment issue because I'm not saying you should be locked up or otherwise punished by the government for using the phrase. I'm just saying it is insensitive and offensive and should be avoided.

Why? Do words hurt?

*Watches as this thread avoids the point altogether and turns into 800 people making the same "that's so gay" joke over and over and then complaining that anyone suggesting they shouldn't is violating their misunderstood rights*

Why? Do words hurt?

Yes, yes, they do. Saying words will never hurt me is great for the schoolyard but it's entirely false. Most people accept that such a phrase is false when they reach adulthood and recognize that the world is more complicated than "I'm rubber, you're glue".

While it's good that the suit got dropped, the girl shouldn't have been punished.

1. Again, to be clear, the case wasn't dropped. It was decided against her.

2. The girl was merely reprimanded. No detention, suspension, or other punishment. She violated school policy and got the appropriate treatment. (Although the kids that teased her about being Mormon should also have been punished)>

Saying "that's so gay" isn't the worse thing in the world.

That isn't exactly the standard we use in enforcing decorum and civic virtues in school.

Calling someone a ****** isn't "the worse thing in the world," but one should expect to be reprimanded if one does so in school.

*Watches as this thread avoids the point altogether and turns into 800 people making the same "that's so gay" joke over and over and then complaining that anyone suggesting they shouldn't is violating their misunderstood rights*

(Ignoring the obvious moral (i.e., what SHOULD be) vs legal (what the government says) rights debate there...)

Yup, that's about it.

Why? Do words hurt?

Um... yes?

Yes, yes, they do.

Have you ever gotten a cut/bruise/wound from an insult?

Have you ever gotten a cut/bruise/wound from an insult?

Yes, this crazy 'chink' took a 'yid' and hit me with it.

I meant exactly what I said. No one should use that phrase, just as one should avoid other epiteths.

It's not a First Amendment issue because I'm not saying you should be locked up or otherwise punished by the government for using the phrase. I'm just saying it is insensitive and offensive and should be avoided.

TCT, I'm sorry, but you are expecting too much if you think a large portion of NSG isn't going to get excited that they've thought of a joke that is completely obvious and not all that funny. Having an intelligent or reasonable discussion isn't what that large portion of NSG is interested in.

Have you ever gotten a cut/bruise/wound from an insult?

Because that's the only kind of injury that can happen. I mean, unless you live in the real world where things are more complicated that hit points and how much physical damage you can take.

Have you ever gotten a cut/bruise/wound from an insult?

Do you know what "hurt" means?

Hint: Generally it's a little broader than "physically injure."

Yes, this crazy 'chink' took a 'yid' and hit me with it.

I pictured the Mencia episode, personally

Yes, because that's the only kind of injury that can happen. I mean, unless you live in the real world where things are more complicated that hit points and how much physical damage you can take.

Heeyyy, there's subdual damage too!

Anyway, while the girl is right about the double-standard (the kids teasing her about being Mormon should've received the same punishment), the suit is just laughable. I'm glad the courts decided against her.

Do you know what "hurt" means?

Hint: Generally it's a little broader than "physically injure."

I mean does the direct action cause harm?

A quote I know adequately explains these 1- word, 1 time insults:

"Words have no power, unless you give it to them."

The problem is with people taking ONE QUICK insult seriously

Why?

Because it is rude, offensive, unnecessary, could hurt peoples feelings, etc, etc.

Do words hurt?

Um, yes. But that is beside the point. There are other reasons not to use that phrase and no good reason for using it.

I mean does the direct action cause harm?

Yes. It does.

"Words have no power, unless you give it to them."

"Physical injuries have no power, unless you can give it to them."

All suffering depends on caring about something. But most of us, being social creatures who live among and value the opinions of others, care not only about physical injury but also about insults.

Yeah, I forget how easy it is to overestimate the maturity of NSG.just like saying "don't look down." People will look down.

*Holds up Bill of Rights. Walks away.**points out Bill of Rights isn't relevant*

*walks away whistling* Great... stick me with the bill again... :mad: :p

Why? Do words hurt?yes they do.

Have you ever gotten a cut/bruise/wound from an insult? yes, people's Self-Esteem, Self-Confidence, Self-Image, Attitudes, as well as Emotional stability, and other areas of the psyche are cut, bruised, wounded, built up, healed and bolstered by words.

TCT, I'm sorry, but you are expecting too much if you think a large portion of NSG isn't going to get excited that they've thought of a joke that is completely obvious and not all that funny. Having an intelligent or reasonable discussion isn't what that large portion of NSG is interested in.

I fully recognize that I will have to merely ignore the most juvenile comments.

At least some people are capable of discussion.

Um, yes. But that is beside the point. There are other reasons not to use that phrase and no good reason for using it.

1) and they are?
2) sure there is: the fact that the word has evolved to label stupidity.

Just as 'democracy' is now used to cover republics and democracies alike, rather than the "people's rule" (demo- people cracy- rule)

Do you know what "hurt" means?

Hint: Generally it's a little broader than "physically injure."

If I don't lose hit points, then it doesn't hurt. Don't you know anything?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hurt

I get so annoyed with this fallacious and silly idea that as long as I don't kick you in the shin I can't possibly hurt you. Nevermind that there are things like slander and libel (two laws based on the FACT that words hurt) and laws about yelling fire in a theater or making false accusations.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.



Not really. Being a Freshman in HS is awkward enough. People are ridiculed for being Freshman. That adds stress. Now, add on to that the fact that this girls parents sued for damages brought on by being punished and having it attached to her school record. That would cause ridicule from fellow students. Would cause for a highly miserable time in HS I would think.

Personally I think it was a dumb thing to sue over and ask for money for damages.

*Realizes he actually may know a small bit of constitutional law. Realizes Cat and Arthais' lawyering must be rubbing off.

It's a miracle!

Decides to take a long shower.*

I should have probably done that years ago.....

2) sure there is: the fact that the word has evolved to label stupidity.

So associating being gay with being stupid is not objectionable to you at all?

1) and they are?

I listed several in the post to which you are responding.

But the bottom line is that it denigrates and insults homosexuals.

2) sure there is: the fact that the word has evolved to label stupidity.

1. That's a "good reason" to use an epiteth?

2. Only because some people have equated being gay with stupidity.

Just as 'democracy' is now used to cover republics and democracies alike, rather than the "people's rule" (demo- people cracy- rule)

Gee, I don't think the word "democracy" demeans anyone. But if it did, I might find other words in my vocabulary to use.

1) and they are?
2) sure there is: the fact that the word has evolved to label stupidity.

Just as 'democracy' is now used to cover republics and democracies alike, rather than the "people's rule" (demo- people cracy- rule)

I am endlessly amazed by the people on NSG who honestly argue that using "gay" to mean "stupid" or "bad" is not an insult to gay people. You really don't think it would be insulting to black people if I used "black" to mean "stupid," or insulting to women if I used "feminine" to mean "useless"? Really?

I mean does the direct action cause harm?

A quote I know adequately explains these 1- word, 1 time insults:

"Words have no power, unless you give it to them."

The problem is with people taking ONE QUICK insult seriously

The problem that is a simplistic and unrealistic way of viewing the world. Not only do words hurt but almost all harm perpetrated on you by others in your life will be with words. The fact that you would dismiss said harm as non-existent doesn't make it cease to exist. It simply makes you unaware and unprepared to deal with the world as it exists.

1) and they are?
2) sure there is: the fact that the word has evolved to label stupidity.

Just as 'democracy' is now used to cover republics and democracies alike, rather than the "people's rule" (demo- people cracy- rule)

That's because a republic is a representative democracy, a type of rule by people. The word was created in contrast to governments where the people are not involved. It seems "hurt" isn't the only word you don't know the meaning of.

I am endlessly amazed by the people on NSG who honestly argue that using "gay" to mean "stupid" or "bad" is not an insult to gay people. You really don't think it would be insulting to black people if I used "black" to mean "stupid," or insulting to women if I used "feminine" to mean "useless"? Really?

Gay used to mean happy, then it went to homosexual and now it's going to stupid.

The word was created in contrast to governments where the people are not involved.

(The word was created long ago in a system where all citizens ruled and has only since been altered to suit needs.)

The problem that is a simplistic and unrealistic way of viewing the world. Not only do words hurt but almost all harm perpetrated on you by others in your life will be with words. The fact that you would dismiss said harm as non-existent doesn't make it cease to exist. It simply makes you unaware and unprepared to deal with the world as it exists.

Here's a scenario:

I walk up to someone and say,"You are stupid/retarded/gay/whatever."
They are unchanged and walk away.


Explain.

(The word was created long ago in a system where all citizens ruled and has only since been altered to suit needs.)

Link?

Here's a scenario:

I walk up to someone and say,"You are stupid/retarded/gay/whatever."
They are unchanged and walk away.


Explain.

Um, how do you measure that they are unchanged? Meanwhile, even assuming they are unchanged how does the fact that words sometimes do not hurt mean that they never hurt? Logic is another word you're not too good with or do you recognize the fallacy here in your statements?

I listed several in the post to which you are responding.

But the bottom line is that it denigrates and insults homosexuals.

Ask homosexuals who use the line if it insults them.

1. That's a "good reason" to use an epiteth?

2. Only because some people have equated being gay with stupidity.

1) Yes, since we already use it, we get it. The point of language is to make common understanding.
2) I coulda sworn it was associated with being evil by the anti-gays...


Gee, I don't think the word "democracy" demeans anyone. But if it did, I might find other words in my vocabulary to use.

Point missed entirely.

People have free speech. Period.

Anyway, while the girl is right about the double-standard (the kids teasing her about being Mormon should've received the same punishment).

Here's the big question.

How do you know they didn't?

People have free speech. Period.

really? Next time you're in a movie theater, go yell fire at the top of your lungs. Tell us how that turns out, k?

Link?

Well, I don't have a link but the society of Ancient Athens.

Gay used to mean happy, then it went to homosexual and now it's going to stupid.

If you think that the origins of the definition of the word "gay" meaning "stupid" is not directly, explicitly, and intrinsicly tied to the definition of the word "gay" meaning "homosexual" then that is just willful ignorance.

how does the fact that words sometimes do not hurt mean that they never hurt?

Again, missing point.

The point was that words only have power if you give it to them.

BTW, I see no fallacy.

1) Yes, since we already use it, we get it. The point of language is to make common understanding.
2) I coulda sworn it was associated with being evil by the anti-gays...

So, just because everyone understands that gay=stupid, a definition created by the "anti-gays", means that we should be okay with it?

If you think that the origins of the definition of the word "gay" meaning "stupid" is not directly, explicitly, and intrinsicly tied to the definition of the word "gay" meaning "homosexual" then that is just willful ignorance.

1) Intrinsically
2) Origins have nothing to do with modern meaning. (Again, gay meant happy. No connection to modern meaning)

Here's the big question.

How do you know they didn't?

Fair enough, though the lawsuit in part was because the school created a double standard by not punishing the other kids.

So, just because everyone understands that gay=stupid, a definition created by the "anti-gays", means that we should be okay with it?

Since everyone understands, yes.

Since everyone understands, yes.

Understanding does not necessitate acceptance, especially when a word that identifies a group of people is used to mean stupid.

Again, missing point.

The point was that words only have power if you give it to them.

BTW, I see no fallacy.

I recognize that you don't realize the fallacy or you wouldn't use it. It doesn't make it less fallacious. I did explain the fallacy. It's unfortunate that went past you.

Meanwhile, I'll explain again, since you think showing the flaw in your logic is missing the point. Giving an example where they "power' is under the control of the victim doesn't make it always true. For example, if I report you as a child molestor and they take your children away, did you give me that power or did I take it? I think the answer is apparent.

If I lie about you in court and it results in you ending up in jail, did that hurt? Was it only because YOU gave it power or is it because in the real world words have power?

Again, just becuase your understanding is simplistic doesn't make the concept simplistic. Saying that people are missing the point because you don't understand their arguments isn't helping your cause.

1) Intrinsically
2) Origins have nothing to do with modern meaning. (Again, gay meant happy. No connection to modern meaning)

This is modern meaning. Your ignorance does not make for an argument.

Hey, ****** just means black person. It can't hurt anyone. Go ahead and start flinging that word around. But if you do, tell me where you're going to do it so I can ensure the right people hear it and can tape the incident. I mean, it can't possibly be dangerous for you, because words can never cause harm.

Minaris, it's not just the listener who empowers words. but the Speaker as well.

really? Next time you're in a movie theater, go yell fire at the top of your lungs. Tell us how that turns out, k?

Calling someone gay doesn't cause them any more harm then calling them an idiot. Most people shouldn't even care. It's a juvenile and idiotic choice of words, but as NSG proves every day, we have a RIGHT to be juvenile and idiotic, by god!

I recognize that you don't realize the fallacy or you wouldn't use it. It doesn't make it less fallacious. I did explain the fallacy. It's unfortunate that went past you.

My words meant what I said. Assigning false meaning does not make you right about the wrongness that wasn't there.

Meanwhile, I'll explain again, since you think showing the flaw in your logic is missing the point. Giving an example where they "power' is under the control of the victim doesn't make it always true. For example, if I report you as a child molestor and they take your children away, did you give me that power or did I take it? I think the answer is apparent.

Action, not word.

If I lie about you in court and it results in you ending up in jail, did that hurt? Was it only because YOU gave it power or is it because in the real world words have power?

Action, not word

Again, just becuase your understanding is simplistic doesn't make the concept simplistic. Saying that people are missing the point because you don't understand their arguments isn't helping your cause.

*Looks above*

Oh, the hypocrisy.




Well, with that I realize that neither of us will get anywhere so I'm gonna save us the time and let this one go.


And to you who say I am being stubborn and not admitting some imaginary wrong: I'm just saving us time, that's it. Period. I am not changed by these less than effective arguments.

*Leaves*

Well, I don't have a link but the society of Ancient Athens.

Yes, the society that also used representation. The fact is that the modern representative democracy was 2000 years later created does not change the fact that direct democracy and indirect democracy are both types of democracy and the second was developed from the principles of the first and adhering to the underlying and specific principle of what makes a democracy which is why the word still applies. Democracy just means "government by the people". Representative democracies are exactly that.

Meanwhile, how does the fact that words evolve help your case that a currently offensive term derived from the idea that being gay is insult is not currently offensive.

It's an offensive term. You're refusal to follow that relatively obvious point doesn't change it.

1) Intrinsically

Oh my god, you caught a spelling error from someone who is admittedly a horrid speller.

Congratulations, you win teh intertubes!

2) Origins have nothing to do with modern meaning. (Again, gay meant happy. No connection to modern meaning)

1) a parenthetical appears before a period, not after it.

2) the modern meaning of "gay = stupid" was directly adopted to be anti-homosexual. The modern meaning is inherently a bigotted one. SO yes, origins do have to do with the modern meaning, if the origin of the definition was specifically designed to propogate a belief.

Claims that "that's so gay" is not homophobic is, as i said, willfully dilusional. Frankly speaking, the only people who try to scream at the top of their lungs that "it only USED to mean homosexual, now it means stupid too!" are only those who have a vested interest in spewing homophobia, while at the same time seeming polite.

Sort of like those "hey, blacks can say black power, isn't it unfair that we get called racist if we say white power?" folks.

My words meant what I said. Assigning false meaning does not make you right about the wrongness that wasn't there.

I see you don't understand what a logical fallacy is. The fact is that we are talking about a general point. As such creating a scenario that works in specific instances does not help your point. Do I need to explain to you that offering a specific example doesn't prove a general case or do you recognize this as a fallacy?



Action, not word.

The action I took was using words. Only words


Action, not word

Again, the action I took was using words. Only words.


*Looks above*

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Again, just because you don't follow doesn't make your case. You do recognize that in every case I've given I only used words which is no different than an insult. You admit that I caused harm and you've not shown I used anything other than words to do so. You do know how a debate works, no? Or are you trying to lose?


Well, with that I realize that neither of us will get anywhere so I'm gonna save us the time and let this one go.

I would were I you. You've been repeatedly trying to support your point with a number of logical fallacies. It's not salvagable. However, this is the typical tactic of "Oh, goodness I'm losing. I'll just pretend I'm stepping out in order to be the bigger man." Yep. NEVER seen that one before. It's always impressive.



And to you who say I am being stubborn and not admitting some imaginary wrong: I'm just saving us time, that's it. Period. I am not changed by these less than effective arguments.

*Leaves*

You've lost. We know it even if you don't. Claiming you have another reason for leaving, even repeating it, doesn't change that fact.

The honorable thing to do would have been to accept your fallacious arguments were *gasp* fallacious and bow respectfully and leave. You chose to pretend you had other reasons. How disappointing.

Oh my god, you caught a spelling error from someone who is admittedly a horrid speller.

Congratulations, you win teh intertubes!



1) a parenthetical appears before a period, not after it.

2) the modern meaning of "gay = stupid" was directly adopted to be anti-homosexual. The modern meaning is inherently a bigotted one. SO yes, origins do have to do with the modern meaning, if the origin of the definition was specifically designed to propogate a belief.

Claims that "that's so gay" is not homophobic is, as i said, willfully dilusional. Frankly speaking, the only people who try to scream at the top of their lungs that "it only USED to mean homosexual, now it means stupid too!" are only those who have a vested interest in spewing homophobia, while at the same time seeming polite.

Sort of like those "hey, blacks can say black power, isn't it unfair that we get called racist if we say white power?" folks.

Boo. He got tired of getting pounded so he took his ball and went home. Now where is our fun?

Anyone else got some fallacies to rest their argument on?

Boo. He got tired of getting pounded so he took his ball and went home. Now where is our fun?

Anyone else got some fallacies to rest their argument on?

... let see...

nope, I got nothing that would be near as entertaining as that one was...

Popcorn? *offers Popcorn to Jocabia, TCT and NA*

Boo. He got tired of getting pounded so he took his ball and went home. Now where is our fun?

Anyone else got some fallacies to rest their argument on?

*Some horrifyingly homophobic strawman*

LET'S RUUUMMMBLLEEEEEE!!!

Boo. He got tired of getting pounded so he took his ball and went home. Now where is our fun?

Anyone else got some fallacies to rest their argument on?

umm....oh, I got one!

The homosexual community should just grow up and deal with it! People get away with taunting whites all the time!

Enjoy!

Yes, this crazy 'chink' took a 'yid' and hit me with it.

A Chinese person hit you with a Jew? Freakishly strong guy.

umm....oh, I got one!

The homosexual community should just grow up and deal with it! People get away with taunting whites all the time!

Enjoy!

The homosexuals should get over it because Whites get taunted...BWUH? Explain that in reasonable terms, if you can. Many homosexuals (wait for it...) are White.

Oh, please. Taunting Whites? Please give me any example you can dredge up of that. There are no insults for being White that have any meaning or deep significance whatsoever.

Blue-eyed Devil?
Gray boy?
Honky?

Sorry. Not even close to the history and insidiousness of a genuinely-intended hurling of "******" or "faggot" or any of the others.

umm....oh, I got one!

The homosexual community should just grow up and deal with it! People get away with taunting whites all the time!

Enjoy!

Still not as good as referring to the "stupid" being the modern definition of "gay" as if the term isn't completely and closely tied to "homosexual" and as if the reason for it being used as an insult isn't because of the recognized definition of it as "homosexual".

I just love that absurd concept. It's like saying that me calling you a retard isn't insulting because it doesn't mean "mentally challenged" anymore.

A Chinese person hit you with a Jew? Freakishly strong guy.

Alternatively, I suppose the Jew in question could just be particularly small.

You guys have anihilated my argument. Um, I mean, no, no, I'm just leaving because I can see we won't settle this and as such I'm going to be the bigger man and let things rest. The fact that you've shown definitively that my argument is a logical fallacy is just coincidence. Wait, I mean... um, what's a fallacy?

Ok let me address specific bits and pieces here:

1) For writing down "That's so gay" in her notes the school had no right to send her to the principals office or put her in anykind of trouble because of her first amendmant rights

2) As for the bullying because of her Mormon upbringing unless physical
harm was done once again first amendmant rights give the bullies the rights to say what they want

3) As for monetary compinsasion I feel thats a bit excessive bu tif the teacher punished her for saying "thats so gay" the teacher should be punished

PS: I really dislike it when schools punish people for saying things they try to pass it off as 'harrasment' or 'schools have the right to (insert crap here)'

Ok let me address specific bits and pieces here:

1) For writing down "That's so gay" in her notes the school had no right to send her to the principals office or put her in anykind of trouble because of her first amendmant rights

2) As for the bullying because of her Mormon upbringing unless physical
harm was done once again first amendmant rights give the bullies the rights to say what they want

PS: I really dislike it when schools punish people for saying things they try to pass it off as 'harrasment' or 'schools have the right to (insert crap here)'


First amendment rights do not apply here. Everything that has to do with speech isn't protected by the first amendment. THe first amendment recognizes your right to express ideas. It doesn't say you can do them wherever and whenever you like.

The homosexuals should get over it because Whites get taunted...BWUH? Explain that in reasonable terms, if you can. Many homosexuals (wait for it...) are White.

Umm...you do realize that post was a joke, don't you?


Oh, please. Taunting Whites? Please give me any example you can dredge up of that. There are no insults for being White that have any meaning or deep significance whatsoever.

Honky, Cracker, I can continue if you want...

That lawsuit was so Mormon.

Ok let me address specific bits and pieces here:

1) For writing down "That's so gay" in her notes the school had no right to send her to the principals office or put her in anykind of trouble because of her first amendmant rights

2) As for the bullying because of her Mormon upbringing unless physical
harm was done once again first amendmant rights give the bullies the rights to say what they want

3) As for monetary compinsasion I feel thats a bit excessive bu tif the teacher punished her for saying "thats so gay" the teacher should be punished

PS: I really dislike it when schools punish people for saying things they try to pass it off as 'harrasment' or 'schools have the right to (insert crap here)'

*sigh* The First Amendment means that the federal government cannot punish you under the law for engaging in protected forms of free expression. Some quick questions:

1. Is a high school principal the federal government?

2. Does a verbal reprimand given by said principal in any way constitute punishment under the law?

See if you can figure out the answers! (Hint: They're both "no.")

That lawsuit was so Mormon.

Nah, it was totally Asian.

*nod*

Umm...you do realize that post was a joke, don't you?

I was just going to let it slide. After all, I'm new here. Ya'll haven't had a chance to get used to my so-called "sense of humour"



Honky, Cracker, I can continue if you want...

I would agree here, however. They're words that are used for the same reasons as calling someone "******" or "chink" or whathaveyou. But I've noticed whites have a tendency to just laugh such things off, and as such we tend to wonder why others can't just do the same.

But I've noticed whites have a tendency to just laugh such things off, and as such we tend to wonder why others can't just do the same.

Because some people can't get over themselves. I'm sorry you were oppressed, but please drop the persecution complex. It's tiresome for the race card to be played in everything.

Why? Do words hurt?

Once again I must referance George Carlin. After the whole Don Imus thing I happened to be watching Mike and Mikew in the morning on ESPN 2 and the skinny guy reminded me of a quote by George.

"There are no bad words.Words are meaningless it's the power you give to them."

For example oh lets flip to a random word in the dictionary...haplont.

Ok, now think for a minute what does haplont mean to you?

Ok you thought it is defined as such: haplont-(n) an organism with somatic cells having the haploid chromosone number and only the zygote diploid

So obviously its some sort of creature but for all you new it could have meant go **** yourself or live long and prosper, but we assigned it niether of those powers we assigned it to be, an organism with somatic cells having the haploid chromosone number and only the zygote diploid. Now you can go outside right now and yell out to someone haplont!! They moght know what it means they might noit. I seriously doubt they know what it means. So they will either take it positively like live long and prosper or negitively like go **** yourself and act accordingly.

Heres another simpler example people in England call a flashlight a torch. TO me if someone was talking about a torch unless they gave up some distintive characteristic like batteries or fire I, an American, would assume they were talking about a long, thick wooden stick that was burning slowly by fire emmiting light. Now torch is niether positive nor negetive. Either meaning reffers to a nutruel inanatimate object. However we assigned to it the power of either the fire or electrical meaning.

Well that girl is not just a shallow dipshit, but she also sucks at being a Mormon.

Well that girl is not just a shallow dipshit, but she also sucks at being a Mormon.

You think so? She sounds positively Mormonic to me.

Well, I don't have a link but the society of Ancient Athens.

Only male landowners could vote, and even then they elected representatives.

That girl Rice deserves to be reprimanded or even fined for wasting time and taxpayer dollars on such an inane case.

That's so gay.

A few things...

First and foremost, just because we have the freedom to say whatever we want does not mean we should say whatever we want. I once read in a comic something about power and responsibility.

Second, one reason schools ban insulting language is to avoid fights. Schools also have the thankless job of trying to teach these children to be productive members of society. That's kinda hard if they are sitting around insulting each other.

Finally, would you tell some that you think is ripping you off "Don't try to jew me" , call a knife a "****** sticker" or tell a women that some outstanding quality of hers is "really good... for a girl." If you find these offensive, then why not "That's so gay"? (if you don't find them offensive then you have other issues)

I fully support the First Amendment, but we must take responsiblity for our own actions too or the Government will.

First and foremost, just because we have the freedom to say whatever we want does not mean we should say whatever we want. I once read in a comic something about power and responsibility.
Was it a comic about a guy who was bitten by a radio-active spider which drove him to wear a blue and red costume to imitate the creature he was bitten by?

Ok let me address specific bits and pieces here:

1) For writing down "That's so gay" in her notes the school had no right to send her to the principals office or put her in anykind of trouble because of her first amendmant rights

2) As for the bullying because of her Mormon upbringing unless physical
harm was done once again first amendmant rights give the bullies the rights to say what they want

3) As for monetary compinsasion I feel thats a bit excessive bu tif the teacher punished her for saying "thats so gay" the teacher should be punished


And now to respond to this post, we have morbo

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you Morbo

Was it a comic about a guy who was bitten by a radio-active spider which drove him to wear a blue and red costume to imitate the creature he was bitten by?

Oh, you've read it too? ;)

Oh, you've read it too? ;)

I was commenting on the brilliance of referencing some one who thinks wearing a red and blue costume is imitative of a spider.

I was commenting on the brilliance of referencing some one who thinks wearing a red and blue costume is imitative of a spider.

Hey, all that I really need to know I've learned from comics!

While it's good that the suit got dropped, the girl shouldn't have been punished. Saying "that's so gay" isn't the worse thing in the world.

Would "that's so Jew" be acceptable?
"That's so black?"
"That's so white?"
"That's so Asian?"

If they're not acceptable to use to mean "negative", then why is "gay"?

Would "that's so Jew" be acceptable?
"That's so black?"
"That's so white?"
"That's so Asian?"

If they're not acceptable to use to mean "negative", then why is "gay"?

It depends on their intent. Words mean many things. If you keep taking away things that might offend, the language would get rather boring really fast.

Here's a scenario:

I walk up to someone and say,"You are stupid/retarded/gay/whatever."
They are unchanged and walk away.


Explain.

Or, you walk up to someone and say, ""You are stupid/retarded/gay/whatever."
Then they get angry and punch you in the mouth.

Which scenario seems more realistic?

Ok let me address specific bits and pieces here:

2) As for the bullying because of her Mormon upbringing unless physical
harm was done once again first amendmant rights give the bullies the rights to say what they want

PS: I really dislike it when schools punish people for saying things they try to pass it off as 'harrasment' or 'schools have the right to (insert crap here)'


Nope. Schools are mandated NOT to allow harassment -- which is what the bullies got away with. They should definitely have had their parents summoned to school, and parents and students alike should have been warned that further steps would be taken if the harassment did not cease.

Writing and saying untrue things about people is not covered under the first amendment either.l

Anything consituting a clear and present danger is not covered under the first amendment.

Would "that's so Jew" be acceptable?
"That's so black?"
"That's so white?"
"That's so Asian?"

If they're not acceptable to use to mean "negative", then why is "gay"?

Because a lot of people use "gay".
I know it's stupid, but it's true.


Gay'll either go to mean stupid totally or mean homosexual and stupid.
And don't say it can't be the first one.
Remember what "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" used to mean.

Anything consituting a clear and present danger is not covered under the first amendment.

How is her use of "that's so gay" a clear and present danger?

Because a lot of people use "gay".
I know it's stupid, but it's true.


Gay'll either go to mean stupid totally or mean homosexual and stupid.
And don't say it can't be the first one.
Remember what "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" used to mean.

I probably should warn my English friends to not talk about "smoking a fag" out here. ;)

Where did I ever say that it was?

My apologies. For some reason it read to me that you were going in that direction.

How is her use of "that's so gay" a clear and present danger?

Where did I ever say that it was?

How is her use of "that's so gay" a clear and present danger?

It isn't. Which is not relevant as a student in highschool is not covered under the full extent of the 1st amendment.

Censorship is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. Congress 'shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech'. This applies to all forms of life. Including public school.

Censorship is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. Congress 'shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech'. This applies to all forms of life. Including public school.

Once more, we have Morbo.

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

THE FIRST AMENDMENT STILL DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you again Morbo

Censorship is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. Congress 'shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech'. This applies to all forms of life. Including public school.

Right. CONGRESS shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech was not abridged here, any more than it was for Imus, Opie and Anthony, JV and Elvis, and any other shock jock suspended or fired for what they said.

There was no law against what she said, she was not punished because of a federal statute. However, the school acts in loco parentis and as such can enforce its dress and ethical codes, especially in areas like hate speech.

What should have been pursued here to the utmost was there clearly was a double standard in how different kinds of unacceptable behavior and speech was dealt with. Rather than sue sue sue! for their daughter's being punished for this phrase, the parents of this child should have demanded that the bullies be dealt with immediately. Why they decided to punish her for a single instance of saying this, while they allowed others to verbally abuse her with no punishment is beyond me.

What should have been pursued here to the utmost was there clearly was a double standard in how different kinds of unacceptable behavior and speech was dealt with. Rather than sue sue sue! for their daughter's being punished for this phrase, the parents of this child should have demanded that the bullies be dealt with immediately.

Once again I would like to point out that it was NEVER said they were NOT punished.

The article says:

The lawsuit also accused the public high school of having a double standard because, it said, administrators never sought to shield Rebekah from teasing based on Mormon stereotypes

It says they didn't "shield" her, which could mean as little as "they teased me and you didn't proactively stop them, or tell them to stop when they were doing it"

Not at all that they were not punished for it.

And, I would note, as pointed out....she lost.

I never said she should not have lost. Since no punishment of the bullies was mentioned, and it seemed that the parents of this girl seemed more interested in suing than in pursuing their daughter's being harassed, I said I thought they should have foregone the hoped-for payday and insisted the school end the bullying instead.

Why are people seemingly understanding things from my posts that I never in fact said?

Would "that's so Jew" be acceptable?
"That's so black?"
"That's so white?"
"That's so Asian?"

If they're not acceptable to use to mean "negative", then why is "gay"?

I think that if one is not offended by someone saying something is "gay", meaning bad, they are not allowed to get offended when anything else is used in this way.

I never said she should not have lost. Since no punishment of the bullies was mentioned, and it seemed that the parents of this girl seemed more interested in suing than in pursuing their daughter's being harassed, I said I thought they should have foregone the hoped-for payday and insisted the school end the bullying instead.

Why are people seemingly understanding things from my posts that I never in fact said?

How dare you. My mother was a saint.

I think that if one is not offended by someone saying something is "gay", meaning bad, they are not allowed to get offended when anything else is used in this way.

Rarely do I repeat myself TWICE in one thread, but:

If you think that the origins of the definition of the word "gay" meaning "stupid" is not directly, explicitly, and intrinsicly tied to the definition of the word "gay" meaning "homosexual" then that is just willful ignorance.

we're just too poltically correct in soceity. We have to step on egg shells it seems to avoid using politcally incorect language. Now if such speach was aimed at an actual gay person, sure I could understand but this was just to a bunch of brats who we're ridiculing her. I'm sorry but there are worse things you can say yet no one seems to mind. You can say F off! or F you or jew, (though I don't hear it often) even when the N Word other such language and yet not get in trouble for it. Frankley I would have given her a mild scolding and not worry further about it. I hear this word all the time along with Fag. Here is why I like my Government Teacher if you curse or use slurs like "fag" she makes you apologize and we move on, no federal case nothing.

Rarely do I repeat myself TWICE in one thread, but:

That's exactly what I meant. If you do not feel that using "Gay" to mean stupid is not acceptable, you should not be offended by using say, "black", or "Mexican".

I never said she should not have lost. Since no punishment of the bullies was mentioned, and it seemed that the parents of this girl seemed more interested in suing than in pursuing their daughter's being harassed, I said I thought they should have foregone the hoped-for payday and insisted the school end the bullying instead.

Why are people seemingly understanding things from my posts that I never in fact said?

*sigh* no, you missed my point, I fear you're putting words in my mouth. They CLAIMED that the school "did not shield her". They didn't say "they weren't punished". They did not say "nothing happened". In fact, I would note, that in general, non legal administrative punishment of minors, as a general rule, are NOT reported, due to privacy concerns of the minors.

They ONLY claimed that she was not properly "shielded". A claim that went nowhere. So yeah we don't know the bullies were punished, or were not. But I assume it would not be reported either way, because they would be minors.

This is an update on this old thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519489) (which was inappropriately named).

The girl sued the school after she was reprimanded for saying "That's so gay." The court has decided against her--saying she had no case.


linky (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/632/05-16-2007/667d0015b499d88d.html)

Stupid justices. And people wonder why no one trusts the courts anymore! This proves why.

I wonder how well "that's so christian!" will catch on?

Well, if Christians were regarded with fear and intolerance by a majority in the country, then it would catch on quite well, I imagine.

That's exactly what I meant. If you do not feel that using "Gay" to mean stupid is not acceptable, you should not be offended by using say, "black", or "Mexican".

oh, I see what you meant. Sure, I suppose yes, logically, if one is not offended by "that's so gay" to mean "that's so stupid", then substituting "gay" shouldn't offend anyone either, after all, it JUST means stupid.

I wonder how well "that's so christian!" will catch on?

Stupid justices. And people wonder why no one trusts the courts anymore! This proves why.

oh god, please don't tell me you're going to try to pretend you know what you're talking about when it comes to law again?

How dare you. My mother was a saint.

that's two futurama references in one thread! +10 points.

oh god, please don't tell me you're going to try to pretend you know what you're talking about when it comes to law again?

Saying "That's so gay" is not a fucking crime. Not my fault someone got all offended by it. Welcome to America. The first amendment promising freedom of speech is no longer valid.

I dislike everyone involved in this case.

Saying "That's so gay" is not a fucking crime. Not my fault someone got all offended by it. Welcome to America. The first amendment promising freedom of speech is no longer valid.

I may not like what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Some dude.

Or something like that.

Stupid justices. And people wonder why no one trusts the courts anymore! This proves why.

perhaps you would like to expand on why you think the courts should be artibiters of classroom discipline.

Saying "That's so gay" is not a fucking crime.

Indeed it is, at least by itself, not a crime.

Was she arrested?

No?

Then what was your point?

I may not like what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Some dude.

Or something like that.

Right on. I do not like what some people are saying but by gollie, I will die for them to say it. To bad the judge in this case does not follow what the first amendment says.

Saying "That's so gay" is not a fucking crime. Not my fault someone got all offended by it. Welcome to America. The first amendment promising freedom of speech is no longer valid.

perhaps so (although katganistan explained very well why it can be against school rules and merit punishment) but what does that have to do with the court case?

Indeed it is, at least by itself, not a crime.

Was she arrested?

No?

Then what was your point?

I think the point was it was treated like it was the most serious rule violation. Compared to say drug possesion having a weapon or evening beating someone up

Indeed it is, at least by itself, not a crime.

Was she arrested?

No?

Then what was your point?

The point is, she should have won this lawsuit based on the first amendment.

perhaps so (although katganistan explained very well why it can be against school rules and merit punishment) but what does that have to do with the court case?

First Amendment.

Right on. I do not like what some people are saying but by gollie, I will die for them to say it. To bad the judge in this case does not follow what the first amendment says.

let me make sure I understand this. Are you really, truly, HONESTLY going to sit here and tell us that you, with NO legal degree, NO law school training, NO formal advanced education in the law what so ever knows the constitution better than a fucking judge and the TWO lawyers who have been in this thread, including the OP?

This is after a history of being proven, not just argued with, not just debated, demonstrably PROVEN wrong on legal claims you have made time and time again?

Seriously?

really? What federal law was involved here? Particularly which federal statute was she proportedly in violation of? Which one, exactly?

Read up on the first amendment. It Garuntees freedom of speech. That is what was violated here.

This argument is so very gay.

The point is, she should have won this lawsuit based on the first amendment.

First Amendment.

really? What federal law was involved here? Particularly which federal statute was she proportedly in violation of? Which one, exactly?

Please, if you believe that her first amendment rights were in violation, which congressional law, or rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to congressional approval was unconstitutional.

Cite it.

Here is why I like my Government Teacher if you curse or use slurs like "fag" she makes you apologize and we move on, no federal case nothing.

This would, in fact, be more of a punishment than the girl in question was forced to endure. She received a verbal reprimand. That's IT.

Right on. I do not like what some people are saying but by gollie, I will die for them to say it. To bad the judge in this case does not follow what the first amendment says.

Sheesh, how many times in this thread does it need to be pointed out that a high school principal =/= the Congress of the United States of America? You'd really think the differences between the two would be obvious. For starters, the principal contains 534 fewer people, makes a heck of a lot less money, and, incidentally, has fuck-all to do with the First Amendment.

Read up on the first amendment. It Garuntees freedom of speech. That is what was violated here.

This argument is so very gay.

How the hell was her freedom of speech violated?

How the hell was her freedom of speech violated?

The fact that she got in trouble for saying "That's so gay"

How the hell was her freedom of speech violated?

"That's so gay!"
"WE MUST METE OUT PUNISHMENT! TO ARMS, MY TEACHING BROTHERS! TO ARMS!"

That's how her free speech was violated. In a very Norse Myth-esque way.

the courts shouldnt allow such frivilous lawsuits.

I agree with you 100%

The point is, she should have won this lawsuit based on the first amendment.

no, no she shouldnt have.

she was suing because she got sent to the principals office. the courts shouldnt allow such frivilous lawsuits.

Read up on the first amendment.

You mean this one?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Miss the emphasis?

Let's try again

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Still missing it?

Congress

What CONGRESSIONAL law was in violation of the first amendment here? Cite it for me, please, oh great legal scholar.

The point is, she should have won this lawsuit based on the first amendment.

The first amendment does NOT apply here.
What is so difficult to understand?

The Supreme Court has ruled many many times, the first time being in Miller v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California) that obscenity is not protected speech.

Not like it matters anyway, as schools have been allowed to enforce rules of conduct (including controlling what students say) in order to maintain a learning environment. It's the same reason you can't walk down the hallway in a school shouting "FUCK **** ASS TITS" without getting in trouble.

What in holy fuck?.....

Yeah, that was kind of my thought, too. :p

the courts shouldnt allow such frivilous lawsuits.

I agree with you 100%


The point is, she should have won this lawsuit based on the first amendment.

What in holy fuck?.....

If she'd gotten expelled, or suspended, or something, then she might have a case. As it is, this is fucking stupid. I got in trouble for saying the word "sucks" while i was in school. If it wasn't for the fundamentalists getting mad because suddenly equating gay with bad isn't socially acceptable anymore, this would have vanished into nothing.

My monitor now has that fruit punchy Gatorade aroma.
Thank you.

Always happy to be of service. :)

The fact that she got in trouble for saying "That's so gay"

So, I'm assuming the rules the school has about discrimination don't apply here, right? After all, freedom of speech has no bounds, no matter what the subject, right?

that's two futurama references in one thread! +10 points.

In State Of Alabama vs. Giant Space Iguana, chewin' the corners off the Constitution was deemed non-protected speech.

That said, my girl is Mormon, she takes a bit of flak on it at times.

But at the same time, she helps organize charity events at a local gay club, and during some of our double dates, there are an odd number of penises at the table, so she's pretty accepting of homosexuals.

So, I'm torn on the issue of LDS vs. GAY...

Do I watch General Conference, or Project Runway?

This would, in fact, be more of a punishment than the girl in question was forced to endure. She received a verbal reprimand. That's IT.



Sheesh, how many times in this thread does it need to be pointed out that a high school principal =/= the Congress of the United States of America? You'd really think the differences between the two would be obvious. For starters, the principal contains 534 fewer people, makes a heck of a lot less money, and, incidentally, has fuck-all to do with the First Amendment.

My monitor now has that fruit punchy Gatorade aroma.
Thank you.

The fact that she got in trouble for saying "That's so gay"

by what congressional law, again?

I think to participate in a discussion on the first amendment one should have at VERY least a passing familiarity it. At very least one should know what what the FIRST BLOODY WORD of it is.

by what congressional law, again?

I think to participate in a discussion on the first amendment one should have at VERY least a passing familiarity it. At very least one should know what what the FIRST BLOODY WORD of it is.

OK, I hate to come to the defense of an idiot, but this isn't quite right.

The First Amendment directly doesn't apply beyond the federal government (although it does apply beyond Congress), but the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First and applies it to state and local governments.

I know Corny has no clue about incorporation, but the word Congress isn't why he is wrong.

A better reason why Corny is wrong is Bethel School District v. Fraser (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/478/675.html), 478 U.S. 675 (1986), which I cited in the last thread and Corny ignored there too. Rather than quote the case at length like I usually do, I'll just quote some of the summary:

Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the work of the school, and the determination of what manner of speech is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.

OK, I hate to come to the defense of an idiot, but this isn't quite right.

The First Amendment directly doesn't apply beyond the federal government (although it does apply beyond Congress), but the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First and applies it to state and local governments.

I know Corny has no clue about incorporation, but the word Congress isn't why he is wrong.

A better reason why Corny is wrong is Bethel School District v. Fraser (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/478/675.html), 478 U.S. 675 (1986), which I cited in the last thread and Corny ignored there too.

Okay, do you know all this case law and it's just a matter of finding the link (in which case, please lie and say you don't so I can feel okay about myself) or do you just know the interpretations that stem from them and then know how to go find the actual decision from there?

OK, I hate to come to the defense of an idiot, but this isn't quite right.

The First Amendment directly doesn't apply beyond the federal government (although it does apply beyond Congress), but the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First and applies it to state and local governments.

Yes, I know. This is Arthais101 btw TCT.

I'm WELL aware of what the 14th amendment says :)

BUT, that is the 14th amendment. He didn't say the 14th amendment

He said the first.

So he's wrong about the first amendment, because the first amendment simply does not apply.

He didn't say the 14th amendment. And even IF HE DID, Bethel would still be why he was wrong.

Okay, do you know all this case law and it's just a matter of finding the link (in which case, please lie and say you don't so I can feel okay about myself) or do you just know the interpretations that stem from them and then know how to go find the actual decision from there?

I hate to break TCT's secret, but most of the cases he cites are pretty historical...most lawyers can at least remember cases like Brown, Casey, Besol, TLO etc. :p

Okay, do you know all this case law and it's just a matter of finding the link (in which case, please lie and say you don't so I can feel okay about myself) or do you just know the interpretations that stem from them and then know how to go find the actual decision from there?

Rest at ease.

Sometimes I remember the name of a case, but not the citation.

More often, I am familiar with the principles and can find the case. Even when I don't know either, I can usually find something.

I hate to break TCT's secret, but most of the cases he cites are pretty historical...most lawyers can at least remember cases like Brown, Casey, Besol, TLO etc. :p

Exactly. It may seem impressive to a layman, but I'm not really doing anything all that special by citing cases. Arthais101 gets the law right as often or more than I do, but I like citing the Supreme Court language.

Yes, I know. This is Arthais101 btw TCT.

I'm WELL aware of what the 14th amendment says :)

BUT, that is the 14th amendment. He didn't say the 14th amendment

He said the first.

So he's wrong about the first amendment, because the first amendment simply does not apply.

He didn't say the 14th amendment. And even IF HE DID, Bethel would still be why he was wrong.

I know you are Arthais101 and I know you were right and that Corny is wrong.

I merely wanted to clear up the point because it was bugging me and because of the same reason I rescue mice from the mouths of my cats. Pity.

Arthais101 gets the law right as often or more than I do, but I like citing the Supreme Court language.

You got that that's me, right? :p

You got that that's me, right? :p

You probably should have neo-ized the entire name.

She was full of it. If you REALLY have hurt feelings, you don't look to someone else's money to make it all better.

You probably should have neo-ized the entire name.

probably going to, this was an old puppet name that I'll probably ditch.

Exactly. It may seem impressive to a layman, but I'm not really doing anything all that special by citing cases. Arthais101 gets the law right as often or more than I do, but I like citing the Supreme Court language.

I still say you guys are freaks. (and am glad I didn't get made fun of for calling it 'case law' when I don't even know if that's the term...)

And when I get in trouble I want you guys on my team of lawyers...(the team that I of course wouldn't be able to afford...)

I merely wanted to clear up the point because it was bugging me and because of the same reason I rescue mice from the mouths of my cats. Pity.

As we said, TECHNICALLY yes, the first amendment is just not applicable. Now, as you said, if you look at incorporation and say "that which is binding on the federal government is binding on the states" in terms of ree speech then you CAN analyze first amendment protection as a framework for state level protections, but not in and of itself.

Which, as we both know, he didn't know that, and was just parroting that erronious belief that the first amendment prohibits any restriction in speech in its entirety.

However, EVEN IF HE DID KNOW THAT, or was simply sorta kinda somewhat right inspite of himself, he's still wrong, because 14th amendment incorporation doesn't go that far.

(and am glad I didn't get made fun of for calling it 'case law' when I don't even know if that's the term...)


Don't worry, "case law" is the entirely correct phrase.

thats retarded and so is that girl. that girl should get a life and try and work thru life to get money instead of over dramatizing things. she is a dumbass in my opinion. i want to:sniper:her

thats retarded and so is that girl. that girl should get a life and try and work thru life to get money instead of over dramatizing things. she is a dumbass in my opinion. i want to:sniper:her

ahhh, the typical first post......

Seriously, what the hell is it with post 1 folks and those damned gun smilies?

ahhh, the typical first post......

Seriously, what the hell is it with post 1 folks and those damned gun smilies?

I don't know, but it's like clockwork. I've been here forever and I don't even know where to find the smilies...

I don't know, but it's like clockwork. I've been here forever and I don't even know where to find the smilies...

I'm starting to think it's long-timers making puppets just to get away with using the gun smileys a handful of times.

I'm starting to think it's long-timers making puppets just to get away with using the gun smileys a handful of times.

omg stfu n00b gun smilies r teh pwn

:sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge:

I generally try not to use gun smileys. I have enough trouble as a brown person as it is :D

I generally try not to use gun smileys. I have enough trouble as a brown person as it is :D

ZOMG, teh scary black man has a gun smiley!1! WE AM ALL GUNNA DIEZORZ!!press the 1 key while holding shift!! :eek:

Read up on the first amendment. It Garuntees freedom of speech. That is what was violated here.

This argument is so very gay.

Don't you get tired of getting destroyed on your understanding of the first amendment twice a day every day for the last several years? I mean, learn, goshdarnit. You keep saying the same wrong things over and over and over and over and over and ... well, you get the picture.

This was not protected speech. The first amendment does not state that you can't ever punished for speech. For example, you cannot lie in court. According to you that would be part of the free expression of ideas.

Don't you get tired of getting destroyed on your understanding of the first amendment twice a day every day for the last several years? I mean, learn, goshdarnit. You keep saying the same wrong things over and over and over and over and over and ... well, you get the picture.

This was not protected speech. The first amendment does not state that you can't ever punished for speech. For example, you cannot lie in court. According to you that would be part of the free expression of ideas.

not to mention that, even if this conduct were to be considered "protected speech" that protection would be granted under the 14th amendment, not the 1st.

Okay, hang on, I'm a little slow here:

Girl uses homophobic insult.
Girl is, essentially, told to STFU by her classmates.
Girl sues the school because her feelings were hurt.

...

lol, wut?

Am I the only one who thinks Corneliu is enjoying the rhetorical beating they're receiving a little too much?

The argument has been proven wrong over and over again, it's time to let it go.

Am I the only one who thinks Corneliu is enjoying the rhetorical beating they're receiving a little too much?

Is a tad masochistic. Explains why he enjoys carrying that cross so much.

Okay, hang on, I'm a little slow here:

Girl uses homophobic insult.
Girl is, essentially, told to STFU by her classmates.
Girl sues the school because her feelings were hurt.

...

lol, wut?

It's the new(ish) thing. Whenever something you don't like happens, sue someone, and you'll get money.

It's the new(ish) thing. Whenever something you don't like happens, sue someone, and you'll get money.

and this explains why even most lawyers hate tort lawyers.

It's the new(ish) thing. Whenever something you don't like happens, sue someone, and you'll get money.
When the hell did "freedom of speech" get turned into "right to never have your feelings hurt"?

Okay, hang on, I'm a little slow here:

Girl uses homophobic insult.
Girl is, essentially, told to STFU by her classmates.
Girl sues the school because her feelings were hurt.

...

lol, wut?

Well, no, as I understand it she sued because the school didn't punish the other children that were teasing her for being Mormon.

Or, at least, that's what they tried to base their case on.

Still stupid, though.

Well, no, as I understand it she sued because the school didn't punish the other children that were teasing her for being Mormon.

Or, at least, that's what they tried to base their case on.

Still stupid, though.
I'm all about The Golden Rule.

If you choose to be openly homophobic and insulting, then you get zero protection against insults that are directed at you. If you want the school to protect you from teasing, then don't tease others.

Well, no, as I understand it she sued because the school didn't punish the other children that were teasing her for being Mormon.

Or, at least, that's what they tried to base their case on.

Still stupid, though.

Not quite. Her lawyer made two constitutional arguments.

The first was a free speech issue, IE "you can't punish me for this". The SECOND was an equal protection argument, IE "you can't punish me for this, and let them do it to me".

While the second argument comes at least slightly close to a vaguely legitimate claim, it still falls on its face due to administrational deference.

not to mention that, even if this conduct were to be considered "protected speech" that protection would be granted under the 14th amendment, not the 1st.

Yeah, that too. But you'd already beaten that point into him so hard I figured I'd mentioned the other part. The concept of freedom is that I can do whatever I want provided I'm the only one involved or all people involved are doing so voluntarily. Now some freedoms aren't recognized, but even when they are, involving someone else in your speech necessarily makes it not an issue of freedom.

Okay, hang on, I'm a little slow here:

Girl uses homophobic insult.
What? You were homeschooled or what? Homophobic insult my ass. I've called things "gay" in front of my gay and bi friends.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/
She was being harassed by fellow classmates for being Mormon before using a "homophobic" insult for which she was punished by the school. Apparently the school only has to "protect homosexual students from harassment" and no one else.

I'm all about The Golden Rule.

If you choose to be openly homophobic and insulting, then you get zero protection against insults that are directed at you. If you want the school to protect you from teasing, then don't tease others.

while I do not defend her actions, it is worth noting that the fact pattern laid out suggests that she made her comments after, and in response to, the insults directed at her.

That is not to say that the insults directed at here were not for some other, similar, prior statements, however at least in this particular tit for tat, she was the tit.

What? You were homeschooled or what? Homophobic insult my ass. I've called things "gay" in front of my gay and bi friends.

um....good for you? Doesn't make it, at base, a homophobic comment, already addressed ad nausium here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/
She was being harassed by fellow classmates for being Mormon before using a "homophobic" insult for which she was punished by the school. Apparently the school only has to "protect homosexual students from harassment" and no one else.

please show me where it demonstrates that the other students were not punished.

When the hell did "freedom of speech" get turned into "right to never have your feelings hurt"?

I have no idea. I'm struggling to even understand how someone could completely abaondon reason long enough to come to such a conclusion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/
She was being harassed by fellow classmates for being Mormon before using a "homophobic" insult for which she was punished by the school. Apparently the school only has to "protect homosexual students from harassment" and no one else.


That's my issue with this. However, we don't know for sure whether or not the other students were punished as well. If they weren't, I agree there's a problem, but if the whole group was punished it's a different story.

um....good for you? Doesn't make it, at base, a homophobic comment, already addressed ad nausium here.
Still bullshit. The phrase has nothing to do with gay people. Where is LGBT jumping this girl? You would think with such a high profile case like this involving a "homophobic" comment, the LGBT community would be all over it. They are probably sitting back going "this is gay."

please show me where it demonstrates that the other students were not punished.
Besides both articles implying it..

I'd appeal or bring up a new case to have this expunged from her record/

What? You were homeschooled or what? Homophobic insult my ass. I've called things "gay" in front of my gay and bi friends.

That's nice. Doesn't change the fact that it's homophobic and insulting.

I've said ****** around my black friends. Doesn't mean "******" is magically rendered non-racist.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/
She was being harassed by fellow classmates for being Mormon before using a "homophobic" insult for which she was punished by the school. Apparently the school only has to "protect homosexual students from harassment" and no one else.
Did a teacher overhear the teasing she received? What about the "that's so gay"? Maybe that's why one was punished and the other wasn't. We're missing a lot of details.

Also, in the article you linked it states that "...school officials say they took a strict stand against the putdown after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before."

If Mormon students had been physically attacked the year before, I'm guessing the school policy would have reflected that as well. It makes perfect sense for a school to deal more seriously with homophobia if they are seeing specific homophobic violence problems.

Still bullshit. The phrase has nothing to do with gay people. Where is LGBT jumping this girl? You would think with such a high profile case like this involving a "homophobic" comment, the LGBT community would be all over it. They are probably sitting back going "this is gay."

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

Still bullshit. The phrase has nothing to do with gay people.
Yep, "That's so gay" has nothing to do with gay people.

Except for, you know, the fact that it's an insult specifically because "gay" is made synonymous with "lame" or "stupid" or "effeminate" (which also has the bonus of being misogynist!).

Besides both articles saying it repeatedly...

Neither article does not, at any time, say that they were not punished. They both say the lawyer CLAIMED (a claim that was rejected) that the school did not SHIELD her from comments.

To shield is proactive, punishment is reactive. It means they claimed the school did not seek to PREVENT the teasing, not that it didn't punish the teasing that occured.

In fact, since neither article, at any time, EVER says that they were not, in fact, punished for it, creates a strong inference that they were, because if they did not receive any punishment for it, the family would have been all over that, and not trying to make some stupid excuse about not "shielding" her.

Still bullshit. The phrase has nothing to do with gay people. Where is LGBT jumping this girl? You would think with such a high profile case like this involving a "homophobic" comment, the LGBT community would be all over it. "

Why the hell would they? As far as everyone is concerned, she was repremanded for her comment. Why would the LGBT community jump in on a situation where they would think that justice was adequately served?

Still bullshit. The phrase has nothing to do with gay people. Where is LGBT jumping this girl? You would think with such a high profile case like this involving a "homophobic" comment, the LGBT community would be all over it. They are probably sitting back going "this is gay."

And, again, we find a poster who can't move past this childish joke. The hive-mind LGBT community (that's what you're claiming anyway) is sitting back because the issue is already handled. She made a childish remark and she was reprimanded. She complained and her complaint was smacked down. What do you want people to be outraged about? Justice?


Besides both articles saying it repeatedly...

You mean besides both articles saying THAT WAS HER COMPLAINT. That is not the same thing.

If Mormon students had been physically attacked the year before, I'm guessing the school policy would have reflected that as well. It makes perfect sense for a school to deal more seriously with homophobia if they are seeing specific homophobic violence problems.


Proactive > Reactive

You besides both articles saying that we her complaint. That is not the same thing.

And again, that wasn't ACTUALLY her complaint. SHe said she was not "shielded". Not that they were not punished.

She argued that the school never used a shield, not that those teasing her didn't receive the sword. And the fact that she did NOT argue this is pretty telling.

That's nice. Doesn't change the fact that it's homophobic and insulting.

I've said ****** around my black friends. Doesn't mean "******" is magically rendered non-racist.
But it has no other connotation than as a racist epithet. Apples and oranges.

Also, in the article you linked it states that "...school officials say they took a strict stand against the putdown after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before."
Again, point being what? Zero tolerance is, has been, and will be bullshit. Students being attacked is homophobia, using a common phrase to refer to things and ideas is not harassing of gay students. That's what "queer" is used for.

If Mormon students had been physically attacked the year before, I'm guessing the school policy would have reflected that as well. It makes perfect sense for a school to deal more seriously with homophobia if they are seeing specific homophobic violence problems.
I havn't seen any proof that "that's gay" is homophobic.

I'd appeal

She probably will, won't get her anywhere though.


or bring up a new case to have this expunged from her record

She can't. Aint issue preclusion grand?

I havn't seen any proof that "that's gay" is homophobic.

How in holy hell do you "prove" a comment is homophobic? What the hell does that even mean?

Yep, "That's so gay" has nothing to do with gay people.

Except for, you know, the fact that it's an insult specifically because "gay" is made synonymous with "lame" or "stupid" or "effeminate" (which also has the bonus of being misogynist!).
I've never seen "that's gay" associated with effeminateness.

How in holy hell do you "prove" a comment is homophobic? What the hell does that even mean?
So "that's gay" is homophobic because you say so? Ok, it's not homophobic because I say so.

So "that's gay" is homophobic because you say so?

No it's homophobic because of the demonstrable origins of the expression.

But it has no other connotation than as a racist epithet. Apples and oranges.

Ah, I see. And using a term that is an epthet because it is an epithet to refer to anything undesirable suddenly makes it okay? That's so ******. Yep, still offensive.

Again, point being what? Zero tolerance is, has been, and will be bullshit. Students being attacked is homophobia, using a common phrase to refer to things and ideas is not harassing of gay students. That's what "queer" is used for.


I havn't seen any proof that "that's gay" is homophobic.

I haven't seen any proof that "******" is racist.

I've never seen "that's gay" associated with effeminateness.

Well then I guess it never has been, because if it had been you would have seen it. Since you monitor all use of the phrase.





Oh wait.....

I've never seen "that's gay" associated with effeminateness.

Argument from ignorance. That's still a fallacy in these parts. Want to try an argument that isn't a fallacy or does the prosecution wish to rest?

So "that's gay" is homophobic because you say so? Ok, it's not homophobic because I say so.

It's homophobic because it's a usage designed to denigrate gay people. That's enough. See, our side has evidence. Yours has none. See how that works?

Ah, I see. And using a term that is an epthet because it is an epithet to refer to anything undesirable suddenly makes it okay? That's so ******. Yep, still offensive.
Next time you completely ignore something I say and make up what I said in your head, just say "I'm going to completely ignore what you said and pretend you said something else."

I haven't seen any proof that "******" is racist.
There is no history of ****** meaning anything but a racial epithet. "Gay"s original meaning is "happy go lucky." When used by schoolchildren in that phrase it mean "dumb," "lame," "stupid" etc. There is no reason to turn it into a homophobic statement. Gay people want to refer to themselves as gay, they are consciously inserting homophobia where it doesn't exist with this statement.

But it has no other connotation than as a racist epithet. Apples and oranges.

"That's so gay" is only an insult because "gay" is supposed to be a negative. There is no possible way to separate that out.

It's exactly the same as if "that's so black" were used to mean "that's so stupid."


Again, point being what? Zero tolerance is, has been, and will be bullshit. Students being attacked is homophobia, using a common phrase to refer to things and ideas is not harassing of gay students. That's what "queer" is used for.

You can say that as many times as you want. Still won't be true.


I havn't seen any proof that "that's gay" is homophobic.
You're fun.

I think I need to repeat something I said earlier in this thread. The modern meaning of "gay = stupid" was directly adopted to be anti-homosexual. The modern meaning is inherently a bigotted one. So yes, origins do have to do with the modern meaning, if the origin of the definition was specifically designed to propogate a belief.

Claims that "that's so gay" is not homophobic is, as i said, willfully dilusional. Frankly speaking, the only people who try to scream at the top of their lungs that "it only USED to mean homosexual, now it means stupid too!" are only those who have a vested interest in spewing homophobia, while at the same time seeming polite.

Sort of like those "hey, blacks can say black power, isn't it unfair that we get called racist if we say white power?" folks.

Argument from ignorance. That's still a fallacy in these parts. Want to try an argument that isn't a fallacy or does the prosecution wish to rest?
Again, I said v. you said. Unlike all of you, I remember being a schoolchild. Queer was used for effeminateness. Gay was just used as a blanket "this shit's stupid.


It's homophobic because it's a usage designed to denigrate gay people.
Only based on what you say. I say different.

That's enough. See, our side has evidence. Yours has none. See how that works?
What fucking evidence? Was it presented when I blinked and I thusly missed it?

I think I need to repeat something I said earlier in this thread. The modern meaning of "gay = stupid" was directly adopted to be anti-homosexual. The modern meaning is inherently a bigotted one. So yes, origins do have to do with the modern meaning, if the origin of the definition was specifically designed to propogate a belief.

Claims that "that's so gay" is not homophobic is, as i said, willfully dilusional. Frankly speaking, the only people who try to scream at the top of their lungs that "it only USED to mean homosexual, now it means stupid too!" are only those who have a vested interest in spewing homophobia, while at the same time seeming polite.
Which proves my point. You make it homophobic by asserting that it is. I have no intentions of it having a homophobic meaning. Sure if we play some sort of asinine "word meaning chain game," we get to "homosexual people refer to themselves as 'gay' and are acceptably referred to as 'gay' then and therefore saying 'gay means stupid' is an indirect insult of homosexuals!"

Morbo has something to say about your logic.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8830/nothowitworkswp2.jpg

Thanks Morbo.

Sort of like those "hey, blacks can say black power, isn't it unfair that we get called racist if we say white power?" folks.
That totally doesn't prove the point of that statement at all. :rolleyes:
You know why Carlos Mencia gets a tv show where his whole line of jokes is racial stereotypes but if a white comedian did that, they would be assaulted in the parking lot and left for dead? The fact of that statement. It's a double-standard, period.

Again, I said v. you said. Unlike all of you, I remember being a schoolchild. Queer was used for effeminateness. Gay was just used as a blanket "this shit's stupid.

I am the World
Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.
In this case: I never associated "gay" with effeminateness. Therefore "gay" is not associated with effeminateness.

Generalizing from Self
Example: I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.
In this case: I only used "that's gay" to mean "that shit's stupid". Therefore everybody uses "that's gay" to mean "that shit's stupid".

Which proves my point. You make it homophobic by asserting that it is. I have no intentions of it having a homophobic meaning. Sure if we play some sort of asinine "word meaning chain game,"

If you mean "word meaning chain game" as "recognizing the origins of the expression" then yes, I think we can play that, in fact we should play that.

As a matter of fact, you are the ONLY one who advocates that when determing the meaning of an expression, we should entirely do away with what it actually, you know, fucking means.

Now what was that about logic?

That totally doesn't prove the point of that statement at all. You know why Carlos Mencia gets a tv show where his whole line of jokes is racial stereotypes but if a white comedian did that, they would be assaulted in the parking lot and left for dead? The fact of that statement. It's a double-standard, period.

Oh why won't anyone please think of poor repressed whitey? :rolleyes:

Yeah, and it's not like two white dudes EVER created a tv show with the sole black character named Token Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_Black#Token_Black) and get away with it, or anything.

Again, I said v. you said. Unlike all of you, I remember being a schoolchild. Queer was used for effeminateness. Gay was just used as a blanket "this shit's stupid.


And your childhood was the only childhood, huh? Again, I'm sorry that you don't recognize the fallacy there, but it's still there.


Only based on what you say. I say different.


And I say ****** means "golden fruit", but that doesn't change what it means or its origin. By fact, when I was a schoolchild, we called things gay because being homosexual was an insult. The fact that you're too young to remember that doesn't make it cease to exist or change that it still happens to be an insult for the same reason.


What fucking evidence? Was it presented when I blinked and I thusly missed it?

No, you appear to be missing lots of things. We can only present things, not make you understand them.

So, according to you, how did the word "gay" come to mean "undesirable"?

I am the World
Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.
In this case: I never associated "gay" with effeminateness. Therefore "gay" is not associated with effeminateness.
Of course, "I never heard gay associated with effeminateness, that's what gay was used for" was what I said. By which I mean, "that is how other people I went to school with used it."


Generalizing from Self
Example: I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying.
In this case: I only used "that's gay" to mean "that shit's stupid". Therefore everybody uses "that's gay" to mean "that shit's stupid".
These fallacies are totally different from you are doing.
You're just proving the "I said v. you said."
I have seen neither fact nor anecdotal evidence from any of you, just opinion. Good job.

Next time you completely ignore something I say and make up what I said in your head, just say "I'm going to completely ignore what you said and pretend you said something else."


Uh-huh. In debate, not understanding isn't an argument. The fact that I directly addressed your explicit language means either you didn't understand my reply or you didn't understand the flaws in yours that made it say other than you meant. Both of these are your flaw.

Meanwhile, are you claiming that an epithet that became synonymous with "undesirable" simply because it's an epithet is somehow better than something that is simply an epithet? You're stretching the limits of logic to breaking.


There is no history of ****** meaning anything but a racial epithet. "Gay"s original meaning is "happy go lucky." When used by schoolchildren in that phrase it mean "dumb," "lame," "stupid" etc. There is no reason to turn it into a homophobic statement. Gay people want to refer to themselves as gay, they are consciously inserting homophobia where it doesn't exist with this statement.

And this helps your argument, how? The statement's origin comes from the epithet. There is no need to insert homophobia when the statement is coined on it. Even you admit that you and your friends use a comparison to homosexuality as an insult, is it such a stretch for you to recognize this is a result of that? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

And your childhood was the only childhood, huh? Again, I'm sorry that you don't recognize the fallacy there, but it's still there.
I've seen neither fact nor anecdotal evidence from anyone on the other side of the argument, just opinion. I therefore conclude that I have a better position in the debate.


And I say ****** means "golden fruit", but that doesn't change what it means or its origin.
Already addressed the origin of the word "gay."

By fact, when I was a schoolchild, we called things gay because being homosexual was an insult. The fact that you're too young to remember that doesn't make it cease to exist or change that it still happens to be an insult for the same reason.
So that leads one to be able to assert that the meaning changed between when you were young and when I was young. You're going to have to try harder than that.


So, according to you, how did the word "gay" come to mean "undesirable"?
I don't know because I don't recall saying that.

Oh why won't anyone please think of poor repressed whitey? :rolleyes:

No point arguing with you.

Of course, "I never heard gay associated with effeminateness, that's what gay was used for" was what I said. By which I mean, "that is how other people I went to school with used it."

That's still generalizing from self. How is this point being missed by you? It's really basic logic. You see, we know the usage extends past your school. You seem to not know this.


These fallacies are totally different from you are doing.
You're just proving the "I said v. you said."
I have seen neither fact nor anecdotal evidence from any of you, just opinion. Good job.
Amusing. Again, so where did the usage come from? Do you know or are you arguing from ignorance?

That's still generalizing from self. How is this point being missed by you? It's really basic logic. You see, we know the usage extends past your school. You seem to not know this. I assert the meaning changed between when you were young and I was young. Plausible assertion.
And I can't pretend to know what other people meant when they said it. But I wouldn't presume that 10 year olds understood advanced concepts of underlying meanings and were using it to intentionally, indirectly insult homosexuals.

Pantless, c'mon. I'm disappointed in you, I thought you were smarter than this.

Pantless, c'mon. I'm disappointed in you, I thought you were smarter than this.
I thought I was doing pretty well myself.

Especially after getting the "anyone who says white power is automatically racist" bullshit thrown at me. Double standard used to attack white people. Which he did.

I've seen neither fact nor anecdotal evidence from anyone on the other side of the argument, just opinion. I therefore conclude that I have a better position in the debate.

Again, this has nothing to do with the fallacy you employed. And we've repeatedly pointed out that we've seen it used this way. When I was a kid, we used every term for homosexual as an insult. By your own admission, so do you. The only difference is that you don't recognize the link between gay and homosexual anymore. However, your ignorance doesn't make it disappear.



Already addressed the origin of the word "gay."

And that has nothing to do with the current usage. Again, is logic that big of a stretch for you?


So that leads one to be able to assert that the meaning changed between when you were young and when I was young. You're going to have to try harder than that.

It hasn't changed. It still means "undesirable". All that's changed is that you're ignorant of the origins and I'm not. There's no difference in the usage.

Many kids your age are aware of the origins, like my nephews who are undoubtedly younger than you. So it leads one to assert that you think because you are ignorant of the origins that you think you can make broader statements. This is a fallacy as already explained.



I don't know because I don't recall saying that.

You don't recall saying what? That's the current usage. The question is how did it evolve to the current usage according to you?

I assert the meaning changed between when you were young and I was young. Plausible assertion.

Firstly, I fail to see how this refutes what Jocabia has said. If anything it supports it. See my next point.

I similarly assert that the usage has changed between when you were young and today. Equally plausible.
And I can't pretend to know what other people meant when they said it. But I wouldn't presume that 10 year olds understood advanced concepts of underlying meanings and were using it to intentionally, indirectly insult homosexuals.

Their intent can magically prevent people from being insulted by what they say?

I assert the meaning changed between when you were young and I was young. Plausible assertion.

It's still the same meaning. Your ignorance of the origin doesn't change this.

And I can't pretend to know what other people meant when they said it. But I wouldn't presume that 10 year olds understood advanced concepts of underlying meanings and were using it to intentionally, indirectly insult homosexuals.

Whether they didn't so intentionally is not of consequence, since the insult is there whether they intended it or not.

I know a guy who uses "******" to mean black. Not as insult. Just to mean that race. Does that take the insult away simply because he's ignorant? Um, nope. I can see that you want us to accept your argument from ignorance because you think that might be easier for us to accept, but it doesn't change facts.

Again, this has nothing to do with the fallacy you employed. And we've repeatedly pointed out that we've seen it used this way.
After I said that.

When I was a kid, we used every term for homosexual as an insult. By your own admission, so do you. The only difference is that you don't recognize the link between gay and homosexual anymore. However, your ignorance doesn't make it disappear.
I know there is a fallacy here, give me a minute...
I can't think what it is but it has something to do with you believing something, therefore I (and everyone) believe it. I'ts probably one of the same fallacies you accuse me of.
There is no argument from ignorance if you are using a fallacy to assert it is common knowledge in the first place.

And that has nothing to do with the current usage. Again, is logic that big of a stretch for you?
Is it for you?

It hasn't changed. It still means "undesirable".
I don't recall anyone asserting it to mean "undesirable" until you, just now.


Many kids your age are aware of the origins, like my nephews who are undoubtedly younger than you. So it leads one to assert that you think because you are ignorant of the origins that you think you can make broader statements. This is a fallacy as already explained.
Again, I don't expect 10 year olds to understand advanced concepts of underlying meanings for the purpose of indirectly insulting people.

It's still the same meaning. Your ignorance of the origin doesn't change this.
Doesn't it? Swastika.

Doesn't it? Swastika.

incomparable example. Hitler took the swastika and used it as something other than its original purpose.

You are claiming, somehow...bizarrely, that "that's gay" came ot mean "that's stupid" through some fashion entirely devoid of homophobic context.

Hitler CHOSE to use the swastika as something other than it was. THe only comparison you chould draw is that some people decided to start refering to things stupid as "gay" without ANY HOMOPHOBIC CONTEXT.

You are implying that people decided to one day go "hey, let's start using gay to mean stupid...but we're not doing that as an insult to gays, we just happened to pick that word" is beyond all belief.

"that's gay" was chosen to mean "that's stupid' specifically as an insult to gays.

Again, I don't expect 10 year olds to understand advanced concepts of underlying meanings for the purpose of indirectly insulting people.

How is it that I agree so solidly with you on just about everything except firearms and Islam?

incomparable example. Hitler took the swastika and used it as something other than its original purpose.
Which is my point :rolleyes:
Due to your previous statement I have no reason to debate the rest of your post with you.

How is it that I agree so solidly with you on just about everything except firearms and Islam?
1) You are schizophrenic.
2) You are a gun-nut bigot and I'm an angry pragmatist.

Which is my point :rolleyes:

And your point was stupid. As I said, hitler chose to deviate away from the meaning. You are trying to argue that people chose to call "stupid" as "gay" and did NOT intend that to be homophobic.

That's...well....stupid.

Due to your previous statement I have no reason to debate the rest of your post with you.

*shrug* if you can't answer it, that's really not my problem.

After I said that.

Again, your ignorance is not an argument. We've pointed out the usage and its origin including our firsthand experience with it since the beginning of the thread. It is not our task to force you to understand. We can only present.


I know there is a fallacy here, give me a minute...
I can't think what it is but it has something to do with you believing something, therefore I (and everyone) believe it. I'ts probably one of the same fallacies you accuse me of.
There is no argument from ignorance if you are using a fallacy to assert it is common knowledge in the first place.

Amusing. Let' me explain logic to you, since you're failing here. We claim there is SOME connection, so any usage that makes that connection supports our claim. You claim an absolute, that there is NO connection. That means unless you can show statistical evidence that NO ONE EVER uses it the way we describe then your argument is from ignorance.



Is it for you?

Amusing. So this is what passes for debate for you? How sad.


I don't recall anyone asserting it to mean "undesirable" until you, just now.

The collection of terms you've used essentially mean undesirable. But fine. As does "that's stupid" since they don't actually mean that the inanimate object is not intelligent, something it's often applied to. But hey, keep avoiding the question.

Whatever meaning you assign, how did that meaning come to pass in your estimation?


Again, I don't expect 10 year olds to understand advanced concepts of underlying meanings for the purpose of indirectly insulting people.

Again, intent is meaningless here. If I intend to use the word "******" to mean "golden fruit" it doesn't matter, since that's not the denotation nor connotation it conveys.

Doesn't it? Swastika.

The difference being here that you're using the SAME meaning, not a different one. The only we disagree on is origin. The word is still used as an insult to mean that you have undesirable qualities. The usage hasn't changed. I know you don't realize this, but it hasn't. The only thing you're arguing is that since you don't know the origins that it doesn't matter.

You do recognize that when I was younger and called my friend gay I didn't actually think he was homosexual, yes? I just wanted to let him know that I thought he was "bad", "stupid", "undesirable" or whatever other negative term you'd like to assign to the insult. Your usage is exactly equivalent.

Again, your ignorance is not an argument.Sorry, my ability to see into the future isn't too good.

Amusing. Let' me explain logic to you, since you're failing here. We claim there is SOME connection, so any usage that makes that connection supports our claim.
Probably a fallacy in there somewhere too.

You claim an absolute, that there is NO connection.
Wrong, I make the claim the connection is subjective.

Whatever meaning you assign, how did that meaning come to pass in your estimation?
Usage. Obviously.


Again, intent is meaningless here. If I intend to use the word "******" to mean "golden fruit" it doesn't matter, since that's not the denotation nor connotation it conveys.
If enough people intended to use it that way and black people ceased to accept it as a derogatory term, it would mean golden fruit.

The word is still used as an insult to mean that you have undesirable qualities. The usage hasn't changed. I know you don't realize this, but it hasn't. The only thing you're arguing is that since you don't know the origins that it doesn't matter.
You are again arguing the asinine idea that there is a magical underlying, irremovable link that means any definition of gay applies to homosexuals. Ok, I assert all homosexuals are happy-go-lucky.

I guess the Flintstones theme song is an anti-homosexual diatribe then.

"We'll have a gaaaaay ooooold tiiiiiiime!"

I guess the Flintstones theme song is an anti-homosexual diatribe then.

"We'll have a gaaaaay ooooold tiiiiiiime!"

I guess that the meaning of gay was frozen at the time that theme song was recorded.

So, when gay people hear someone singing Christmas carols like, "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" and they get to the part about "make the Yuletide gaaaay" they get insulted because it's obvious that the singers (who are probably carolers from a local Christian church) are making fun of them...