NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, my ability to see into the future isn't too good.

Or the past apparently. Or the present, really.


Probably a fallacy in there somewhere too.

Again, your lack of understanding does not a fallacy make. This is how one supports arguments. That you don't know this just explains why so many of yours are so poor. It does not, however, help your claims.


Wrong, I make the claim the connection is subjective.

If it's subjective then it's an insult to people who know the origin. Seriously, are you really this bad at this or you just playing around, because this is a bloodbath.


Usage. Obviously.

Again, you keep avoiding the point and as such tacitly agree that you don't have an explanation that is more sensible than the one given that you reject. Usage comes from somewhere. How did it start? (Hint: this is where you say you don't know and that you are completely ignorant on the subject you've been arguing for several pages. It's okay. You can do it. We already know this anyway.)


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.

Ah. So the second part is a requirement. Interesting since you denied that requirement for the term you use. Hmmmm... anything to further your agenda, huh?


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.

Hiliarious, but the fact you keep missing the point isn't helping your argument. It's not a magical link. It's the origin of the term. We were there when that origin occurred and it is the reason for the meaning you're using. I know you don't get why this is a bad thing, but again ignorance is not an argument.

Wow, nothing like a little logical fallacy to start your morning, huh? The difference here being that that usage is not in reference to homosexuals. It's a fact that the origin of the derogatory usage is the connection to homosexuals. Pretending that's not true doesn't make it so.

Ah, but aren't you arguing that any modern usage is derogatory?

How do you know we're not singing it to make fun of gays?

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

Most sane people don't hate brown people.

What would you do without our awesome tech support capabilities? :D

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...

Wow, nothing like a little logical fallacy to start your morning, huh? The difference here being that that usage is not in reference to homosexuals. It's a fact that the origin of the derogatory usage is the connection to homosexuals. Pretending that's not true doesn't make it so.

I've noticed that making a reasonable argument isn't a regular practice of yours, but certainly you don't think this is a reasonable argument, do you? You can do better than this argument. I know you can. This one is, well, pathetic.

Wow, nothing like a little logical fallacy to start your morning, huh? The difference here being that that usage is not in reference to homosexuals. It's a fact that the origin of the derogatory usage is the connection to homosexuals. Pretending that's not true doesn't make it so.
But you make the assertion that any use of the word "gay" is inherently linked to homosexuals and any meaning of it applies indirectly to homosexuals.

Most sane people don't hate brown people.

I am a brown person.

And plenty of Muslims in Chechnya are white people.

But you make the assertion that any use of the word "gay" is inherently linked to homosexuals and any meaning of it applies indirectly to homosexuals.

Strawman. Quote me saying that or quit lying. I assert that THIS usage, the usage from the OP is linked because it is and described how and why it is. That's not ANY usage anymore than me saying that Eric is my name means that all people are named Eric.

Ah, but aren't you arguing that any modern usage is derogatory?

How do you know we're not singing it to make fun of gays?

No, I'm arguing that this usage is derogatory. If they were using it to mean happy, we'd not be having this discussion. Again, are you really going to rest on fallacies, or would you like to join the debate? I'd prefer the latter. Wouldn't you?

No, I'm arguing that this usage is derogatory. If they were using it to mean happy, we'd not be having this discussion.

Then answer this:

If I see something, and I'm in public, and I say, "that's so gay!" and a homosexual overhears me saying it, how do they read my mind to find out if I'm trying to be derogatory?

Again, your lack of understanding does not a fallacy make. This is how one supports arguments.
If some A are B, and if some B are A, then all B are A strikes me as wrong.


If it's subjective then it's an insult to people who know the origin.
a) Since you know so much about the word's etymology, enlighten us.
b) And then it is also not an insult towards gay people if not meant that way.


Again, you keep avoiding the point and as such tacitly agree that you don't have an explanation that is more sensible than the one given that you reject. Usage comes from somewhere. How did it start?
So you assert usage can't change meaning, or more likely, that it can only change the meaning when in support of your argument?


Ah. So the second part is a requirement.
Since you like levels of difference so much, you should be able to see the difference between effects of "******" in the black community and "gay" in the LGBT community.


Hiliarious, but the fact you keep missing the point isn't helping your argument. It's not a magical link.
No, it's a "Jocobia's usual ridiculous argument" link. I don't honestly know why I'm bothering to argue with you because in every thread you argue in, your style is absurd, dismissive, and pretty much just wrong.

Then answer this:

If I see something, and I'm in public, and I say, "that's so gay!" and a homosexual overhears me saying it, how do they read my mind to find out if I'm trying to be derogatory?

How do I ever know what you mean? Usage. How you say it. Body language. Who you're saying it to. There are tons of clues. Not to mention that every time you've come up with a usage of the term that references happy it was not current, but hey keep playing this game. I don't mind if you lose the debate.

How do I ever know what you mean? Usage. How you say it. Body language. Who you're saying it to. There are tons of clues.
Now this is much easier and undeniable. You have said that any derogatory use is an underlying attack on gay people, so why all the qualifiers there?

That just proves you arn't worth continuing this debate with.

How do I ever know what you mean? Usage. How you say it. Body language. Who you're saying it to. There are tons of clues. Not to mention that every time you've come up with a usage of the term that references happy it was not current, but hey keep playing this game. I don't mind if you lose the debate.

Since you can't read minds, saying I had "body language" is complete and utter bullshit.

Since you can't read minds, saying I had "body language" is complete and utter bullshit.

oh god you're as bad as Llewdor.

oh god you're as bad as Llewdor.

*can't wait for people to accuse Llewdor of being me*

even in the 1950s she wouldnt of had anything done to her about that phrase. not even a slap on the wrist.

But you make the assertion that any use of the word "gay" is inherently linked to homosexuals and any meaning of it applies indirectly to homosexuals.
Really?

Exactly where is that?

We were talking about the phrase "that's so gay" as used by people today. I think you know that. I think you are intentionally trying to muddy the water. People who have genuine, strong arguments typically don't try to muddy the water because they don't need to. This leads me to have some unfavorable suspicions about you.

On another forum I frequent, we use different spellings of "gay" to indicate whether we mean it one way or the other.

"Gay" has the dictionary meaning. It also means homosexual in some cases, but is not intended to mean something derogatory.

"Ghey" is when you mean it in a derogatory manner. This was thought up by some of the homosexuals on that forum, who need a term to describe flamers who are very public figures they believe are overdoing the flaming bit.

"That's so ghey".

even in the 1950s she wouldnt of had anything done to her about that phrase. not even a slap on the wrist.
Possibly because "that's so gay" had an entirely different meaning in 1950...

Back in 1850, a kid saying "niggers belong on the plantation" probably wouldn't have gotten in much trouble, either. Gee whiz. Times change.

If some A are B, and if some B are A, then all B are A strikes me as wrong.

No one said ALL, so your argument is a strawman. We said that because of the origins and because of the common usage (common does not mean ALL) that it's offensive regardless of whether some individuals do not mean it that way. Is that really that hard to understand?


a) Since you know so much about the word's etymology, enlighten us.

It's like arguing with a goldfish. We've told you over and over. Your inability to hold on to that point when you get to the next page isn't something we can control.


b) And then it is also not an insult towards gay people if not meant that way.

Again, intent doesn't change how people hear a word. It's language. The listener, any listener is as much a part of the process as the speaker. Otherwise, words wouldn't need meaning.



So you assert usage can't change meaning, or more likely, that it can only change the meaning when in support of your argument?

Again, you're being obtuse. The point isn't that usage can't change meaning. It's a question of where the usage came from. Are you saying you don't know?

WHERE DID THE USAGE COME FROM? It's not possible to ask that more clearly. Before usage occurs a meaning gets assigned through some connection. That's how language evolves. I'm asking if you have a more reasonable or even equally reasonable explanation for the usage. Your only reply so far has been "usage", which is obviously not an answer.




Since you like levels of difference so much, you should be able to see the difference between effects of "******" in the black community and "gay" in the LGBT community.

And this changes your requirement, how? Both communities reclaimed the word. That's doesn't change the fact that when people use either word in a derogatory fashion that it's, in fact, derogatory. Are you claiming "stupid" isn't derogatory?


No, it's a "Jocobia's usual ridiculous argument" link. I don't honestly know why I'm bothering to argue with you because in every thread you argue in, your style is absurd, dismissive, and pretty much just wrong.

So you admit you don't know where the usage came from but you're willing dismiss everyone who does, everyone who was there when the usage developed as talking about a "magical" link, and I'm the problem? Interesting. Doesn't help your argument, though.

Now this is much easier and undeniable. You have said that any derogatory use is an underlying attack on gay people, so why all the qualifiers there?

He is talking about the non-deragotory use and how you can tell whether it's derogatory or not. Follow along, son.

That just proves you arn't worth continuing this debate with.

I notice that's been your claim about everyone who is defeating you.

I really don't care if someone calls something gay, it's just used so often it's lost any meaning.

Since you can't read minds, saying I had "body language" is complete and utter bullshit.

Hiliarious. Body language is reading minds? I didn't realize that. And here I thought it was reading bodies. I stand corrected.

I really don't care if someone calls something gay, it's just used so often it's lost any meaning.

I'm sure kids will think of a new word.

On another forum I frequent, we use different spellings of "gay" to indicate whether we mean it one way or the other.

"Gay" has the dictionary meaning. It also means homosexual in some cases, but is not intended to mean something derogatory.

"Ghey" is when you mean it in a derogatory manner. This was thought up by some of the homosexuals on that forum, who need a term to describe flamers who are very public figures they believe are overdoing the flaming bit.

"That's so ghey".

Interesting. So you talk about the usage, with the made-up spelling, being directly connected to insulting homosexuals while simultaneously denying the connection. How wise. Meanwhile, some black people, like Chris Rock, insult other black people with the word "******", does that make it not racist anymore?

Interesting. So you talk about the usage, with the made-up spelling, being directly connected to insulting homosexuals while simultaneously denying the connection. How wise. Meanwhile, some black people, like Chris Rock, insult other black people with the word "******", does that make it not racist anymore?

The homosexuals on the forum there seem to approve.

Maybe we're a little thicker skinned over there. Have you been to see a doctor about your lack of epidermis?

I'm sure kids will think of a new word.

I dont know calling something "gay" has been around sense before I started highschool

and I started in 97

I dont know calling something "gay" has been around sense before I started highschool

and I started in 97

Well, the old word was "fag" and that's still around.

Maybe we're a little thicker skinned over there. Have you been to see a doctor about your lack of epidermis?
Noticing that the current phrase "that's so gay" is homophobic doesn't mean you have a thin skin. On the other hand, refusing to admit that "that's so gay" is homophobic does indicate a thick head.

Noticing that the current phrase "that's so gay" is homophobic doesn't mean you have a thin skin. On the other hand, refusing to admit that "that's so gay" is homophobic does indicate a thick head.

Do you think telling someone to bugger off, or sod off is homophobic too?

Do you think telling someone to bugger off, or sod off is homophobic too?
Given that heterosexual people are equally capable of engaging in buggery, I should think not.

Likewise, my understanding of "sod off" is that it's a bit like saying "piss off." I don't see why "piss off" would have any particular sexual orientation.

Telling somebody to "fuck off" is not homophobic, since (as far as I know) one does not have to be homosexual to fuck or be fucked.

Noticing that the current phrase "that's so gay" is homophobic doesn't mean you have a thin skin. On the other hand, refusing to admit that "that's so gay" is homophobic does indicate a thick head.

Saying it's has a universal meaning regardless of context means you have no brain.

That's all I'm saying.

Given that heterosexual people are equally capable of engaging in buggery, I should think not.

Likewise, my understanding of "sod off" is that it's a bit like saying "piss off." I don't see why "piss off" would have any particular sexual orientation.

Sod = sodomy.

The homosexuals on the forum there seem to approve.

That doesn't change anything. That some people accept a derogatory usage of an epithet doesn't mean all people have to or should.

Maybe we're a little thicker skinned over there. Have you been to see a doctor about your lack of epidermis?

We're not talking about me. People shouldn't have to be thick-skinned so you can be an ass, particularly in an environment like a school where they are required to be around you. This is why schools (and most businesses) have codes of conduct. Certainly at McDonald's they don't let you call the customers "niggers". Maybe McDonald's customers should just be more thick-skinned.

Meanwhile, I love this rotating argument. "It doesn't mean that." "Oh, wait, it does mean that, but the people it insults don't mind." "Wait, wait, I mean, the people it insults should get a thicker skin."

Wouldn't it be nice if you tried a consistent argument? Try it. They're fun. You might even be right once. Why are you laughing? It could happen. Just keep saying stuff. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's because it's consistent. A clock that is five minutes behind is never right.

Saying it's has a universal meaning regardless of context means you have no brain.

That's all I'm saying.

Except the only one who said that is you. Is there something you want to tell us? Or perhaps we can dispense with the strawman since it's not helping your argument?

Except the only one who said that is you. Is there something you want to tell us?

You're the one who said it, not me. That's why I was arguing with you.

Sod = sodomy.

Another act not reserved to homosexuals. Do we need to explain how that works?

Meanwhile, I love this rotating argument. "It doesn't mean that." "Oh, wait, it does mean that, but the people it insults don't mind." "Wait, wait, I mean, the people it insults should get a thicker skin."

No kidding.

My entire point is simply that "that's so gay" is homophobic. This should be a no-duh kind of statement. Obviously if you use "gay" as a synonym for "lame, uncool, stupid," then that is kind of insulting to people who happen to be gay. Golly gee, ain't that somethin'?

Whether or not gay people (or any people) should be expected to "grow a thicker skin" about such insults is beside the point. Indeed, if somebody is going to insist that gay people need a thicker skin about this insult then I kind of feel like tapping them on the shoulder and reminding them that THEY JUST ADMITTED IT IS AN INSULT. Which was my point all along.

You're the one who said it, not me. That's why I was arguing with you.

Liar. Quote me. When did I say the meaning is the same regardless of context? I seem to remember pointing out that context mattered and you calling me a mind-reader.

Another act not reserved to homosexuals. Do we need to explain how that works?

Everyone has an asshole, except that guy with the colostomy bag.

Another act not reserved to homosexuals. Do we need to explain how that works?

Well the vast majority of people use it to describe homosexual sex.

Liar. Quote me. When did I say the meaning is the same regardless of context? I seem to remember pointing out that context mattered and you calling me a mind-reader.

That's why I said you were a mind reader. How would you know if it was an insult or not?

I've said many times in my life that something was gay, and didn't mean it as a slur.

I'm trying to figure out how you determine context, without reading my mind.

No kidding.

My entire point is simply that "that's so gay" is homophobic. This should be a no-duh kind of statement. Obviously if you use "gay" as a synonym for "lame, uncool, stupid," then that is kind of insulting to people who happen to be gay. Golly gee, ain't that somethin'?

Whether or not gay people (or any people) should be expected to "grow a thicker skin" about such insults is beside the point. Indeed, if somebody is going to insist that gay people need a thicker skin about this insult then I kind of feel like tapping them on the shoulder and reminding them that THEY JUST ADMITTED IT IS AN INSULT. Which was my point all along.

Except they don't recognize that they did admit it. They've admitted it several times. But, hey, is today the day we're going to suddenly get a consistent argument out of these guys? I'm not going to hold my breath.

I dont know calling something "gay" has been around sense before I started highschool

and I started in 97

I started elementary school in 83..and that phrase was around.

Another act not reserved to homosexuals. Do we need to explain how that works?
I should really stop being surprised by the fact that so many people use terms without actually knowing what they mean.

Well the vast majority of people use it to describe homosexual sex.
Look, you asked my opinion as to whether "sod off" would be homophobic in my view. I have answered. We done?

That's why I said you were a mind reader. How would you know if it was an insult or not?

Context. The same I derive the intended meaning of any word with multiple meanings. I'm reasonable that way.


I've said many times in my life that something was gay, and didn't mean it as a slur.

You meant "happy". If you use a meaning that is a slur, how you didn't intend for that meaning to be a slur, doesn't change that it is. I can use "******" in place of black and intend for it to be a very nice word, but it won't be.


I'm trying to figure out how you determine context, without reading my mind.

I told you. None of those are mind-reading. If you don't know how to determine context without mind-reading, the commonality of conversations where you don't appear to understand what people are saying are suddenly explained.

I'm surprised to hear you admit that you don't understand context, however.

Context. The same I derive the intended meaning of any word with multiple meanings. I'm reasonable that way.

I, too, have this superpower.

When listening to another person speak, I can determine from the context if they meant "for" or "four." I can tell the difference between "read" and "red," or "their"/"they're"/"there" based on the context.

I'm a genius. Everybody congratulate me on my "mind-reading" powers!

Well the vast majority of people use it to describe homosexual sex.

Um, to ALSO describe homosexual sex. Do you realize that you're arguing that your misunderstanding of the term means we should consider it derogatory? What an interesting argument. You don't understand the meaning and origin of "that's so gay" so we have to pretend like you're correct. And you don't understand the meaning and origin of sodomy so, again, we have to pretend like you're right.

Anything else you don't understand so we have use incorrectly or is this the WHOLE list?

I told you. None of those are mind-reading. If you don't know how to determine context without mind-reading, the commonality of conversations where you don't appear to understand what people are saying are suddenly explained.

I'm surprised to hear you admit that you don't understand context, however.

Oh, I understand context. But it requires more than "body language" or other bullshit like that.

It requires other words. You would have to prove from past experience and statements that the person was already a homophobe.

Kinda hard in my case, considering how many homosexuals have long called me their friend.

If I put them on the stand in such a case, you would lose, no matter what "body language" you testified to.

I, too, have this superpower.

When listening to another person speak, I can determine from the context if they meant "for" or "four." I can tell the difference between "read" and "red," or "their"/"they're"/"there" based on the context.

I'm a genius. Everybody congratulate me on my "mind-reading" powers!

Yes. Sometimes I can even tell whether they are implying things. Did I just blow you're mind?

Incidentally, people with Asberger's have a terrible time reading body language and understanding context. I'm not suggesting they have it, but it would make their claims reasonable and it would make it seem like we were reading minds, since we have an ability they (people with Asberger's) don't.

I just don't get, do not understand, and simply can not fathom why some people would be so persistant, so dogmatic, so down right virulent in their attempt to force themeselves not to concede that when you use the word "gay" to mean bad, stupid, or idiotic that it could be considered offensive to gay people.

Why do some people try so damned ardently to not just concede such an obvious "no shit" statement? I just don't understand this. The only reason, the ONLY reason I can possibly see to justify this...desperate attempt to have everyone believe it's NOT offensive to gays is so they can make thinly veiled homophobic comments in public and not be called out on it.

Which, well golly gee, didn't our little lady mentioned in the OP basically sue to be able to do just that?

Oh, I understand context. But it requires more than "body language" or other bullshit like that.


More than, means "including". I pointed out several ways one would derive meaning in the environment you described. Oddly you claimed reading one's body is somehow mind-reading. I don't know what to say to that except to giggle.


It requires other words. You would have to prove from past experience and statements that the person was already a homophobe.


Context does not only refer to words. Now who's oversimplifying? Do I really have to teach what context is in a conversation. Are you seriously telling me that you couldn't tell the difference between a playful "jerk" and an angry "jerk".


Kinda hard in my case, considering how many homosexuals have long called me their friend.


"I have black friends so I can't be a racist."


If I put them on the stand in such a case, you would lose, no matter what "body language" you testified to.

Amusing and false. Your friends could not testify to your statement unless they were there. In order to win, all I'd have to do is print out a couple of gems from your classic arguments.

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

She was reprimanded according to published school policies. SHe wasn't subjected to corporal punishment, detention, or anything remotely like it. Why is that so hard to understand?

Amusing and false. Your friends could not testify to your statement unless they were there. In order to win, all I'd have to do is print out a couple of gems from your classic arguments.

Not false at all. Hard to claim I'm a homophobe when they support me.

Not false at all. Hard to claim I'm a homophobe when they support me.

No its not, character witnesses are pretty shaky ground to start with.

Yes. Sometimes I can even tell whether they are implying things. Did I just blow you're mind?

Incidentally, people with Asberger's have a terrible time reading body language and understanding context. I'm not suggesting they have it, but it would make their claims reasonable and it would make it seem like we were reading minds, since we have an ability they (people with Asberger's) don't.

Aren't there varying degrees of it? My coworkers kid has it and you couldn't really tell. He seems like any other kid.

Not false at all. Hard to claim I'm a homophobe when they support me.

Question:

Do you have any reactions being around them? Seeing them being affectionate? How about kissing in public?.....

There are levels of homophobia.

Not false at all. Hard to claim I'm a homophobe when they support me.
Consulting your other personalities hardly counts as a viable defense.

She was reprimanded according to published school policies. SHe wasn't subjected to corporal punishment, detention, or anything remotely like it. Why is that so hard to understand?
"It's fair because it exists, if it wasn't fair it wouldn't exist."

School is hardly the paragon of logical and fair punishment.

It's like arguing with a goldfish. We've told you over and over. Your inability to hold on to that point when you get to the next page isn't something we can control.
I don't see a history of the word "gay."

I notice that's been your claim about everyone who is defeating you.
One person "defeating me" is Cpt Double Standard. The other is Super History of Bad Arguments Man.

Schools have rules. Don't smoke in the bathroom, no blowjobs in the science lab, no fighting or harassing of others, and no cursing. I was once in a ruckus with teachers and principle over saying "This blows". I argued against censorship, but in the end, they make the rules and I definately sat my hour in detention. I didn't sue, either, because it would have been... absurd.

That said, I'm against censorship of all sorts. I don't really care to scream "****** Queer motherfuckers!" out the window at an outdoor Bible Study, or on the radio for that matter, but if I suddenly catch bigotry from some redneck like a cold, I will do so and not feel bad in the slightest. I won't be punished, either, but that's because I'm not ranting about it in a classroom or workplace, where I am bound by their rules.
Maybe we could try to take it back, like ****** and 'My Nigga'. We'll just switch it to "That's pretty goy."

Not false at all. Hard to claim I'm a homophobe when they support me.

Again, does the "I can't be racist when I have black friends" line EVER work? Seriously, you can't recognize individuals as individuals and then claim that because some people don't care that you use epithets that no one does or should.

I agree the lawsuit was stupid but I was quite irritated by the judge claiming that there was no discrimination going the other way based on her being Mormon. As if those insults mean nothing but saying "that's so gay" brings down swift punishment. That the girl and family are to blame for being insulted. Ridiculous.

Aren't their varying degrees of it? My coworkers kid has it and you couldn't really tell. He seems like any other kid.

Yes. I should have been more clear. Not all. It's just a common aspect of the disease. Some can see context in words, but not in intonation and body language. For example, RO's claim that reading such things is "mindreading" would be consistent with such a thing. I'm not a doctor, and I'm not diagnosing him. I'm just noting that there is a perfectly reasonable reason why he might regard the context we all recognize in such a way.

I don't see a history of the word "gay."

Again, what you refuse to see is not really our problem. It's been explained to you repeatedly. We've even offered you an opportunity to explain an alternate origin. Your answer was "usage", a non-answer which could be applied to every word.


One person "defeating me" is Cpt Double Standard. The other is Super History of Bad Arguments Man.

How fun? This is what you want hang your hat on? That argument? Really? Hold out your hands. Here's your behind back. Thanks for playing. Amusingly, as is typical, when people with the level of pathetic arguments you've been using almost always declare they're dropping because it's not going anywhere. Interestingly enough, it's coincidentally always after there arguments have soundly destroyed. But, as I say, I'm sure that's just coincidence. It has nothing to do with being unable to man up and admit they lost the argument.

Again, what you refuse to see is not really our problem.
Then link me to the post where you went into the history of the word gay.

I agree the lawsuit was stupid but I was quite irritated by the judge claiming that there was no discrimination going the other way based on her being Mormon. As if those insults mean nothing but saying "that's so gay" brings down swift punishment. That the girl and family are to blame for being insulted. Ridiculous.

That's not what happened. No one has shown that the other children weren't punished. The judge ruled that she had no grounds, not that people making fun of her for being Mormon are not discriminating against her. No one said such insults mean nothing. You can either address what actually happened or let's just entirely make up a story and argue about it. What you're talking about does not deal with the reality of the case.

Then link me to the post where you went into the history of the word gay.

Are you kidding? How about the last five pages or so, or the first, or the second?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12656929&postcount=53
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12656930&postcount=54
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12656968&postcount=57
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12656998&postcount=62
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657012&postcount=67
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657014&postcount=69
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657019&postcount=70
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657036&postcount=73
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657109&postcount=80
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657234&postcount=88


Here's ten references in about a quarter of the thread. Would you like me to keep going or are you going to read them this time?

That's not what happened. No one has shown that the other children weren't punished. The judge ruled that she had no grounds, not that people making fun of her for being Mormon are not discriminating against her. No one said such insults mean nothing. You can either address what actually happened or let's just entirely make up a story and argue about it. What you're talking about does not deal with the reality of the case.

I would rather see proof that the school did in fact punish the other children as well as the girl. I have not seen anything like this. If true then there would clearly be a double standard as the suit claimed. I haven't seen the details of this case so I can't say which is true. But the judge in his "suck it up" type of comments makes me believe that even if the school did in fact let the other kids skate that he wouldn't care, that being teased is a part of life and that expecting even punishment is unrealistic in "real life". This is certainly true but when the offending party is called on their fault it should be expected that they make things right. But it seems quite possible that in this case the school was not held accountable and feels that the school thinks protecting gays from an insult which is not even directly pointed at them is important while direct personal attacks on a persons religion are not a problem. I still think that is ridiculous.

I would rather see proof that the school did in fact punish the other children as well as the girl. I have not seen anything like this.

Hmmmm... so your claim stands absent evidence until we prove it wrong. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. I'm sure you'd "rather" it did, however.


If true then there would clearly be a double standard as the suit claimed. I haven't seen the details of this case so I can't say which is true. But the judge in his "suck it up" type of comments makes me believe that even if the school did in fact let the other kids skate that he wouldn't care, that being teased is a part of life and that expecting even punishment is unrealistic in "real life". This is certainly true but when the offending party is called on their fault it should be expected that they make things right. But it seems quite possible that in this case the school was not held accountable and feels that the school thinks protecting gays from an insult which is not even directly pointed at them is important while direct personal attacks on a persons religion are not a problem. I still think that is ridiculous.
The issue here is that the judge needn't get involved. It was the girl that involved the judge and the judge is not in a position to punish those other boys nor is he in a position to change a fair school policy. Most importantly the case couldn't be awarded based on the complaints made. That's essentially the judge's position.

Hmmmm... so your claim stands absent evidence until we prove it wrong. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. I'm sure you'd "rather" it did, however.

There is no proof either way. We just don't know and can only guess. All I can do is form a guess as to what happened and I think it is most likely what occurred.

The issue here is that the judge needn't get involved. It was the girl that involved the judge and the judge is not in a position to punish those other boys nor is he in a position to change a fair school policy. Most importantly the case couldn't be awarded based on the complaints made. That's essentially the judge's position.

The judge may not have the authority to actually change school policy but he could certainly criticize it which he should have as I really don't see any "fairness" involved. It seemed quite possible that the judge could have ruled there was in fact a double standard. But like I said before, if I'm shown that the other kids were in fact punished than I will accept this and change my mind on the judges ruling.

There is no proof either way. We just don't know and can only guess. All I can do is form a guess as to what happened and I think it is most likely what occurred.

There is always a default. The defaut is that they didn't do anything wrong absent evidence to the contrary. The lawsuit doesn't even really allege they did other than not provide a safe enough environment (i.e. didn't prevent it.)

I don't have proof they didn't beat this girl. Let's assume they did.


The judge may not have the authority to actually change school policy but he could certainly criticize it which he should have as I really don't see any "fairness" involved. It seemed quite possible that the judge could have ruled there was in fact a double standard. But like I said before, if I'm shown that the other kids were in fact punished than I will accept this and change my mind on the judges ruling.

Again, you're criticizing the judge for not attacking a policy you've not actually demonstrated exists. As the judge pointed out, they, the people who filed suit, have handled the issue badly. That's actually true. They did handle it badly and all for a suit they weren't ever going to win and had no reason to believe they would. It was a weak claim that simply created a worse situation from a bad one and defended her derogatory use of a word for a group, an epithet. There really is no defense for the parents and the judge rightfully said so.

When the lawbooks demand death by electric chair for using the word "gay" in that fashion I'll be the one offering big money to throw the switch...

And spelling it "ghey" doesn't change a damn thing -- the usage of the phrase is still proof that the one who uttered it is undeserving of any human rights or even their life.

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

this is a very good compelling argument, worthy of worship

Cthulhu-Mythos;12660840']When the lawbooks demand death by electric chair for using the word "gay" in that fashion I'll be the one offering big money to throw the switch...

And spelling it "ghey" doesn't change a damn thing -- the usage of the phrase is still proof that the one who uttered it is undeserving of any human rights or even their life.

Trolling isn't just for under bridges anymore, I see.

The fact that she was punished by a school (guessing this is a public school?) for saying the words 'thats so gay' is an abridgment of the Bill of Rights. Since if it is a public school, it is a branch of the government. And she has the freedom to say what she wants. The same thing with the 'free speech zones' on colleges which actually ban free speech, schools the so-called protectors of free thoughts are actually the tyrants of thought and speech. While I don't condone the usage of that sort of language and I think it should be socially minimized and condoned, the government does not have the right to punish us for saying it.

Saying something's queer when things are strange should be criticized as well for that implies homosexuals are somehow strange. *nod*

Actually, queer got associated to homosexuals for that reason. The link is the opposite direction though from how gay came to mean "undesireable".

The fact that she was punished by a school (guessing this is a public school?) for saying the words 'thats so gay' is an abridgment of the Bill of Rights. Since if it is a public school, it is a branch of the government. And she has the freedom to say what she wants. The same thing with the 'free speech zones' on colleges which actually ban free speech, schools the so-called protectors of free thoughts are actually the tyrants of thought and speech. While I don't condone the usage of that sort of language and I think it should be socially minimized and condoned, the government does not have the right to punish us for saying it.

Dude, why do we keep having to explain that it is no such thing? I really wish people would learn how rights work. School children do not enjoy full first amendment rights inside the school. Period. Look back a couple of pages for the relevant caselaw.

Also, free speech is not unlimited. I can't lie in court, for example. For other similar examples, try protesting inside the capitol building. Wanna guess why you can't? Hint: It's not a violation of the bill of rights.

Um, to ALSO describe homosexual sex.

It pretty much describes homosexual sex by default among most people.


You don't understand the meaning and origin of "that's so gay"

How the fuck did you come to this conclusion? I havn't even mentioned that phrase yet.


And you don't understand the meaning and origin of sodomy

Because you say so?

Oh, I understand context. But it requires more than "body language" or other bullshit like that.

It requires other words. You would have to prove from past experience and statements that the person was already a homophobe.

Kinda hard in my case, considering how many homosexuals have long called me their friend.

If I put them on the stand in such a case, you would lose, no matter what "body language" you testified to.

LOL. I love this argument and all its variations, which comes up whenever one talks about prejudice.

First, the false dichotomy. Either X is a homophobe or X is not a homophobe. Either X is a racist or X is not a racist. Everything 100%, no gray areas.

Then, we throw in the false proof. Because X has a homosexual friend/ knows a person of color/was once kind to animals, X cannot be a homophobe/racist.

Finally, we extend the false dichotomy. Because X is not a homophobe/racist, nothing X does or says can be called homophobic/racist.

Ahhh, such beautiful logic. :headbang:

Why does the direction matter? it still hurts people's feelings.:(

It only matters in how it's changed. Like this. The use of the queer as odd existed before and does not result from its association to homosexuals. As such, it's not biggotted on its face. However, the use of the word gay as stupid is only a result of its association with homosexuals and as such you cannot seperate the two.

Without tying in homosexuals, gay has no derogatory meaning and thus the meaning wouldn't exist.

Without tying in homosexuals, queer is, has and always will mean odd, strange, etc. There is no change in the meaning.

It pretty much describes homosexual sex by default among most people.

Not according to the dictionary, a book based on the most common usage. It never seperates one from the other.


How the fuck did you come to this conclusion? I havn't even mentioned that phrase yet.

So are you really claiming your argument is completely unrelated? Are you claiming to have attempted to completely change the subject from being about the OP? Sorry, if I RIGHTFULLY assumed that you were making a contextual and rational argument, even if a wrong one. Sorry about that. Next time I'll assume you don't know the context or undertstand the argument. Happy?



Because you say so?

Because you're claiming it means something different from what it means. You used it wrong and claimed that the origin of the phrase or the use of the phrase is derogatory towards gays despite the fact that the meaning has nothing to with sexuality and everything to do with a specifc act, regardless of the sex of the participants.

So even if you don't intend it to be attached to homosexuals at all, it is and you're a bigoted homophobe for using it?

Strawman. The usage is homophobic. It's an epithet. That's not the same as suggesting the person must be a homophobe or a bigot. They may well just be ignorant.

Strawman. The usage is homophobic. That's not the same as suggesting the person must be a homophobe or a bigot. They may well just be ignorant.

So let's say that the word comes into common usage and most are unaware of any implicit connection to homosexuality. Would that still make it homophobic despite a complete shift in the word's usage?

So let's say that the word comes into common usage and most are unaware of any implicit connection to homosexuality. Would that still make it homophobic despite a complete shift in the word's usage?

There hasn't been a complete shift in the word's usage. It's still directly connected to homosexuality and still is an epithet. As such, it should not be used. And it is in common usage. That doesn't change WHY it means "stupid" "lame" "effeminate" "undesireable", etc.

Not according to the dictionary, a book based on the most common usage. It never seperates one from the other.


If you look at the dictionary, one of it's defnitions IS homosexual sex. So therefore homosexual sex IS a common usage.


So are you really claiming your argument is completely unrelated? Are you claiming to have attempted to completely change the subject from being about the OP?

No it is related, but there is absolutely no possible way you could ever link that to "you have no understanding of the origins of gay". Since I havn't mentioned the origins of that word.


Because you're claiming it means something different from what it means. You used it wrong and claimed that the origin of the phrase or the use of the phrase is derogatory towards gays despite the fact that the meaning has nothing to with sexuality and everything to do with a specifc act, regardless of the sex of the participants.

No i'm claiming that the common usage is almost always homosexual sex, regardless of what one of the definitions of it is.

You insulted me and hurt my feelings.:( You shouldn't say things that could potentially hurt people's feelings.

LOL. Nice try.

If you hadn't set out to deliberately use language that is offensive, insulting, and hurts people's feelings, I'd apologize. As is, you reaped what you sowed.

If you look at the dictionary, one of it's defnitions IS homosexual sex. So therefore homosexual sex IS a common usage.

It is not one of the definitions. It's a part of one of the definitions.

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

anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;

In other words, the sex of the people involved is irrelevant.


No it is related, but there is absolutely no possible way you could ever link that to "you have no understanding of the origins of gay". Since I havn't mentioned the origins of that word.

Either your argument is related to what you think the origins of gay are (erroneous origins they are) or it's a non sequittor and has no place. How would you prefer I treat it?

No i'm claiming that the common usage is almost always homosexual sex, regardless of what one of the definitions of it is.

The common usage is almost always a type of sex. That you don't realize this is your ignorance. As you can see, the dictionary makes the type of sex the issue, not the sex of the participants. That homosexual sex necessarily sodomy doesn't change that sodomy is about the type of act, not the participants. The difference is not subtle.

To me, it sounds like everyone is getting offended at its usage because it sometimes is used to refer to homosexuals negatively...and then you make the assumption that all uses must therefore be homophobic. Which isn't true.

Um, no. It's not just used to refer to homosexuals negatively. It's used, the usage was created, to insult people and things by comparing them to homosexuals.

I used the language because you deliberately posted useless, meaningless, holier-than-thou tripe. I'd like to know whose feelings I hurt though, besides a few tightwads such as yourself.

I feel bad for you, I do. You intentionally insulted and then you got insulted back. How dare he? But, hey, keep up with these compelling arguments. I know I'm swayed.

There hasn't been a complete shift in the word's usage. It's still directly connected to homosexuality and still is an epithet. As such, it should not be used. And it is in common usage. That doesn't change WHY it means "stupid" "lame" "effeminate" "undesireable", etc.

Actually there has. Not recently though. The word "gay" used to mean "happy" a while back.

I used the language because you deliberately posted useless, meaningless tripe.

Good for you. Does that make the language any less offensive or insulting?

And nothing about your post explained how my OP was "useless, meaningless tripe."

I'd like to know whose feelings I hurt though, besides a few tightwads such as yourself.

Gee, its a little hard to name names on an anonymous forum. But you knew that.

It might be someone who is gay who doesn't like being associated with stupidity.

It could be any member of the numerous advocacy groups out there that are trying to educate people not to use such harmful language.

You don't really care if it hurt anyone's feelings or not.

It is not one of the definitions. It's a part of one of the definitions.

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

anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;

In other words, the sex of the people involved is irrelevant.


Thats just one dictionary. The fact that in other dictionaries use it as a seperate definition is enough to support the fact that it is common usage.

Look at dictionary.com for example.


Either your argument is related to what you think the origins of gay are (erroneous origins they are) or it's a non sequittor and has no place. How would you prefer I treat it?


I don't see how common usage is the same as origins of the term.


As you can see, the dictionary makes the type of sex the issue, not the sex of the participants.

See above.

[/QUOTE]
That homosexual sex necessarily sodomy doesn't change that sodomy is about the type of act, not the participants. The difference is not subtle.[/QUOTE]

eh?

Actually there has. Not recently though. The word "gay" used to mean "happy" a while back.

We're not talking about that usage. We're talking about from the epithet. And that shift hasn't happened.

Wait, hang on.

Can I still use the word gay as a descriptive term for homosexuality itself?

Like, if Christy says "Um, Dennis and Paul are kissing in the kitchen."

Can I still say "Well, yeah, they're gay." ?

i apologize for writing posts and thank the holy posters here who see so lucidly for pointing out the real definition of hate and bigotry as not hating someone, but saying something that's kinda offensive to some people in some manner someway somehow at any degree maybe.

Actually there has. Not recently though. The word "gay" used to mean "happy" a while back.

Check your Oxford English Dictionary.

1. "gay" still can mean "happy" depending on the context. In the context, of "that's so gay" no one is referring to happiness.

2. "gay" has been used to refer to homosexuals since at least 1935

Wait, hang on.

Can I still use the word gay as a descriptive term for homosexuality itself?

Like, if Christy says "Um, Dennis and Paul are kissing in the kitchen."

Can I still say "Well, yeah, they're gay." ?

No. You must say that they are "bright and cheery".

No, I really don't. Because words don't bother me.

So "that's so gay" doesn't bother me at all. "Fags burn in hell" does. Why? Because it actually means to be derisive of homosexuals. That's harmful language.

You are trying so hard to justify yourself that you've fallen into contradictions.

First you claim words don't bother you. Then you claim "fags burn in hell" does bother you because it is "harmful language."

How does this help you establish that "that's so gay" isn't harmful language, hmm?

No doubt that "fags burn in hell" is much worse, but it is a difference in degree, not in kind.

Um, no. It's not just used to refer to homosexuals negatively. It's used, the usage was created, to insult people and things by comparing them to homosexuals.

But such phrases can loose meaning or mean something else.

For example, I remember listening on the radio about the civil rights movement in the early days. They were talking to a fellow(can remember his name) and he told stories about those times of protesting and getting tossed into jails.

He told one story where they were having a good time singing and telling stories and stuff. One of the guards came by and said "you boys need to shut up"

The guy said a few people got pissed and were going to have words but a couple of the local guys told them that he doesn't mean anything derogatory. It's just the way they talk here.

One guy waved the guard over and asked if he was being derogatory about calling guys boy? They guard said "I don't know any derogatory but if you boys don't quiet down; you are going to be in a whoop of trouble"

The guy said they all had a laugh but it taught him that they needed to focus on overt racism and not fight everybody when they are simply ignorant.

Thats just one dictionary. The fact that in other dictionaries use it as a seperate definition is enough to support the fact that it is common usage.

Look at dictionary.com for example.

Dictionary is a collection of lexical references. Some are reliable and some are not. Most of them don't agree with your premise in any fashion.

However, you didn't just say common, you said most common, as in most people don't understand it's full meaning. Amusingly, dictionary.com has it as the second meaning. Your realize that meanings are in order of usage, no? That means that even your own source lists it as less common than the usage that references same sex. Meanwhile, no matter how hard you try you can't relate "sod off" to a homosexual insult. That you have to make so many exceptions for that relationship to exist is proof it doesn't.


I don't see how common usage is the same as origins of the term.

They are related. Particularly in the case of this term. You weren't just talking about common usage, meanwhile. You were also talking about the origin. Did you forget your own argument?


See above.

Again, you're reference doesn't support your claim even if I "see above". Dictionary.com lists the homosexual reference as a less common usage. Meanwhile, are you actually claiming that dictionary.com is more reliable than Mirriam-Webster when it references Mirriam-Webster?

eh?

Sorry, struggling with clear and concise language? What was unclear to you?

But such phrases can loose meaning or mean something else.

For example, I remember listening on the radio about the civil rights movement in the early days. They were talking to a fellow(can remember his name) and he told stories about those times of protesting and getting tossed into jails.

He told one story where they were having a good time singing and telling stories and stuff. One of the guards came by and said "you boys need to shut up"

The guy said a few people got pissed and were going to have words but a couple of the local guys told them that he doesn't mean anything derogatory. It's just the way they talk here.

One guy waved the guard over and asked if he was being derogatory about calling guys boy? They guard said "I don't know any derogatory but if you boys don't quiet down; you are going to be in a whoop of trouble"

The guy said they all had a laugh but it taught him that they needed to focus on overt racism and not fight everybody when they are simply ignorant.

I agree with that, but we're not talking about "fighting" it. We're talking about whether it's wrong. And it's wrong.

But such phrases can loose meaning or mean something else.

For example, I remember listening on the radio about the civil rights movement in the early days. They were talking to a fellow(can remember his name) and he told stories about those times of protesting and getting tossed into jails.

He told one story where they were having a good time singing and telling stories and stuff. One of the guards came by and said "you boys need to shut up"

The guy said a few people got pissed and were going to have words but a couple of the local guys told them that he doesn't mean anything derogatory. It's just the way they talk here.

One guy waved the guard over and asked if he was being derogatory about calling guys boy? They guard said "I don't know any derogatory but if you boys don't quiet down; you are going to be in a whoop of trouble"

The guy said they all had a laugh but it taught him that they needed to focus on overt racism and not fight everybody when they are simply ignorant.

Prejudice need not be overt to be objectionable.

And the answer to simple ignorance is to educate away the ignorance. Not just ignore it.

How does this help you establish that "that's so gay" isn't harmful language, hmm?


Just out of curiosity what exactly does "that's so gay" mean? How are they harmed?

You can have Falwell talking about Homosexuals being an abomination. Is "that's so gay" the same thing?

Doesn't intent of meaning come into play here?

Just asking. Not trying to defend anything.

Good for you. Does that make the language any less offensive or insulting?

And nothing about your post explained how my OP was "useless, meaningless tripe."



Gee, its a little hard to name names on an anonymous forum. But you knew that.

It might be someone who is gay who doesn't like being associated with stupidity.

It could be any member of the numerous advocacy groups out there that are trying to educate people not to use such harmful language.

You don't really care if it hurt anyone's feelings or not.

Well, of course. And if it doesn't hurt feelings, they're "tightwads like yourself". Very convenient and really the point of epithets. If you're offended by them, then it's an excuse to dismiss you. Isn't that a nice little side effect of hate language?

Doesn't intent of meaning come into play here?

Not in double standard land.

Just out of curiosity what exactly does "that's so gay" mean? How are they harmed?

You can have Falwell talking about Homosexuals being an abomination. Is "that's so gay" the same thing?

Doesn't intent of meaning come into play here?

Just asking. Not trying to defend anything.

As TCT mentioned, it's a difference of degree, not kind. "I only beat my wife, some guys kill their wives" is not really a good defense. I think if it's necessary to suggest such a thing, then it's a pretty good reason to change your behavior.

Not in double standard land.

Ha. Not willing to engage in debate, huh? Just drive-bys. How much you help your side of the argument with these tactics? I hope you never stop.

Check your Oxford English Dictionary.

1. "gay" still can mean "happy" depending on the context. In the context, of "that's so gay" no one is referring to happiness.

2. "gay" has been used to refer to homosexuals since at least 1935

Why would I need to? I am very well aware of the meanings of "gay".

I am aware of what it used to mean..and what it is now commonly meant as. I was referring to the word has having shifted in its common usage.

Ha. Not willing to engage in debate, huh? Just drive-bys. How much you help your side of the argument with these tactics? I hope you never stop.

Find some one here worth attempting to debate. You yourself just compared the intent of saying "that's so gay" to "beating your wife vs killing her."

Just out of curiosity what exactly does "that's so gay" mean? How are they harmed?

You can have Falwell talking about Homosexuals being an abomination. Is "that's so gay" the same thing?

Doesn't intent of meaning come into play here?

Just asking. Not trying to defend anything.

"That's so gay" is used to mean "that is so lame/stupid/undesirable."

It's objectionable because it equates being homosexual with being lame/stupid/undesirable.

It certaintly isn't as bad as other things that have been said about homosexuals, but that doesn't mean it is a good phrase to use.

I have yet to have it explained to me why it is necessary to use a phrase that people know is offensive to some.

It seems to me that insisting on using an offensive phrase without a good reason makes one something of an asshat.

As TCT mentioned, it's a difference of degree, not kind. "I only beat my wife, some guys kill their wives" is not really a good defense. I think if it's necessary to suggest such a thing, then it's a pretty good reason to change your behavior.

Ok.

Then the question remains. What exactly does "that's so gay" mean?

I think it's a generational slang as I don't remember it.

*Puts on his old man spectacles"

In my day they used to make homo and fag insults.....

So, in your opinion, what should we launch moral crusades against?

I think we should speak out when we here hate language and let people know that even if none of minority X are around to hear it, it's still wrong.

I know it helps you to justify yourself by calling it "moral crusades", but notice the difference here is that we're asking people to live and let live, not what to think or what to do personally. There's a significant difference. If you and your husband want to mistreat each other all day long, feel free, provided your mistreatment doesn't spill over onto people who have not agreed to be a part of your little party.

Here we are talking about the usage of language that was designed to be hateful. Hate by it's nature is meant to have a subject and as such is not a private act.

To the intent discussion:

In some circles (ie. gamer/nerd circles), "Nigga, please!" has entered common usage. Most of the people using it are not racist. Most don't even think about it being related to racism. But does that change the fact that "Nigga" is indeed a racial epithet? Would you really blame a black person for being upset over the use of the phrase?

"That's so gay" is used to mean "that is so lame/stupid/undesirable."

It's objectionable because it equates being homosexual with being lame/stupid/undesirable.
Based on what? That is the same asinine "advanced concepts of underlying bigotry 300" bullshit that Jocabia has been saying for pages. It doesn't sound any smarter coming from you.

Find some one here worth attempting to debate. You yourself just compared the intent of saying "that's so gay" to "beating your wife vs killing her."

Comparisons aren't something you're familiar with, huh? The point is a difference of degree, and I showed that something worse, doesn't make everything that's less bad somehow good. Was that a bit too much for you?

Meanwhile, how convenient it must be that everyone who disagrees with you and can actually show you to be wrong isn't "worth attempting to debate". At least, you said it right. You were "attempting" to debate. Not succeeding.

Ok.

Then the question remains. What exactly does "that's so gay" mean?

I think it's a generational slang as I don't remember it.

Essentially, it means, "That's stupid," or, "That's annoying." The implication, of course, is that gay people are stupid/annoying.

hate isn't hating; it's being offensive to some people somewhere for some reason.

Ok.

Then the question remains. What exactly does "that's so gay" mean?

I think it's a generational slang as I don't remember it.

*Puts on his old man spectacles"

In my day they used to make homo and fag insults.....

It's used the same homo and fag insults are. When I was young (read: the 80's) it was used because anything that would anyway relate to being gay was an insult because, dear God, who would ever WANT to be gay?

Who does hate language apply to?

Seriously, you don't know what hate language is? Hmmm... methinks someone is being intentionally disingenuous.

Uncompelling!

Would you really blame a black person for being upset over the use of the phrase?

I think it is fair only to note that they get upset only when white people use it.

Granddad: ...and all I ask y'all to do is act like you got some class!
Riley: (to Huey) Hey... what's "class"?
Huey: It means, "don't act like niggas."
Granddad: Now, now, see? That's what I'm talkin' about right there! We don't use the "n-word" in this house!
Huey: Granddad, you said the word "nigga" 46 times yesterday. I counted.
Granddad: Nigga, hush!

Dictionary is a collection of lexical references. Some are reliable and some are not. Most of them don't agree with your premise in any fashion.


Are you telling me you have actually looked up sodomy in "most" dictionaries.


However, you didn't just say common, you said most common

I'll add to that: most common, although probably depending on where you live.


Amusingly, dictionary.com has it as the second meaning. Your realize that meanings are in order of usage, no? That means that even your own source lists it as less common than the usage that references same sex.
Meanwhile, no matter how hard you try you can't relate "sod off" to a homosexual insult. That you have to make so many exceptions for that relationship to exist is proof it doesn't.

So far I have made two exceptions:

1) Not actual definition but in common usage
2) Common usage depending where you live

How is this proof that this common usage doesn't exist?


You were also talking about the origin.


When?


What was unclear to you?

"That homosexual sex necessarily sodomy"

I think it is fair only to note that they get upset only when white people use it.

Every single black person?

Based on what? That is the same asinine "advanced concepts of underlying bigotry 300" bullshit that Jocabia has been saying for pages. It doesn't sound any smarter coming from you.

More compelling arguments. I notice anytime you can't answer an argument it's because the people you're arguing with are stupid and not worth it. Again, I hope you never stop. It's a very compelling reason to think you're wrong. And since our goal is to show you're wrong, thanks for the help.

Comparisons aren't something you're familiar with, huh?

And you obviously don't understand that your comparison is incorrect because it was a false comparison. Which is why you arn't worth debating.

"That's so gay" is used to mean "that is so lame/stupid/undesirable."

It's objectionable because it equates being homosexual with being lame/stupid/undesirable.

It certaintly isn't as bad as other things that have been said about homosexuals, but that doesn't mean it is a good phrase to use.

I have yet to have it explained to me why it is necessary to use a phrase that people know is offensive to some.

It seems to me that insisting on using an offensive phrase without a good reason makes one something of an asshat.

You answered as I wrote the other. :)

I am a little befuddled over the it's "offensive to some" approach to problem solving. There will always be somebody offended by something.

How do you measure the wrongness? If many gays think "meh" over it and a couple are offended by it?....

Has that phrase been used in situations where the person clearly hates gays?

I think it is fair only to note that they get upset only when white people use it.

For some people, that's true. For others, not so much.

For some people, that's true. For others, not so much.
But the point is you don't see Sharpton and every other voice of the black community throwing a hissy fit and getting airtime to hose some one every time a black person says "nigga."

Are you telling me you have actually looked up sodomy in "most" dictionaries.

I'm telling you I looked at dictionary.com and all the dictionaries it references. When I say most dictionaries, I'm talking about ON dictionary.com. You didn't read your own reference? Not good for your argument or your credibility. As you see I started that reference with telling you that Dictionary is a list of lexical references. Look on the site, you'll see that's exactly what it is.


I'll add to that: most common, although probably depending on where you live.

Ah, shifting goal posts. Incidentally, your own source has it as not being the most common among English speakers which makes your attempt to link it to an insult to homosexuals ludicrous and without merit.



So far I have made two exceptions:

1) Not actual definition but in common usage
2) Common usage depending where you live

How is this proof that this common usage doesn't exist?

You want me to prove a negative? What it does is show you can't support that it does exist. And again, you said MOST common usage in order to claim that "sod off" is an insult to homosexuals. That you can't actually support that claim is enough proof for me to dismiss it.



When?

When you entered with this argument. Seriously, it's my job to remind you what YOU said? Who does it when I'm not around?


"That homosexual sex necessarily sodomy"

I missed the word "is". It's a typo. However, I'll take it that you had no reply so you avoided it by focusing on the mistake. Good argument you've got their, skippy.

It seems the entire post is an attempt to avoid the substantive points in order to shift from the fact that you cannot support your claims.

But the point is you don't see Sharpton and every other voice of the black community throwing a hissy fit and getting airtime to hose some one every time a black person says "nigga."

Really? The fact is that during the whole controversy around Imus, Sharpton and Jackson both pointed out that they think that usage is wrong, during airtime. Hmmmm... seems you're once again factually incorrect. One wonders if you ever get tired of being proven wrong.

And you obviously don't understand that your comparison is incorrect because it was a false comparison. Which is why you arn't worth debating.

So are you actually claiming that I didn't give an example where degree was different but both situations were clearly wrong? Hmmm... seems you said the opposite. And since I was trying to convey that such a thing is clearly possible, I'd say it was pretty effective. But, hey, why actually attempt to say specifically how it doesn't actually convey what I wanted to convey, but instead just make loose reference to it being false. How useful.

Like I said, don't stop. You're far more effective at showing why your argument is wrong, then we will ever be. Even if I "arn't worth debating".

I'm telling you I looked at dictionary.com and all the dictionaries it references. When I say most dictionaries, I'm talking about ON dictionary.com. You didn't read your own reference? Not good for your argument or your credibility.


Nor is lying, which is the case for you. Most dictionaries =/= all the dictionaries dictionary.com references.


Ah, shifting goal posts. Incidentally, your own source has it as not being the most common among English speakers which makes your attempt to link it to an insult to homosexuals ludicrous and without merit.

You want me to prove a negative? What it does is show you can't support that it does exist. And again, you said MOST common usage in order to claim that "sod off" is an insult to homosexuals. That you can't actually support that claim is enough proof for me to dismiss it.


Whats the point in continuing the debate when the only thing that will satisfy you is what the dictionary claims.

Can we just get to the point I was trying to make which was this:

Bottle said that if you say something is gay, that makes you a homophobe. I say this is not the case as most people don't even thing about homosexuality when using that word.


When you entered with this argument. Seriously, it's my job to remind you what YOU said? Who does it when I'm not around?


If you are to assert that I said something, you need to show me where I said it because I honestly don't remember ever talking about the origins of the word gay.


I missed the word "is". It's a typo. However, I'll take it that you had no reply so you avoided it by focusing on the mistake. Good argument you've got their, skippy.


With it fixed, it's not a new argument. Just your previous argument written in another way.

Nor is lying, which is the case for you. Most dictionaries =/= all the dictionaries dictionary.com references.


Your argument consists of pointing out slight, basically irrelevant exaggerations by your argumentative opponent. I'd say you've lost.

Your argument consists of pointing out slight, basically irrelevant exaggerations by your argumentative opponent. I'd say you've lost.

I didn't exaggerate though. I was talking about dictionary.com and that most of the dictionaries on it don't support him. I may have misspoke, but I didn't exaggerate. Amusingly, his own argument was destroyed by his reference, since dictionary.com shows that the homosexual reference is not the most common usage, as was his claim.

Thats just one dictionary. The fact that in other dictionaries use it as a seperate definition is enough to support the fact that it is common usage.

Look at dictionary.com for example.

Dictionary is a collection of lexical references. Some are reliable and some are not. Most of them don't agree with your premise in any fashion.[/QUOTE]

For those who struggle with context, I'll reword. "Dictionary [your support] is a collection of [lexical] references to other dictionaries. Some [references] are reliable and some are not. Most of them [the references] don't agree with your premise in any fashion."

Yep, I must have been lying, simply because you don't understand context.

I didn't exaggerate though. I was talking about dictionary.com and that most of the dictionaries on it don't support him. I may have misspoke, but I didn't exaggerate. Amusingly, his own argument was destroyed by his reference, since dictionary.com shows that the homosexual reference is not the most common usage, as was his claim.

I have looked through dictionaries.com's references, and most of them DO list homosexual sodomy as the first deffinition actually.

sodomy [(sod-uh-mee)]


Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See pederast.)

Note: According to the Bible, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for unacceptable sexual practices, apparently including anal intercourse between men. Sodomy takes its name from the city of Sodom.
Note: Many governments have laws against sodomy. These laws are difficult to enforce, however, and many people believe they violate personal privacy.

[Chapter:] Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
sod·om·y (sd-m)
n.

Anal copulation of one male with another.
Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Copulation with an animal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sodom·ite (-mt) n.
sodom·ize (-mz) v.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'säd-&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -om·ies
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex —sod·om·it·ic /"säd-&-'mit-ik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-i-k&l/ adjective


bold mine

Nor is lying, which is the case for you. Most dictionaries =/= all the dictionaries dictionary.com references.

Ha. Lying? I was talking about dictionary.com. It was your reference. I was talking about that reference.



Whats the point in continuing the debate when the only thing that will satisfy you is what the dictionary claims.

The point is you need to show support. You've not done so. None. Your argument is weak and you want me to accept it. Sorry. I expect better. So should you.



Can we just get to the point I was trying to make which was this:

Bottle said that if you say something is gay, that makes you a homophobe. I say this is not the case as most people don't even thing about homosexuality when using that word.

And your support was that it's similar to saying "sod off" which is also a reference to homosexuals, which is false. So offer another support or move on and admit you've got no argument. I'm cool either way.

Meanwhile, that is not what Bottle said, and strawmen are fallacies for a reason. She said the usage was homophobic and that if you don't recognize that you have a thick head. That's not the same as saying anyone who uses it is a homophobe. Sorry if you don't follow the distinction.





If you are to assert that I said something, you need to show me where I said it because I honestly don't remember ever talking about the origins of the word gay.

So you weren't claiming that originally "bugger off" and "sod off" were made to reference homosexual sex? Hmmm..

Meanwhile, I don't accept your attempts to ask a different question than I referenced. I'm better at debate than that. Please rise to the challenge.

With it fixed, it's not a new argument. Just your previous argument written in another way.

Yes, I recognize that. An argument you've not adequately dismissed. You've not accomplished anything other than simply avoiding arguments you can't address. Your attempt to make a claim has failed miserably, even with you changing it repeatedly.

The point is you need to show support. You've not done so.

I have actually, look at the post I made just before this one.


And your support was that it's similar to saying "sod off" which is also a reference to homosexuals, which is false.

See above.


So offer another support or move on and admit you've got no argument. I'm cool either way.


Why? You actually agree with me apparently (assuming you agree with what you think Bottle said).


Meanwhile, that is not what Bottle said

She did, i'll edit her post in later.


So you weren't claiming that originally "bugger off" and "sod off" were made to reference homosexual sex? Hmmm..


No


Meanwhile, I don't accept your attempts to ask a different question than I referenced.


Which question was that?


Btw, why must you debate so rudely?

I have looked through dictionaries.com's references, and most of them DO list homosexual sodomy as the first deffinition actually.



bold mine

Most of them? Two? Out of about a dozen? Seriously. Meanwhile, dictionary.com lists the most reliable entry first, and that one lists your meaning as less common.

Now who's lying.

There are 9 references. 3 support your claim.

sod·om·y /ˈsɒdəmi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sod-uh-mee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def. 4).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME sodomie < OF. See Sodom, -y3]

—Related forms
sod·o·mit·i·cal /ˌsɒdəˈmɪtɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sod-uh-mit-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, sod·o·mit·ic, adjective
sod·o·mit·i·cal·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source sod·om·y (sŏd'ə-mē) Pronunciation Key
n. Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality. (no mention at all of sexuality or that it be between two men)

[Middle English sodomie, from Old French, from Sodome, Sodom, from Latin Sodoma, from Greek, from Hebrew sədōm.]


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
sodomy

c.1297, from O.Fr. sodomie, from L.L. peccatum Sodomiticum "anal sex," lit. "sin of Sodom," from L. Sodoma, ult. from Heb. s'dom "Sodom," morally corrupt city in ancient Palestine, said to have been destroyed, with neighboring Gomorrah, by fire from heaven (Gen. xviii-xix). Sodomize coined 1868. In Du. slang, besodemieteren means "to deceive," and evidently is built from the traditional notion of "corruption" in Sodom.

(Again, no reference to sexuality in the origin and meaning. That's 3 of 9.)

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source sodomy

noun
intercourse via the anus, committed by a man with a man or woman

(doesn't use seperate usages, so doesn't support that they are seperate. That's 4 out 9.)

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
sodomy [(sod-uh-mee)]


Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See pederast.)

Note: According to the Bible, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for unacceptable sexual practices, apparently including anal intercourse between men. Sodomy takes its name from the city of Sodom.
Note: Many governments have laws against sodomy. These laws are difficult to enforce, however, and many people believe they violate personal privacy.

[Chapter:] Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
sod·om·y (sd-m)
n.

Anal copulation of one male with another.
Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Copulation with an animal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sodom·ite (-mt) n.
sodom·ize (-mz) v.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'säd-&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -om·ies
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex —sod·om·it·ic /"säd-&-'mit-ik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-i-k&l/ adjective

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French sodomie sexual intercourse between men, from Old French, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom, from the supposed homosexual practices of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1-11
: the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal; especially : the crime of forcing another person to perform oral or anal sex —sod·om·ize /'sä-d&-"mIz/ transitive verb (again, they reference the origins which supports you somewhat, but the current meaning carries no sexuality. That would be 5 of 9 or MOST)

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
On-line Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
sodomy

sodomy: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

(if one follows the reference)
A term denoting a number of sexual practices variously proscribed by law, especially bestiality, oral-genital contact, and anal intercourse.

Synonym: buggery.
(and that would be 6 out of 9)


Hmmm... seems like the only way you could support your point was to reference 3 out of 9 references but make them appear to be 3 out of 3 and then claim it's MOST. Dishonesty, thy name is Hydesland.

-snip-

Actually, we have basically 3 each supporting.

As 2 or 3 of them seem to be totally neutral, where they both mention straight and homosexual sodomy, but does not mention which is more common and is not listed in numbers.

I have actually, look at the post I made just before this one.

You mean the post where you cut out all of the references that don't support you and called it most.

See above.

And? How does lying help your argument?



Why? You actually agree with me apparently (assuming you agree with what you think Bottle said).

Another weak attempt to avoid actually supporting your argument.



She did, i'll edit her post in later.

I already edited it in. I showed specifically what she said.

Noticing that the current phrase "that's so gay" is homophobic doesn't mean you have a thin skin. On the other hand, refusing to admit that "that's so gay" is homophobic does indicate a thick head.



No

Again, it looks like you have an issue with projection when you say I'm lying.



Which question was that?


Btw, why must you debate so rudely?

I was referencing the origins of the words "sod off" and "bugger off" which is what you inserted into the thread and what we've been discussing. Seriously, do you think goldfishing helps your crediblity?

And are you kidding? You didn't understand your own reference so you called me a liar when I explained it to you. When something is dumb, I call it dumb. I call it honest. You call it rude. Considering you're supporting insulting an entire group of people just so you don't have to come up with a less insulting term, I think I'll leave it to others to decide what rude is. Or do you really think aggressive debate is rude, but saying "that's so gay" is perfectly okay?

Actually, we have basically 3 each supporting.

As 2 or 3 of them seem to be totally neutral, where they both mention straight and homosexual sodomy, but does not mention which is more common and is not listed in numbers.

When both are part of the same usage, then they aren't seperated out as I claimed. If you'll notice the m-w reference uses them in exactly the same way which I offered up almost right away. At best you could dismiss one of the nine as neutral (as it mentions homosexual sex as an origin and then leaves it out of the definition). However, that still leaves me with 5. That's most. And that still leaves you with a reference to 3 of 9 and claiming it was most by dishonestly removing the rest.

By the by -

Most of them don't agree with your premise in any fashion.

It appears that you're agreeing now that most of them DON'T agree with your premise. In fact, you only claim 3 of 9 do. Thanks for calling me a liar and then proving I was telling the truth. That can't make your argument look good, can it?

You mean the post where you cut out all of the references that don't support you and called it most.



And? How does lying help your argument?


See above. But the fact that one dictionary actually said itself "most commonly used to describe homosexual sex" or something like that, supports it well.


Another weak attempt to avoid actually supporting your argument.


What the fuck are you doing then. Everytime I ask a question you just go "another attempt to avoid this or that", how is that not avoiding the question. And yes, you are right I am trying to avoid supporting that argument. Because it's pointless if you agree.


I already edited it in. I showed specifically what she said.


No thats not the post i'm talking about, give it time i'll edit in.


Again, it looks like you have an issue with projection when you say I'm lying.


"Another weak attempt to avoid actually supporting your argument." :rolleyes:


I was referencing the origins of the words "sod off" and "bugger off" which is what you inserted into the thread and what we've been discussing. Seriously, do you think goldfishing helps your crediblity?


Again it wasn't the origins of the words. All I originally asked Bottle was whether she was offended by it, nothing to do with it's origins.


And are you kidding? You didn't understand your own reference so you called me a liar when I explained it to you. When something is dumb, I call it dumb. I call it honest. You call it rude. Considering you're supporting insulting an entire group of people just so you don't have to come up with a less insulting term

No i'm not. I'm just saying it's not homophobic when someone says that.

See above. But the fact that one dictionary actually said itself "most commonly used to describe homosexual sex" or something like that, supports it well.

Yes, which makes 3 out of 9 that could possibly be seen to support it and all the rest reference it as either less common or a combined usage, both of which destroy your point. Are you in the habit of providing references that prove you wrong and then lying about them.



What the fuck are you doing then. Everytime I ask a question you just go "another attempt to avoid this or that", how is that not avoiding the question. And yes, you are right I am trying to avoid supporting that argument. Because it's pointless if you agree.

Your questions are strawmen. I talk about you entering with a claim about the meaning and implied origin of a term to support the arguments about the connection (through origin) between "that's so gay" and homosexuality, and you ask me to quote you saying it explicitly something about the origins of gay. That's a strawman by every definition of the word.

If you'd like me to answer your questions try to make them honest questions addressing logical progressions, not ridiculous made up arguments.


No thats not the post i'm talking about, give it time i'll edit in.

That's the one you replied to. Now are you going to claim you replied to something else? Were we supposed to guess what you were referencing even though you didn't actually reference it? Hmmm... shifting goal posts again, it seems.



"Another weak attempt to avoid actually supporting your argument." :rolleyes:

Pardon me? Your entire argument was nuh-uh? I've already pointed to exactly where you're claims came from, actually taking the time to read the argument back through from the beginning. If you expect more from me, you're going to have to, you know, make a remotely compelling argument. "Nuh-uh" isn't going to cut it.


Again it wasn't the origins of the words. All I originally asked Bottle was whether she was offended by it, nothing to do with it's origins.

When she told you what it meant as did I (by pointing to the origins and that unlike "that's so gay" it doesn't actually originate from a reference to homosexuality), you claimed that we could look at how sod actually originally reference sodomy. Really, are you going to rest your entire argument on this kind of weak squirming? Or would you rather make a good argument? I'd prefer the latter and I'm willing to wait if you can't think of one.



No i'm not. I'm just saying it's not homophobic when someone says that.

It's a homophobic usage. You are defending that usage. There is no getting around the distinct and unavoidable link to the meaning and homosexuality. Ignorance doesn't change meaning no matter how many times you rub that lamp.

Let's be clear then. Do you think it's okay to use "gay" to insult things and people?

Hint: Your answer should be no or you've got no right to talk about "rude".

Do you recognize that the origin of the term "that's so gay" is that being gay (homosexual) is a undesirable quality?

Hint: Should be no or you don't actually know what you're talking about. And if it is no, then you must recognize that this is explicitly what Bottle was referencing and what you replied to (the origin and relationship of the term).

Do you recognize that the origin of the term "sod off" and "bugger off" is to the perceived unpleasantness of being screwed in the anus, not specifically the comparison to be homosexual (like the term "gay")?

Hint: If you follow the evidence you'll recognize that you were originally wrong. Accept it. And earn the respect of such an act.

If I hate my neighbor and call him a piece of shit, does that count as hate language?

Hate language usually refers to blanket statements. If you called black people "pieces of shit" because he's black and you're mad at him, that would be hate speech. Dear God, it turns out I do have to actually teach about basic terms, huh?

However, I think it's fortunate that in attempting to insult your neighbor you don't denigrate an entire group of people you've got no reason to reference.

No, because I find the concept of hate language to be a bunk buzzword, especially when "that's so gay" gets swept into the category of hate language. Strong words to make your position appealing.

Hmmm... given that hate speech is speech that blankets entire groups with derogatory terms and that this term equates being undesirable with being gay, I don't think I've stretched that usage even remotely. But, hey, if you've got no argument, complain that used a term that's not offensive and used properly. Yeah, that'll probably make your argument more compelling.

The term gay equates the word gay with being undesirable. By the way, is "compelling" your favorite word or are you simply running out of ideas?

It conveys the exact idea I'm intending to convey. If I find a precise word, I tend to stick with it instead of trying to prove I've got a grand vocabulary. Is that all you've got? Attacks on my vocabulary? Interesting, considering the gist of the conversation is your misunderstanding of basic terms.

Since you aren't really interesting debating points, I said with "being gay" which is not the same as the other usage I referenced. Context. They teach you how to use that in grade school.

Yes, which makes 3 out of 9 that could possibly be seen to support it and all the rest reference it as either less common or a combined usage, both of which destroy your point. Are you in the habit of providing references that prove you wrong and then lying about them.


I say at least three out of 8, since at least one of them is neutral. But it shows that other major groups who have actually studied this term agree with me, which would back up my claim.


Your questions are strawmen. I talk about you entering with a claim about the meaning and implied origin of a term to support the arguments about the connection (through origin) between "that's so gay" and homosexuality, and you ask me to quote you saying it explicitly something about the origins of gay. That's a strawman by every definition of the word.


You're the one whos making a strawman, since everything you claim that I said about origin I didn't say at all.


If you'd like me to answer your questions try to make them honest questions addressing logical progressions, not ridiculous made up arguments.


How is "please point out where I said that" not an honest question?


That's the one you replied to. Now are you going to claim you replied to something else? Were we supposed to guess what you were referencing even though you didn't actually reference it? Hmmm... shifting goal posts again, it seems.


Whatever, you cannot deny that people do think that you are a homophobe by saying something is gay.


you claimed that we could look at how sod actually originally reference sodomy.

Seriously? This is what you were talking about? Are you actually denying that sod=sodomy?


It's a homophobic usage. You are defending that usage.

...

for the last time. I'm not defeding that usage, I am just saying that the person that uses it is not automatically a homophobe.


There is no getting around the distinct and unavoidable link to the meaning and homosexuality. Ignorance doesn't change meaning no matter how many times you rub that lamp.


And?


Let's be clear then. Do you think it's okay to use "gay" to insult things and people?

Not really. But I don't really care if someone uses it, as I know he doesn't use it with homophobic intentions.


Do you recognize that the origin of the term "that's so gay" is that being gay (homosexual) is a undesirable quality?


Probably although I would like to see some proof of this.


Do you recognize that the origin of the term "sod off" and "bugger off" is to the perceived unpleasantness of being screwed in the anus, not specifically the comparison to be homosexual (like the term "gay")?

If you say sod off or bugger off to a man, that implies that gay sex is desgusting.


Hint: If you follow the evidence you'll recognize that you were originally wrong. Accept it. And earn the respect of such an act.

Wrong about what? That sod = sodomy? That sodomy usually refers to, in common usage, about homosexual sex? Or if you say "thats so gay", you're a homophobe?

I say at least three out of 8, since at least one of them is neutral. But it shows that other major groups who have actually studied this term agree with me, which would back up my claim.

But the majority from your own link disagree with you. That can never be good. 3 of 8 is a terrible reference. Hell, mine was 1 of 1. You could have made the effort and actually found the three. It would have been much less silly. Especially since your reference gives credence to mine by referencing it.

By the way, if one of them is neutral, then it doesn't support you. That means 3 out of 9. Man, your approval rating matches Bush and you chose the poll.

You're the one whos making a strawman, since everything you claim that I said about origin I didn't say at all.

I didn't say you said it. I said it was a part of the argument you joined in on. Context. It's not the opposite of protext.


How is "please point out where I said that" not an honest question?

It suggested that I claimed you said something other than what I actually claimed. I claimed you were talking about the term "sod off" in a way that included origins and as you were doing so to support the usage of "That's so gay" the connection was tacit. You said "please point out where I said it" which is the opposite of what I claimed you said explicitly. I know this isn't clear to you. *pats head* It's okay. It's clear to people who actually read what I wrote. And it's still a strawman.



Whatever, you cannot deny that people do think that you are a homophobe by saying something is gay.

Ha. Once again, your entire argument is based on "whatever, it really is this way. Really. It is." I can tell you what I think and what other people in this thread have explicitly said. That is that the usage can be ignorant and as such the person using it would not be a homophobe. They would just be making a homophobic remark. Again, the difference is not subtle. Even you should be able to see it.



Seriously? This is what you were talking about? Are you actually denying that sod=sodomy?

No. I'm denying that sod(omy) necessarily refers to homosexuality (which is require for your claim about "sod off" being anti-gay). Your reference to the origin was an attempt to claim it was and it avoided the point Bottle made that wasn't that she didn't know the word, but that it doesn't mean what you think it means.


...

for the last time. I'm not defeding that usage, I am just saying that the person that uses it is not automatically a homophobe.

Okay, so you're arguing a strawman. Gotcha. I agree. You are arguing a strawman.

Except later you say you do defend the usage. You explicitly state that it's okay to use it that way. Not much for consistency, are you?


And?

So the usage of it is homophobic which is what Bottle said. If you'd like I can also tell you how shoes relate to feet or a million other connections that are less obvious than the one you didn't catch.


Not really. But I don't really care if someone uses it, as I know he doesn't use it with homophobic intentions.

So you are defending the usage and apparently you KNOW what people intend? Glad we're finally clear. Interesting that you just got upset that I suggested you were defending the usage. Now, you have. Want a shoehorn? Because it can't be easy to breathe with that in your mouth.


Probably although I would like to see some proof of this.

Read the thread. It's right here. All you have to do is click links. You don't even have to leave your chair.


Wrong about what? That sod = sodomy? That sodomy usually refers to, in common usage, about homosexual sex?

You are wrong that it "usually" refers to homosexual sex and your own link proves you wrong 6 times out of 9. So much for usually. It's not a hate term and you can try as you might to claim that it is but all of your own support actively and clearly proves you wrong.


Or if you say "thats so gay", you're a homophobe?

Never too late for your own strawman. Where is that Bottle quote anyway? Doesn't exist, does it? But, hey, keep lying about what she said. It's great for your argument.

My friends, examine the above. This is what happens when you enter a debate without a clear idea of what you can support.

Wise choice, NG.

But the majority from your own link disagree with you. That can never be good. 3 of 8 is a terrible reference. Hell, mine was 1 of 1. You could have made the effort and actually found the three. It would have been much less silly. Especially since your reference gives credence to mine by referencing it.

You are ignoring the main part of that quote. Firstly a majority doesn't really mean anything. Most importantly, only one of those definitions explicitly state the most common usage, and it was in favour of me.


By the way, if one of them is neutral, then it doesn't support you.

But it doesn't support you either, which makes it irellavent. Which means you leave it out.


I didn't say you said it. I said it was a part of the argument you joined in on. Context. It's not the opposite of protext.


For which you are mistaken. Because I first joined in on a question to bottle. Then you claimed that sodomy does not refer just to homosexual sodomy. I then said that in common usage it does. Where is any talk about origin there?


It suggested that I claimed you said something other than what I actually claimed.

Which is exactly what you are doing to me.

I claimed you were talking about the term "sod off" in a way that included origins[/QUOTE]

And you are mistaken about that.


Ha. Once again, your entire argument is based on "whatever, it really is this way. Really. It is." I can tell you what I think and what other people in this thread have explicitly said. That is that the usage can be ignorant and as such the person using it would not be a homophobe. They would just be making a homophobic remark. Again, the difference is not subtle. Even you should be able to see it.


Stop avoiding the argument with petty attempts at trying to analyse my argument, you havn't even given me a chance to go in depth with it yet.

The only thing that makes a remark homophobic is the meaning or intention behind it. Words are meaningless without an intended meaning. So even if it seems homophobic, do you agree that it isn't intentionally homophobic?


No. I'm denying that sod(omy) necessarily refers to homosexuality (which is require for your claim about "sod off" being anti-gay). Your reference to the origin was an attempt to claim it was and it avoided the point Bottle made that wasn't that she didn't know the word, but that it doesn't mean what you think it means.


I never referenced it's origin, only it's common usage.


Okay, so you're arguing a strawman. Gotcha. I agree. You are arguing a strawman.


Are you denying that people think you are a homophobe when making that remark?


Except later you say you do defend the usage. You explicitly state that it's okay to use it that way. Not much for consistency, are you?


I say that I don't care if people use it. That doesn't mean I think it's good or bad, just that I don't care.


So the usage of it is homophobic which is what Bottle said. If you'd like I can also tell you how shoes relate to feet or a million other connections that are less obvious than the one you didn't catch.


So you are defending the usage and apparently you KNOW what people intend? Glad we're finally clear. Interesting that you just got upset that I suggested you were defending the usage. Now, you have. Want a shoehorn? Because it can't be easy to breathe with that in your mouth.


Again, i'm not defending the usage, just defending the people who use it.


You are wrong that it "usually" refers to homosexual sex and your own link proves you wrong 6 times out of 9. So much for usually. It's not a hate term and you can try as you might to claim that it is but all of your own support actively and clearly proves you wrong.


My original argument was this: some people may get offended when you say "sod off", does that make you a homophobe for using it? Of course not.


Where is that Bottle quote anyway? Doesn't exist, does it? But, hey, keep lying about what she said. It's great for your argument.


I thought you would have deduced from my "whatever" as meaning, I can't be fucked to go find it.

You are ignoring the main part of that quote. Firstly a majority doesn't really mean anything. Most importantly, only one of those definitions explicitly state the most common usage, and it was in favour of me.

Ha. Seriously? That's what you're going with? Wow. Just wow. Everyone of them explicitly states the common usage or do you not know what a dictionary is?



But it doesn't support you either, which makes it irellavent. Which means you leave it out.

You're making a positive claim. Everything that doesn't support you, supports me. That's how debate works. Meanwhile, you called me a liar for saying explicitly that the majority of the dictionaries referenced do not support you.

And I quote myself again -
Most of them don't agree with your premise in any fashion.

Thank you for calling me a liar and then proving me right. 6 out of 9 not supportin you really does mean "most of them don't agree with your premise in any fashion". Amusingly, it turns out that's expressly accurate by your own admission. But, Hey, if 3 out of 8 sounds better than 3 out of 9 from a source you picked. Have at it. You must realize either way, that such an admission shows your point was nonsensical, but keep arguing anyway.

Why would anyone ever want to abandon a point after they're proven wrong. Keep stating it. Over and over. This is NSG.


For which you are mistaken. Because I first joined in on a question to bottle. Then you claimed that sodomy does not refer just to homosexual sodomy. I then said that in common usage it does. Where is any talk about origin there?

Again, strawman. Both Bottle and I stated that it doesn't NECESSARILY mean homosexual sodomy. Not reading our posts is not helpful to your argument.

And there's a second strrawman there as well. We're talking about the origin of "sod off" which you claim has anti-gay roots. You've not shown that to be true. In fact, you're own link shows the opposite. But, again, why follow the evidence when repeating the same fallacies over and over is so much more fun for you?




Which is exactly what you are doing to me.

Am I?

"But I wasn't replying to Bottle when she said that. *pause* Oh, there's a quote of me replying to her when she said that. *pause* Well, what I really was replying to was some post that I'll claim I'm going to quote but never will."

Yes, it's difficult to actually figure out what you mean when you just lie about what's been said. However, I've read the entire conversation several times. There are things that you reply to with arguments. If origins was not part of it, then you've not been making an argument but completely speaking to a tangent, which while not impossible, is nonsensical is well. But, hey, but if you'd rather be wrong because your point has nothing to do with the original point, I'll accept that.


And you are mistaken about that.

So you claim. You also claimed to have evidence of this. You claimed you'd post. Should I be surprised you haven't? Of course I shouldn't because we know that you're just making crap up as you go.


Stop avoiding the argument with petty attempts at trying to analyse my argument, you havn't even given me a chance to go in depth with it yet.

Uh, what? Stop avoiding the argument with "petty" attempts to analyze it? Does that make sense in your world. "Stop avoiding addressing my shoes by discussing them." Meanwhile, how many pages are required for you to have a chance to explain yourself? 100? On a forum where you cannot be interrupted? You can't make your argument and it's my fault? Sorry about that. I'll try harder to wait until you get all the fallacies out before I start pointing them out. Fair?


The only thing that makes a remark homophobic is the meaning or intention behind it. Words are meaningless without an intended meaning. So even if it seems homophobic, do you agree that it isn't intentionally homophobic?

We are talking about the meaning. I could claim "******" isn't racist because someone doesn't "mean" it that way, but the meaning makes and origins make it racist. You can't change that by wishing really, really hard. Intent has nothing to do with what words mean, unless that intent is accepted usage. The only accepted usage we're discussing is a homophobic usage that attaches an insult to gays.

And, to be clear, no, I don't agree. The fact you'd ask shows you're not paying attention. It's homophobic and, as Bottle, noting the origins, if you can't see how and why it says more about you than about anyone else.



I never referenced it's origin, only it's common usage.

We were talking about origins when you jumped in. Are you really claiming that you didn't understand what we were talking about and claiming this somehow makes your argument more credible? You really want to keep beating that drum? That your arguments have no understanding of what anyone else was saying? Because I'm willing to accept that if that's what you really want.




Are you denying that people think you are a homophobe when making that remark?

Yep. And I've challenged you to show it to be true. Your answer was the common fallacy "well, everyone knows that."



I say that I don't care if people use it. That doesn't mean I think it's good or bad, just that I don't care.

It means you support the usage. Come on. Are you really struggling with the fact that by saying it's okay and defending the usage (which you do several times above) that you're supporting the usage? Really? If you can't understanding that defending a usage is supporting a usage I'm not sure we can have a conversation. Really, this is very, very basic.


Again, i'm not defending the usage, just defending the people who use it.

You are too. You're claiming that the usage isn't homophobic and it's okay to use it. When challenged you continued to defend the usage. If you're really claiming you're not defending the usage by, you know, telling us it's okay and why it's okay, then I don't know what to say. You don't appear to know what defending and supporting mean.


My original argument was this: some people may get offended when you say "sod off", does that make you a homophobe for using it? Of course not.

I know. It's been repeatedly shown to be a nonsensical argument becuase sod off has no connection to insulting homosexuals, which is what you claimed. As such, of course it has nothing to do with homophobia. Meanwhile, no one has ever claimed that if you say "that's so gay" you must be a homophobe. We claimed the usage was homophobic. I undestand that you don't see the difference, but it's not subtle.

The thing that makes "sod off" have nothing to do with homophobia is that it has nothing to do with insulting homosexuals.

Some people are offended by the use of "those are nice nipples". Does that make it homophobic? (According to what you've managed to show here, that argument makes about as much sense as yours.)



I thought you would have deduced from my "whatever" as meaning, I can't be fucked to go find it.

Convenient. "I know I can't actually show this to be true, but please believe. What difference does it make that you've demonstrated that I'm not credible. This time I really deserve to be believed." You can see how that's not really a good argument, can't you?

Not false at all. Hard to claim I'm a homophobe when they support me.
Plenty of people who "aren't homophobes" say and do homophobic things. Even the most well-meaning individuals may make mistakes.

Also, please remember that your gay friend(s) has not been elected Official Representative Of Homosexuals Everywhere. Just because you happen to know a gay person who says "that's so gay" is alright doesn't mean "that's so gay" is Officially Non-Homophobic.

I've got a black friend who'd be happy to tell you that "******" is non-racist now, and you can safely use it. In fact, he loves telling nervous white people which slang is "okay" for them to use, because some of them are dumb enough to actually start using such slang because "their black friend" said it was alright. He loves watching what happens to such morons.

I know plenty of girls who will defend sexism against women. I know gay people who will condone homophobia against other gay people who they perceive as "too flamboyant." The term "Uncle Tom" among black people has been around for generations. It's not unusual to have sell-outs in any minority or low-status community, because a member of an oppressed class can enjoy personal perks if they are prepared to grovel and scrape and throw their fellows under the bus enough times.

Plenty of people who "aren't homophobes" say and do homophobic things. Even the most well-meaning individuals may make mistakes.

Also, please remember that your gay friend(s) has not been elected Official Representative Of Homosexuals Everywhere. Just because you happen to know a gay person who says "that's so gay" is alright doesn't mean "that's so gay" is Officially Non-Homophobic.

I've got a black friend who'd be happy to tell you that "******" is non-racist now, and you can safely use it. In fact, he loves telling nervous white people which slang is "okay" for them to use, because some of them are dumb enough to actually start using such slang because "their black friend" said it was alright. He loves watching what happens to such morons.

I know plenty of girls who will defend sexism against women. I know gay people who will condone homophobia against other gay people who they perceive as "too flamboyant." The term "Uncle Tom" among black people has been around for generations. It's not unusual to have sell-outs in any minority or low-status community, because a member of an oppressed class can enjoy personal perks if they are prepared to grovel and scrape and throw their fellows under the bus enough times.

Shuck and jive, baby. Shuck and jive.

And I'm going to quote this again, since Hyde claims you said the opposite.

Plenty of people who "aren't homophobes" say and do homophobic things. Even the most well-meaning individuals may make mistakes.

Bottle said that if you say something is gay, that makes you a homophobe. I say this is not the case as most people don't even thing about homosexuality when using that word.
No, Bottle didn't.

As a matter of fact, Bottle specifically pointed out that it's possible to (for instance) say, "Gracious, Berdine, but wasn't that the gayest party? I do hope Mama shan't be cross with us for dancing such a provocative polka!"

Bottle is quite aware that there are non-homophobic ways to use "gay." Bottle has acknowledged same.

Bottle also never said that SAYING something homophobic means that you must be a homophobe.

The phrase, "That's so gay" as used today is homphobic. It means, "That's so lame/stupid/uncool." Gay is made into a synonym for lame/stupid/uncool. That's bad.

However, you'll notice that I've 'said' "that's so gay" many, many times on this thread. I'm not homophobic. Gosh, imagine that.

It's also possible for people to simply be ignorant or stupid. In particular, adolescent humans tend to be generally ignorant, and frequently stupid. It's quite possible for a kid to say something homophobic, racist, sexist, or otherwise lousy, without having actually thought about what they're doing. The kid isn't actually homophobic or whatever, they're just ignorant.

No, Bottle didn't.

As a matter of fact, Bottle specifically pointed out that it's possible to (for instance) say, "Gracious, Berdine, but wasn't that the gayest party? I do hope Mama shan't be cross with us for dancing such a provocative polka!"

Bottle is quite aware that there are non-homophobic ways to use "gay." Bottle has acknowledged same.

Bottle also never said that SAYING something homophobic means that you must be a homophobe.

The phrase, "That's so gay" as used today is homphobic. It means, "That's so lame/stupid/uncool." Gay is made into a synonym for lame/stupid/uncool. That's bad.

However, you'll notice that I've 'said' "that's so gay" many, many times on this thread. I'm not homophobic. Gosh, imagine that.

It's also possible for people to simply be ignorant or stupid. In particular, adolescent humans tend to be generally ignorant, and frequently stupid. It's quite possible for a kid to say something homophobic, racist, sexist, or otherwise lousy, without having actually thought about what they're doing. The kid isn't actually homophobic or whatever, they're just ignorant.

Strange. That's exactly what I said you'd said. It's like I read what you wrote or something.

Don't worry. He can quote you saying it. I mean, he could if he WANTED to. Just ask him.

Strange. That's exactly what I said you'd said. It's like I read what you wrote or something.

Don't worry. He can quote you saying it. I mean, he could if he WANTED to. Just ask him.
Hmm. Perhaps I should make something clearer, then:

I DO NOT APPRECIATE PEOPLE LYING ABOUT ME OR ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID. If you (you = ANYBODY) are going to claim I said something, be prepared to quote my specific post to support your claim.

If you're lying, knock it off.

Where is that Bottle quote anyway? Doesn't exist, does it? But, hey, keep lying about what she said. It's great for your argument.I thought you would have deduced from my "whatever" as meaning, I can't be fucked to go find it.

In case you need evidence.

Ha. Seriously? That's what you're going with? Wow. Just wow. Everyone of them explicitly states the common usage or do you not know what a dictionary is?


I'm sorry but your claim (which you have no proof for btw) about how the order of the definition shows which is the more common usage is not explicitely stating. It doesn't actually tell you which is and which isn't a more common usage like my reference. A dictionary wouldn't bother to make a claim like that if it wasn't true.


You're making a positive claim. Everything that doesn't support you, supports me. That's how debate works. Meanwhile, you called me a liar for saying explicitly that the majority of the dictionaries referenced do not support you.


We are both making the same claim. You're saying that the dictionary supports you more, i'm saying it supports me more.


Thank you for calling me a liar and then proving me right.


Again, your selective memory is showing. I called you a liar for claiming that most dictionaries support your view, when what you really meant was 'most dictionaries on 'dictionary.com'.


Again, strawman. Both Bottle and I stated that it doesn't NECESSARILY mean homosexual sodomy. Not reading our posts is not helpful to your argument.


It wasn't a strawman because I came in with a question asking what Bottle thought, not telling her what she thought.


And there's a second strrawman there as well. We're talking about the origin of "sod off" which you claim has anti-gay roots.

omfg, for the last time we are not talking about the origin.


Am I?


Yes, you have repeatedly claimed that I have even said a word about the origin of the term sod off. Which I havn't.


There are things that you reply to with arguments. If origins was not part of it, then you've not been making an argument

Yes, great logic there :rolleyes:


but completely speaking to a tangent, which while not impossible, is nonsensical is well. But, hey, but if you'd rather be wrong because your point has nothing to do with the original point, I'll accept that.


It has a lot to do with whether saying "thats so gay" makes you homophic or not.



So you claim. You also claimed to have evidence of this.

No I claimed I had evidence of what sodomy's common usage is. Thats completely seperate to whether I was talking about it's origins or not (which I wasn't).


Uh, what? Stop avoiding the argument with "petty" attempts to analyze it?

Yes I misstyped. I meant, petty attempts to analyze my posting style.

On a forum where you cannot be interrupted? You can't make your argument and it's my fault?


Well, as I assumed you agreed with me, I havn't bothered to argue with you about whether it's homophobic or not, untill now.


We are talking about the meaning. I could claim "******" isn't racist because someone doesn't "mean" it that way, but the meaning makes and origins make it racist.

Do you think Eddie Murphy is racist then?


You can't change that by wishing really, really hard. Intent has nothing to do with what words mean

Yes it does, it has almost everything to do with it. Take the word set for example. That has many definitions, how are you suppost to know what someone means by it?


And, to be clear, no, I don't agree. The fact you'd ask shows you're not paying attention. It's homophobic and, as Bottle, noting the origins, if you can't see how and why it says more about you than about anyone else.


You think that when someone uses it, he/she is always intentionally homophobic? Wow...


We were talking about origins when you jumped in.

YES YOU, thankyou. Not me. You.


Are you really claiming that you didn't understand what we were talking about and claiming this somehow makes your argument more credible? You really want to keep beating that drum? That your arguments have no understanding of what anyone else was saying? Because I'm willing to accept that if that's what you really want.


I'm saying that I wasn't making an attempt to support any previous argument in the thread, which you erroneously assumed.


Yep. And I've challenged you to show it to be true. Your answer was the common fallacy "well, everyone knows that."


Whats the point of debating with you if you are so clueless. You honestly didn't realise that some people think people who use it are homophobes?


It means you support the usage.

How? Do you understand the term apathy? If I don't care about whether the conservatives win the election, does that mean I support them?


Come on. Are you really struggling with the fact that by saying it's okay just and defending the usage

I'm saying to things:

1) I don't care if people use it
2) people who use it are not automatically homophobes.

That doesn't mean that I don't think the people who use it are ignorant, just that I don't care if they are ignorant or not.


You are too. You're claiming that the usage isn't homophobic and it's okay to use it. When challenged you continued to defend the usage. If you're really claiming you're not defending the usage by, you know, telling us it's okay and why it's okay, then I don't know what to say. You don't appear to know what defending and supporting mean.


I'm telling you that it's not homophobic, as stated above, that doesn't mean I don't think it's ignorant.


I know. It's been repeatedly shown to be a nonsensical argument becuase sod off has no connection to insulting homosexuals

And neither does "thats so gay". Which was the point.


no one has ever claimed that if you say "that's so gay" you must be a homophobe.

You seem to be, although in a subtle way.


The thing that makes "sod off" have nothing to do with homophobia is that it has nothing to do with insulting homosexuals.


Thats the point I was trying to make, but about "thats so gay".


Convenient. "I know I can't actually show this to be true, but please believe.

I'm not asking you to believe me about if Bottle said it or not, cause frankly I don't care. If Bottle didn't say it, many other people have.

We are both making the same claim. You're saying that the dictionary supports you more, i'm saying it supports me more.
This is the kind of shit I put him on ignore for.

This is the kind of shit I put him on ignore for.
I rather like it.

See, the dictionary is something that everybody can read. The claim that, "the dictionary supports me more" can be empirically investigated. I find it wonderfully entertaining when somebody claims the dictionary supports them more, when it obviously and unequivocally does not, because then I don't have to expend any energy making them look silly.

I like when other people do my work for me. *puts feet up*

I rather like it.

See, the dictionary is something that everybody can read. The claim that, "the dictionary supports me more" can be empirically investigated. I find it wonderfully entertaining when somebody claims the dictionary supports them more, when it obviously and unequivocally does not, because then I don't have to expend any energy making them look silly.

I like when other people do my work for me. *puts feet up*
He has been pulling the "holier than thou" crap since I was arguing with him.
"My opinion is right because it is mine." Then asserting I was wrong every time I pointed it out it was a my opinion v. his opinion argument.
Does it in every single thread, so I figured he could join the rest of the annoying crackpots that are on my ignore list.

He has been pulling the "holier than thou" crap since I was arguing with him.
"My opinion is right because it is mine." Then asserting I was wrong every time I pointed it out it was a my opinion v. his opinion argument.
Does it in every single thread, so I figured he could join the rest of the annoying crackpots that are on my ignore list.
Fair enough, I can completely understand why that would get under your skin.

I'm bordering on employing the ignore list as well, since I'm getting sick and tired of people blatantly lying about what I have and have not said. It is a cowardly tactic to make me waste my time repeating what I've already said, and is also a boring and obvious attempt to distract from the fact that the individual in question is wrong (and they know it).

Fair enough, I can completely understand why that would get under your skin.

I'm bordering on employing the ignore list as well, since I'm getting sick and tired of people blatantly lying about what I have and have not said. It is a cowardly tactic to make me waste my time repeating what I've already said, and is also a boring and obvious attempt to distract from the fact that the individual in question is wrong (and they know it).

I find it more amusing that he can make a statement on something you'd said, claim to not be willing to back up his claim, suggest that this lack of desire to support his opinion was mere laziness, and expect anyone to take him seriously.

I'm sorry but your claim (which you have no proof for btw) about how the order of the definition shows which is the more common usage is not explicitely stating. It doesn't actually tell you which is and which isn't a more common usage like my reference. A dictionary wouldn't bother to make a claim like that if it wasn't true.
I'm making a negative claim. I can only dismiss your proof. I've done that.

And I love that fallacy. You keep getting funnier. The dictionaries don't all agree. However, the majority dismiss your point. I know you don't get it, but ALL dictionaries are talking about the common usage. That's what dictionaries are for.


We are both making the same claim. You're saying that the dictionary supports you more, i'm saying it supports me more.

You're saying the dictionary supports me more, since my claim is that your claim is wrong. You're saying the dictionaries only support you 3 out of 9 times. If they don't support you more than that, that's supporting me, since I said you cannot make the connection you made.

Again, your selective memory is showing. I called you a liar for claiming that most dictionaries support your view, when what you really meant was 'most dictionaries on 'dictionary.com'.

Not what I meant, what I said. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem. But, hey, keep helping your argument. It's funnier this way.


It wasn't a strawman because I came in with a question asking what Bottle thought, not telling her what she thought.

No, you've since claimed what she thought. You're funny.


omfg, for the last time we are not talking about the origin.

We were. You jumped in and made an argument that rested on the origin of the term. Again, I'm sorry that you don't understand. I've explained it as clearly as possible. I can only present arguments, not massage your brain until you get them.


Yes, you have repeatedly claimed that I have even said a word about the origin of the term sod off. Which I havn't.

You know what context is? Apparently not.

Yes, great logic there :rolleyes:

Is is strange to you that people assume that when you enter into a discussion of the origin of something affects its meaning with an example that we assume that you're actually cognizant of the debate enough to make your example pertinent?


It has a lot to do with whether saying "thats so gay" makes you homophic or not.

Again, this is a strawman. You've never shown that anyone ever said such a thing and the two main people in the thread, Bottle and I have said the opposite. It doesn't make you homophobic. It's a homophobic comment.

Meanwhile, it doesn't because the comments you listed have NOTHING to do with homosexuality and you've not demonstrated that they do. Your claim of the "most common usage" has been debunked by your own source.

No I claimed I had evidence of what sodomy's common usage is. Thats completely seperate to whether I was talking about it's origins or not (which I wasn't).

I know. I guess I should have realized it was a strawman from the beginning. I accept that I gave your argument too much credit and thought it was actually a part of the debate into which you entered it as an example. Don't worry. I'll not expect so much of you in the future. That help?


Yes I misstyped. I meant, petty attempts to analyze my posting style.

Except, we're talking about the arguments. That's pretty important to the debate. I'm sorry that doesn't make sense to you.


Well, as I assumed you agreed with me, I havn't bothered to argue with you about whether it's homophobic or not, untill now.

You assumed I agreed with you? Have you been reading. This is just sad. You keep saying things that are blatantly untrue when the only you have to do to correct yourself is read the posts. Is that too much?


Do you think Eddie Murphy is racist then?

Yes. Yes, I do. He says racist things and he doesn't do so by accident. He knows they're racist and he uses them to further his career.


Yes it does, it has almost everything to do with it. Take the word set for example. That has many definitions, how are you suppost to know what someone means by it?

I recognize you've been ignoring context throughout this whole argument, but context is necessarily applied to language.


You think that when someone uses it, he/she is always intentionally homophobic? Wow...

I didn't say that King of Strawmen. I said that the comment is homophobic. I've repeatedly said that they can often make such a comment out of ignorance rather than intent. But, hey, if the only arguments you can defeat are ones you make up then carry on.


YES YOU, thankyou. Not me. You.

Yes. I erroneously thought you understood the conversation you entered. I won't expect so much in the future. That sound fair to you?


I'm saying that I wasn't making an attempt to support any previous argument in the thread, which you erroneously assumed.

Yes, I erroneously, (yes, that means I'm admitting I made a mistake) thought you understood what you were replying to. You've since proven that assumption wrong. I don't think that really helps your argument though. It kind of makes your entire argument seem foolish.



Whats the point of debating with you if you are so clueless. You honestly didn't realise that some people think people who use it are homophobes?

Like Bottle, right? Or are you done with that lie? And you didn't say SOME. You said people, which implies all or at least most. E.g. black people are criminals. You should have used the word "some" and then my reply would have been "so? What's your point?" instead of "here's a dozen ways you're wrong *inserts evidence*".


How? Do you understand the term apathy? If I don't care about whether the conservatives win the election, does that mean I support them?

If you said "here's why conservatives are right" or even "you're wrong. There is nothing wrong with conservatives", you'd be defending them. That's what defending means.



I'm saying to things:

1) I don't care if people use it
2) people

That doesn't mean that I don't think the people who use it are ignorant, just that I don't care if they are ignorant or not.

Ha. You defended the usage. "It's okay if they use it because it's not homophobic" is a defense and support of the usage. You didn't say "I have no opinion". You gave your opinion and your reasoning which were both in support of the usage. You know the difference, no?


I'm telling you that it's not homophobic, as stated above, that doesn't mean I don't think it's ignorant.

That's a defense. You're claiming it's not homophobic and we are. You're defending the usage that we're attacking. What's complicated about this? Meanwhile, if it's not homophobic why is it ignorant?



And neither does "thats so gay". Which was the point.

Yes. It really does. Why is gay an insult? I'll give you a hint (it relates to homosexuals). This is unlike "sod off" in that whether you're a man or a woman, you don't want someone to randomly bang you in the behind, whether that person is gay or straight. There is a distinct difference even if you don't get it.



You seem to be, although in a subtle way.

It must be VERY subtle, since I said the exact opposite. But, hey, what's the point of entering a debate if YOU can't just make crap up, no?



Thats the point I was trying to make, but about "thats so gay".

"Those are ugly shoes" has nothing to do with insulting homosexuals as well. How does that relate to "that's so gay"? This is the part you don't seem to understand. Unlike "sod off" which is a physically unpleasant act, "that's so gay" is only an insult becuase it means that being gay is bad. There is nothing physically unpleasant about gay. No inherent unpleasantness. Just that which is ascribed to being gay. That's why origins are important.


I'm not asking you to believe me about if Bottle said it or not, cause frankly I don't care. If Bottle didn't say it, many other people have.

Oh, now, Bottle might not have said it. But you said you could quote her saying it. You said that's what you were replying to. Glad you admit you were lying. We both knew it.

Now, can you quote anyone else saying that or would you care to stop while you're miles behind?

Fair enough, I can completely understand why that would get under your skin.

I'm bordering on employing the ignore list as well, since I'm getting sick and tired of people blatantly lying about what I have and have not said. It is a cowardly tactic to make me waste my time repeating what I've already said, and is also a boring and obvious attempt to distract from the fact that the individual in question is wrong (and they know it).

You realize you and Deus are talking about Hyde and the pantless one is talking about how annoying it is to lose arguments with me, right?

This is the kind of shit I put him on ignore for.

wtf? I don't recall ever arguing with you.

This is the kind of shit I put him on ignore for.

Amusing since what you're quoting is something I proved wrong. This is an admission that me proving you wrong is why you're ignoring. Just so you know, putting me on ignore just means I get to annihilate your arguments and you don't even get to defend yourself. It doesn't mean your arguments get to stand unmolested.

He has been pulling the "holier than thou" crap since I was arguing with him.

Wait, again can you please show me where I have argued with you? (or someone else since you have put me on ignore). I honestly don't think I have ever had a debate with you. I honestly think you are mixing me up with another poster.

wtf? I don't recall ever arguing with you.

Not you. Jocabia.

Wait, again can you please show me where I have argued with you? (or someone else since you have put me on ignore). I honestly don't think I have ever had a debate with you. I honestly think you are mixing me up with another poster.

He's talking about me. He's annoyed that when he doesn't support his positive assertions that I point it out. The same thing he's quoting you talking about me doing to you.

In this case, your assertion is "sod off is related to homosexuality" and my assertion is "you're wrong". You claim I have to prove the opposite, but all I have to do is show that you've not supported yours. Pantless got upset because he made a similar positive assertion because I pointed to the fact that debunking his claim only requires that I show he hasn't supported it. The same thing I did to you. Incidentally, you're a damn sight better than him at this since you at least admit that your link doesn't support you. Both of you think you think, however, that unless someone proves the opposite is true that you can just make claims all day. In debate, this simply isn't true.

He claims it's just his "opinion", but "I like blue" is an opinion. "The link between homosexuality and that's so gay has disappeared" is an assertion. The difference is wildly obvious. Interestingly enough, his original assertion was that there was never any link, but then he backtracked and changed and waffled and spit and swore and got really upset.

Not you. Jocabia.

Oh, sorry.

I'm making a negative claim. I can only dismiss your proof. I've done that.


You're not dismissing it. You have made a counter claim which is exactly the same as mine except one difference. You say that the hetrosexual version is the common usage, while I am saying that the homosexual one is the common usage. Both positive claims.

However, the majority dismiss your point.

Why do you think that you have so much support for you. You have next to nothing. The only thing you have going for you is the order in which the dictionaries put the definition. Thats a very vague support, assuming that all dictionaries are written in the same system.


Not what I meant, what I said. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem. But, hey, keep helping your argument. It's funnier this way.


I know it's not what you meant. Which is why I only called you a liar before you revealed that you meant something other to what you said.


No, you've since claimed what she thought. You're funny.


Not when I came in.


We were. You jumped in and made an argument that rested on the origin of the term. Again, I'm sorry that you don't understand. I've explained it as clearly as possible. I can only present arguments, not massage your brain until you get them.


You havn't explained anything. You have just said that I have been talking about the origins again and again but in different ways, to make it seem you have explained it.


You know what context is? Apparently not.


I don't see how it's rellevant.


Is is strange to you that people assume that when you enter into a discussion of the origin of something affects its meaning with an example that we assume that you're actually cognizant of the debate enough to make your example pertinent?


I wasn't entering into your discussion, just because I replied to someone doesn't mean I intended to continue that same discussion.


Again, this is a strawman. You've never shown that anyone ever said such a thing and the two main people in the thread, Bottle and I have said the opposite. It doesn't make you homophobic. It's a homophobic comment.


Why would I come in on a debate like this if such people didn't exist?


Meanwhile, it doesn't because the comments you listed have NOTHING to do with homosexuality and you've not demonstrated that they do. Your claim of the "most common usage" has been debunked by your own source.


In your opinion. In my opinion they verify it more, as you don't have any sources that actually articulate which is and which isn't the common usage. I do.


I know. I guess I should have realized it was a strawman from the beginning. I accept that I gave your argument too much credit and thought it was actually a part of the debate into which you entered it as an example. Don't worry. I'll not expect so much of you in the future. That help?

Yes, it would help if you would stop making a strawman and actually argue against what I said.


You assumed I agreed with you? Have you been reading. This is just sad. You keep saying things that are blatantly untrue when the only you have to do to correct yourself is read the posts. Is that too much?


I assumed you agree because you yourself admit that it doesn't make you homophobic when you say it. So thats one thing we do agree on.


Yes. Yes, I do. He says racist things and he doesn't do so by accident. He knows they're racist and he uses them to further his career.


But when he uses the term "******", do you think he is racist?


I recognize you've been ignoring context throughout this whole argument, but context is necessarily applied to language.


Context and intended meaning are mutually exclusive.


I didn't say that King of Strawmen. I said that the comment is homophobic. I've repeatedly said that they can often make such a comment out of ignorance rather than intent. But, hey, if the only arguments you can defeat are ones you make up then carry on.


Then why did you say you disagreed with me?


Yes, I erroneously, (yes, that means I'm admitting I made a mistake) thought you understood what you were replying to. You've since proven that assumption wrong. I don't think that really helps your argument though. It kind of makes your entire argument seem foolish.


Foolish, me? When you have just admitted that half of your arguments have been against a strawman? Assuming that the only argument that exists is one about a words origins?


Like Bottle, right? Or are you done with that lie? And you didn't say SOME. You said people, which implies all or at least most. E.g. black people are criminals. You should have used the word "some" and then my reply would have been "so? What's your point?" instead of "here's a dozen ways you're wrong *inserts evidence*".


Now you are lying to yourself. You couldn't honestly of thought that when some one says "there are people that believe this", they mean most people or even all people?


If you said "here's why conservatives are right" or even "you're wrong. There is nothing wrong with conservatives", you'd be defending them. That's what defending means.


I'm defending the people who use it as ignorant not homophobic, thats a different thing entirely from supporting them.



Ha. You defended the usage. "It's okay if they use it because it's not homophobic"

I never used the word "ok"

You didn't say "I have no opinion". You gave your opinion and your reasoning which were both in support of the usage. You know the difference, no?


My opinion is that I don't care, which means that I have no positive or negative opinion of the people who use it.


That's a defense. You're claiming it's not homophobic and we are. You're defending the usage that we're attacking. What's complicated about this? Meanwhile, if it's not homophobic why is it ignorant?


It's ignorant because the person is ignorant of the fact that some people may get offended by the term. And yes it is a defense of the person who uses it, but not his use of it.


Yes. It really does. Why is gay an insult? I'll give you a hint (it relates to homosexuals). This is unlike "sod off" in that whether you're a man or a woman, you don't want someone to randomly bang you in the behind, whether that person is gay or straight. There is a distinct difference even if you don't get it.


When people use the term "thats so gay", they don't use it to offend homosexuals or to try and imply homosexuality is a bad thing. They just use it because thats what they were used to saying as kids, and it's second nature to them now.


It must be VERY subtle, since I said the exact opposite. But, hey, what's the point of entering a debate if YOU can't just make crap up, no?


It's hard to tell since you are so inconsistant.


"Those are ugly shoes" has nothing to do with insulting homosexuals as well. How does that relate to "that's so gay"? This is the part you don't seem to understand. Unlike "sod off" which is a physically unpleasant act, "that's so gay" is only an insult becuase it means that being gay is bad.

It may mean that, but the person doesn't care about the meaning.


There is nothing physically unpleasant about gay. No inherent unpleasantness. Just that which is ascribed to being gay. That's why origins are important.


If you say sod off to a man, thats implying homosexual sex, and further implying that this is unpleasent.


Oh, now, Bottle might not have said it. But you said you could quote her saying it. You said that's what you were replying to. Glad you admit you were lying. We both knew it.

Now, can you quote anyone else saying that or would you care to stop while you're miles behind?

What part of, can't be fucked, do you not understand?

If you say sod off or bugger off to a man, that implies that gay sex is desgusting.

No, it implies that ANAL sex is disgusting/undesirable.

Remedial Sex Ed Lesson #1326:

Men can have anal sex with women.

Men can RECEIVE anal penetration from women.

Heterosexual men are just as able to engage in anal sex as homosexual men.


Remedial Sex Ed Lesson #776:

Homosexual sex is not limited to, nor does it in any way require, anal sex.

Lots of homosexual couples do not engage in anal sex. Lots of heterosexual couples do.

Plenty of homosexuals couples who sometimes engage in anal sex also engage in other sexual activities.


Now, are we all perfectly clear on why "anal sex" =/= "gay sex"?

Men can RECEIVE anal penetration from women.


Not really.

Not really.
...

I just don't know what to say to that. It's like if I said, "Men can receive oral stimulation from women," and somebody said "Not really."

I guess I sometimes underestimate what "remedial" must entail.

Are you aware of the existence of sex toys? Are you aware of the practice of inserting fingers or other digits into the anus? Are you aware of the fact that female human beings may possess fingers, toes, sex toys, or even all three at the same time?

A man can receive anal penetration from a woman. If you really, really doubt me, then just shop through some of the standard porn sites. It won't take long for you to find ample information on the subject.

Are you aware of the existence of sex toys?

Frankly speaking from his comment I'm unsure if he's aware of the existence of fingers...

Grrr, damn you and your edits for making me look silly

Remedial Sex Ed Lesson #1326:
\
/
\
/
Men can RECEIVE anal penetration from women.



I didn't know that...my brain is not working out the mechanics on that so well...

...

I just don't know what to say to that. It's like if I said, "Men can receive oral sex from women," and somebody said "Not really."

Women don't tend to have male genitalia. Or at least so few that you could rule them out.

Women don't tend to have male genitalia. Or at least so few that you could rule them out.
You don't need a penis to provide anal penetration for another person.

Seriously, I know some of you guys are really in love with your penises, and that's great and all, but it's pretty much possible to have any kind of sex you want without ever needing a penis. The sex toy industry is wonderfully inventive.

What part of, can't be fucked, do you not understand?

The part where it is preceeded by a very long post, being quite indicative of the fact that you can indeed be "fucked"

Not really.

...right.

Y'know, rather than arguing with this, I will point out that even if you maintain that sex with a strap-on or something of the sort is not sex, then your "buggery is limited to gay people" argument still fails, since it is utterly impossible to argue that men cannot anally penetrate women. "Sod off" and "bugger off" are no different than "fuck off" - they're just a bit more specific.

Women don't tend to have male genitalia. Or at least so few that you could rule them out.

Unless they are hermaphrodites.

Not really.

Will this have to get descriptive? I don't think, legally, I'm old enough for that.

Women don't tend to have male genitalia

And since then has that been a requirement? If she said "women can perform penile anal penetration" you might have been right. However since her post is quite without that qualifier, I feel you are quite without a point.

I didn't know that...my brain is not working out the mechanics on that so well...
Huh. I honestly didn't realize there were so many people who were in the dark about this stuff.

I don't mean that to be insulting in any way. Nothing wrong with it. Just surprises me, because I don't consider myself particularly "kinky" or wild when it comes to sex, and yet I seem to know about things that a lot of people don't.

I know several hetero couples where the male enjoys receiving anal penetration or stimulation. I also know several gay couples that don't enjoy anal sex in any form.

Anyhow, this tangent about penetration in particular is just another of Hydes' dishonest attempts to deflect from the point.

Anal sex is not synonymous with gay sex. I've provided half a dozens reasons why. Don't like one of them? Fine. There's plenty of others for you to deal with. :D

...right.

Y'know, rather than arguing with this, I will point out that even if you maintain that sex with a strap-on or something of the sort is not sex, then your "buggery is limited to gay people" argument still fails, since it is utterly impossible to argue that men cannot anally penetrate women. "Sod off" and "bugger off" are no different than "fuck off" - they're just a bit more specific.
Bingo.

I also want to apologize if anybody reading this thread has encountered information that's a bit R-rated and is bothered by it. I don't usually like to engage in these tangents in threads that are not marked as "mature content," because I generally don't like to squigg people out when they aren't expecting it, but in this case it was directly related to the discussion.

You're not dismissing it. You have made a counter claim which is exactly the same as mine except one difference. You say that the hetrosexual version is the common usage, while I am saying that the homosexual one is the common usage. Both positive claims.

No, I didn't. Quote me or quit lying. I said that the most common usage is not what you claimed. Saying you're wrong doesn't require me to claim the opposite. Seriously, do you have an argument that ISN'T a strawman?


Why do you think that you have so much support for you. You have next to nothing. The only thing you have going for you is the order in which the dictionaries put the definition. Thats a very vague support, assuming that all dictionaries are written in the same system.

Ha. Assuming that all THESE dictionaries have the same system? It's called educating yourself on your references. I'm making no assumption. I know it. I'm educated on the use of dictionaries.

Meanwhile, since you don't even understand that I didn't claim what you said, how could you POSSIBLY know what supports me or doesn't? I said that you're wrong. No more. No less. However, if you'd like to support the lie you just told, please quote me.




I know it's not what you meant. Which is why I only called you a liar before you revealed that you meant something other to what you said.

Ha. It is what I said. Because you can't read context doesn't make it not exist. I'm sorry that this is a struggle for you, but I can't make you understand. It's not my job. Understanding is your job. And you're failing at it.


Not when I came in.

What does that have to do with anything? Seriously, it's like you don't understand ever single point of the discussion. I don't know of one you got right. Not one.


You havn't explained anything. You have just said that I have been talking about the origins again and again but in different ways, to make it seem you have explained it.

Uh-huh. I've shown you exactly how and why I got it, with quotes and descriptions. Do you not know what "explain" means, either?


I don't see how it's rellevant.

You don't see how context is relavent to meaning? Then I don't know how to help you. It's integral to understanding and explains why you don't.


I wasn't entering into your discussion, just because I replied to someone doesn't mean I intended to continue that same discussion.

Um, what? You entered a discussion, but you didn't expect people to think you were actually part of that discussion. Were we just supposed to guess that even though you quoted someone that your point was a complete non sequitor? Seriously, does this really seem like a good argument to you? It destroys your credibility as a reasonable debater.



Why would I come in on a debate like this if such people didn't exist?

That's your argument. Really? My answer is whether they ACTUALLY exist or you just think they do would not change your intent. As such, it makes for a poor argument. We KNOW you THINK they exist. I'm asking you to quote them.


In your opinion. In my opinion they verify it more, as you don't have any sources that actually articulate which is and which isn't the common usage. I do.

It's not an opinion. It's fact. Dictionaries have a function - to describe the common usage within the lexicon they examine. That you don't know it simply makes your "opinion" ignorant. It does not change it's value, or to be more exact complete lack of value.



Yes, it would help if you would stop making a strawman and actually argue against what I said.

I don't think you understand what a strawman is. I didn't reference your argument or the argument of anyone else and such a strawman is impossible. Don't use words you don't understand. It makes you look silly.



I assumed you agree because you yourself admit that it doesn't make you homophobic when you say it. So thats one thing we do agree on.

That was never the argument. You made that crap up. What was the argument and what we don't agree on is whether or not the comment is homophobic. It is. We've shown that it is. Your reply is "nuh-uh".


But when he uses the term "******", do you think he is racist?

I think the usage is racist. Again, doing something racist does not in and of itself make you a racist. Bottle explained this. I explained this. I don't get why you're struggling with the difference.


Context and intended meaning are mutually exclusive.

Pardon? You can't really believe this, can you? If this were true we'd have no way to deduce intent ever.


Then why did you say you disagreed with me?

Because you said the comment isn't homophobic. I know this is a struggle for you, but you haven't only said ONE thing.


Foolish, me? When you have just admitted that half of your arguments have been against a strawman? Assuming that the only argument that exists is one about a words origins?

Not a strawman. A strawman isn't a misunderstanding. I gave you too much credit. That's much different. I assumed your comments actually made sense in the context of the the discussion you joined. That was expecting too much, as you've pointed out repeatedly.



Now you are lying to yourself. You couldn't honestly of thought that when some one says "there are people that believe this", they mean most people or even all people?

That's not what you said. You were talking about the people who think the term is homophobic and you said "they think you're a homophobe when you use the term" and even went so far as to just randomly start picking out names in the thread that you've since retracted (sort of. Mostly you're still lying about it).

Seriously, why so dishonest? Did you not take my explicit statement that usage of the term does not make you homophobic and claim I was SUBTLY saying the opposite. Did you not say the same thing about someone else who expressly said the opposite? You've tried to argue EVERYONE in doing what you've done. Stop being dishonest. It's killing your argument.


I'm defending the people who use it as ignorant not homophobic, thats a different thing entirely from supporting them.

I've admitted that the usage is sometimes ignorant. You said it's never homophobic. You said it's not related to homosexuals. As such, what are they ignorant of?


I never used the word "ok"

I did. I asked you a question and you answered it. Pay attention.


My opinion is that I don't care, which means that I have no positive or negative opinion of the people who use it.

Again, seriously do I have to keep teaching you the meaning of words?


It's ignorant because the person is ignorant of the fact that some people may get offended by the term. And yes it is a defense of the person who uses it, but not his use of it.

Pardon? It's meant to be offensive. We're talking about the understanding of the link to homosexuality.

And why is gay an insult?


When people use the term "thats so gay", they don't use it to offend homosexuals or to try and imply homosexuality is a bad thing. They just use it because thats what they were used to saying as kids, and it's second nature to them now.

Why did they use it as a kid? Why did it become an insult? You didn't answer my question. Seriously I wonder if your arguments would be more of an actual reply to what wa swritten if I wrote in Spanish.


It's hard to tell since you are so inconsistant.

Ha. I know that when you don't understand things it makes me seem inconsistent. You think I claimed that sodomy is usually referring to heterosexuals, something I never suggested. You think I claimed that people who say "that's so gay" are homophobes, something I never suggested.


It may mean that, but the person doesn't care about the meaning.

Pardon? Words have meaning. That's how we use them. Otherwise, I might as well writte a;aghfdfkbna;ooiahweh;sn because you couldn't understand my meaning anyway. Actually, that explains your argument. You just make up the meaning of words as you go along.


If you say sod off to a man, thats implying homosexual sex, and further implying that this is unpleasent.

Amusing. So is "fuck you" implying that sex is unpleasant or is it making the implication that be having sex with some random person not of your choosing is unpleasant.

So is "sod off" said to a homosexual a good thing? What about to a woman? You don't get it. You've pointed out repeatedly how you have to qualify your argument (like "to a man") in order to make it. The meaning of the word is the same regardless of who I say it to. If I say "sod off" to a woman the meaning is the same without the homosexual implication you decry. As such, the homosexual implication has nothing to do with the meaning. Why is this so hard for you?


What part of, can't, do you not understand? [edited]

I understand it. You lied. You are now trying to cover your lie with a claim that just don't WANT to prove it. I know for a fact she said the opposite. So did I. So you're lying.

I correct the above to make it honest.

The sex toy industry is wonderfully inventive.

I admit, at the time I hadn't thought of this. However, when someone says "sod off", I doubt they think of "go shove a dildo up ur arse".

Frankly speaking from his comment I'm unsure if he's aware of the existence of fingers...


"watch me jump on the bandwagon" :rolleyes:

I admit, at the time I hadn't thought of this. However, when someone says "sod off", I doubt they think of "go shove a dildo up ur arse".

So because you doubt it, means "it doesn't"? That's what you don't get. Sod off just references anal sex. You know it. That's why you said "when said to a man" and have to ignore the plethora of situations were it would not be homosexual. It's a reference to unpleasant anal sex. No more. No less. Your comments only prove you ignorant of this FACT.

I admit, at the time I hadn't thought of this. However, when someone says "sod off", I doubt they think of "go shove a dildo up ur arse".

I find it even less likely that they are thinking, "I can't say this to a woman, as I intend solely to refer to homosexual intercourse involving a penis."

I admit, at the time I hadn't thought of this. However, when someone says "sod off", I doubt they think of "go shove a dildo up ur arse".
That's nice.

Are you ready to admit you were wrong, yet? You can start by quoting my complete post (the one you cherry-picked the "penetration" bit from), and admitting that every other sentence in that post directly disproves your pet theory.

"watch me jump on the bandwagon" :rolleyes:
Kind of like all those fools who have jumped on the "theory of gravity" bandwagon, eh?

I find it even less likely that they are thinking, "I can't say this to a woman, as I intend solely to refer to homosexual intercourse involving a penis."
As Joc pointed out, Hydes' own posts demonstrate that he KNOWS "sod off" is about anal sex, since he recognizes that it only counts as "homophobic" if you say it to a man. Obviously, then, he is admitting it's not a homophobic phrase in and of itself, since you could say it to the majority of humans on this planet and it wouldn't be homophobic (seeing as how 51% of humans are female).

He's just trying to save face. I understand that. It sucks to be humiliated and made fun of. However, I have little sympathy for people who lie, misrepresent, and generally make fools of themselves, and then get upset when their behavior is exposed and they are publicly embarrassed.

Kind of like all those fools who have jumped on the "theory of gravity" bandwagon, eh?

I love that for about a dozen pages he's been stretching every limit of logic in order to make "sod off" a slight against homosexuals in order to defend "that's so gay" which he claims has nothing to do with homosexuals.

Sorry, yoda, but I think this one's gone to the dark side of debating.

I love that for about a dozen pages he's been stretching every limit of logic in order to make "sod off" a slight against homosexuals in order to defend "that's so gay" which he claims has nothing to do with homosexuals.

*gets dizzy and falls down*

I love that for about a dozen pages he's been stretching every limit of logic in order to make "sod off" a slight against homosexuals in order to defend "that's so gay" which he claims has nothing to do with homosexuals.

Sorry, yoda, but I think this one's gone to the dark side of debating.

I know. I've been sitting here giggling for the last several pages in sheer bafflement at this line of argument. This is strange even for NSG. :p

*gets dizzy and falls down*

Amusingly, he recognizes the origins link which is the only way one can relate the arguments, but when challenged on it, he says he was never discussing origins. I think it's funny that he took the only way he could make this argument make any sense and denies he ever was trying to do so.

I know. I've been sitting here giggling for the last several pages in sheer bafflement at this line of argument. This is strange even for NSG. :p

Yeah, my coworker just asked me what I was laughing at. However, I thought the part where Bottle was talking about Hyde and pantless was complaining about me asking him to support his argument and they were both talking we're the same person was funnier (I think Bottle recognize who he meant, but pants definitely wasn't aware that she was talking about Hyde).

Oh for fucks sake, I spent ages replying to your massive quote jocabia but then jolt fucked up at the last minute.

I can't be bothered to do that all again. But who cares this whole debate is going in circles anyway.

Oh for fucks sake, I spent ages replying to your massive quote jocabia but then jolt fucked up at the last minute.

I can't be bothered to do that all again. But who cares this whole debate is going in circles anyway.

Don't. It's annoying (not your argument, but how long that's gotten). Just reply to the short ones we're posting that cover the same issues but are more focused. I know you don't realize it, but you lost the long argument several pages ago.

I'm teasing you a bit, but I won't fault you for sticking to the short ones. In fact, I thought about snipping it and just making a summary argument similar to what we're saying now.

That's nice.

Are you ready to admit you were wrong, yet?

About what?


You can start by quoting my complete post (the one you cherry-picked the "penetration" bit from), and admitting that every other sentence in that post directly disproves your pet theory.

When you say sod off to a man, you are much much much more likely to think of homosexual anal sex. I never intended it to be an argument but a comparison. Before Jocabia rudely interupted, pretentiously debating a strawman, my original point was a comparison.

I was going to say that "thats so gay", means no more to me when someone says it as "sod off". It has lost all meaning, when someone uses it today it's second nature to him and doesn't think about any homophobic implications.

Kind of like all those fools who have jumped on the "theory of gravity" bandwagon, eh?

Oh yes because his comment really added to the discussion didn't it.. :rolleyes:

No, I didn't. Quote me or quit lying. I said that the most common usage is not what you claimed. Saying you're wrong doesn't require me to claim the opposite. Seriously, do you have an argument that ISN'T a strawman?

While I admit I've only been skimming over your argument with Hyde, that comment by Hyde confused me too. I could have sworn you were arguing that the word was not gender- or sexuality-specific, not that it was most often used to refer to heterosexual anal/oral sex.

About what?



When you say sod off to a man, you are much much much more likely to think of homosexual anal sex. I never intended it to be an argument but a comparison. Before Jocabia rudely interupted, pretentiously debating a strawman, my original point was a comparison.

It's a false comparison that rests on it being an insult to homosexuals instead of an insult to anal sex.

Interrupted? This is a forum. If you want a private conversation, use TG's.

You don't seem to know what a strawman is so stop using the term. You're embarrassing yourself further.

I was going to say that "thats so gay", means no more to me when someone says it as "sod off". It has lost all meaning, when someone uses it today it's second nature to him and doesn't think about any homophobic implications.

We know you were trying to make that connection, however, the problem is that you've tried to claim this means that "sod off" is a homosexual reference and "that's so gay" isn't. Unfortunately, both claims have been proven wrong.

While I admit I've only been skimming over your argument with Hyde, that comment by Hyde confused me too. I could have sworn you were arguing that the word was not gender- or sexuality-specific, not that it was most often used to refer to heterosexual anal/oral sex.

That is what I was arguing. He has the convenient excuse that he won't bother to quote anything to prove we've said the things he's lied about. I guess I'm required to prove a negative.

I find it even less likely that they are thinking, "I can't say this to a woman, as I intend solely to refer to homosexual intercourse involving a penis."

I didn't say they can't say this to a woman, rather that if you say this to a man, logically you are implying homosexual sex. There is no getting around that.

I didn't say they can't say this to a woman, rather that if you say this to a man, logically you are implying homosexual sex. There is no getting around that.

Of course there is. Bottle demonstrated all sorts of ways that the term could apply to heterosexual sex.

It's a false comparison that rests on it being an insult to homosexuals instead of an insult to anal sex.


It is if you say sod off to a man.


You don't seem to know what a strawman is so stop using the term. You're embarrassing yourself further.


I know exactly what it is. You were attacking the fact that I was talking about the origins of sod off, even though I never once did. Thus you were arguing against a made up argument i.e. a strawman.

I didn't say they can't say this to a woman, rather that if you say this to a man, logically you are implying homosexual sex. There is no getting around that.

Logically they are always implying anal sex. That's the only thing you can't get around. Conveniently, that's what the term is referencing. Works out nicely, that one.

I didn't say they can't say this to a woman, rather that if you say this to a man, logically you are implying homosexual sex. There is no getting around that.

Erm, several of us have already pointed out that one can be anally penetrated by objects other than penises.

The thing is, though, it doesn't matter, because the only difference between "fuck off" and "bugger off"/"sod off" is that the latter specifies which orifice (possessed by 100% of human beings) should be used for the fucking in question. The rudeness of the phrase comes not from any suggestion that homosexuality is bad, but from the suggestion that being forcibly anally penetrated is bad (something with which I think pretty much everyone would agree). Equating "gay" with "bad," on the other hand, kind of suggests that being gay is bad, where by "kind of" I mean "that's the whole freaking point."

Of course there is. Bottle demonstrated all sorts of ways that the term could apply to heterosexual sex.

Which is why I brought up common usage. I also choose to now persue the origins argument. It's origins were homosexual:

In the Middle Ages, "sodomy" and "buggery" were defined as homosexual practices

It is if you say sod off to a man.

Are you actually trying to argue that if it weren't homosexual sex, that it wouldn't have the exact same meaning.

"Hey, Joe, want to get banged in the behind?"
"Um, nope. That would be homosexual and thus wrong."
"No, I mean by a woman with her fingers."
"Oh, in that case, I'm in."

I know exactly what it is. You were attacking the fact that I was talking about the origins of sod off, even though I never once did. Thus you were arguing against a made up argument i.e. a strawman.

You did talk about the origins, which is why you pointed out that ORIGINally it meant "sodomy". As far as the rest of the origins argument, it's the only way your argument makes sense. Pointing out that it actually doesn't make sense is just making you look silly.

Which is why I brought up common usage. I also choose to now persue the origins argument. It's origins were homosexual:

Except, that unless it usually means that which you own link proved wrong, then you have no point.

Hey, you know why rape is bad? It's gay. Cuz if I rape a man then it's homosexual. And since it's SOMETIMES referencing homosexual acts then it must be the homosexual part that creates the taboo on rape. It can't be the actual act, the part that is always the same no matter who you're talking about, is unpleasant. Nope. It must be that the reference sometimes includes a reference to homosexual acts. How else could one read it?

Are you actually trying to argue that if it weren't homosexual sex, that it wouldn't have the exact same meaning.


It does have the same meaning, but most people would think of this: "That would be homosexual."


You did talk about the origins, which is why you pointed out that ORIGINally it meant "sodomy". As far as the rest of the origins argument, it's the only way your argument makes sense. Pointing out that it actually doesn't make sense is just making you look silly.

Again, saying what sod is short hand for is nothing to do with it's origins.

It does have the same meaning, but most people would think of this: "That would be homosexual."

Your dictionary.com reference says otherwise. It says that at best only a third of references agree with you and the rest suggest MOST people would not think this. Your inability to understand that the only thing common always is the anal sex. The homosexual part is really an aside. If someone forcibly anally penetrated me, do you think I'd feel better if only it's not homosexual?

Does it mean something different when I say it to a woman? If not, then you MUST be wrong, since that isn't homosexual, according to you (since you've argued it can only reference a penis).


Again, saying what sod is short hand for is nothing to do with it's origins.

Pardon? You're hilarious. How do you know it's short-hand for Sodomy?

Except, that unless it usually means that which you own link proved wrong, then you have no point.

Hey, you know why rape is bad? It's gay. Cuz if I rape a man then it's homosexual. And since it's SOMETIMES referencing homosexual acts then it must be the homosexual part that creates the taboo on rape. It can't be the actual act, the part that is always the same no matter who you're talking about, is unpleasant. Nope. It must be that the reference sometimes includes a reference to homosexual acts. How else could one read it?

Thats not the point. You are still implicating a homosexual act.

The point I was trying to make is this: It means nothing to me, since I know that the person wasn't intentionally trying to implicate anything homosexual but saying the term without thinking about it. This is much like saying "thats so gay"......

Thats not the point. You are still implicating a homosexual act.

No, I'm not. Is anyone else looking at his argument and wondering how he could still be claiming these things?


The point I was trying to make is this: It means nothing to me, since I know that the person wasn't intentionally trying to implicate anything homosexual but saying the term without thinking about it. This is much like saying "thats so gay"......

They aren't the same. In one, you've admitted that absent the homosexual reference it's still got the meaning of unpleasant anal sex. The homosexual reference that isn't even really there is not necessary to the insult by your admission.

However, with "that's so gay" it's the homosexual reference that makes it an insult. It's the very reason it means what it means. There is no getting around that.

Seriously, someone tell me I'm not crazy. It's like he's not even reading.

Fuck this... you win jocabia.

Fuck this... you win jocabia.

You're not making an argument. Why are you getting mad at me? You're entire argument is based on ignoring anything more logical than your claim.

Are you seriously going to claim that telling a woman to sod off is not insulting? Because if it's the gay reference that insults, then it cannot be an insult to women, since you also claimed that penile penetration is all that counts as sodomy.

You're not making an argument. Why are you getting mad at me? You're entire argument is based on ignoring anything more logical than your claim.

Are you seriously going to claim that telling a woman to sod off is not insulting? Because if it's the gay reference that insults, then it cannot be an insult to women.

No, you have won. Accept your winnings.

It does have the same meaning, but most people would think of this: "That would be homosexual."

Would they? Personally, I don't associate sodomy specifically with homosexuality. This is especially true given the history of sodomy laws - which were never restricted solely to homosexual activity and were actually often used so that a man who raped a woman would be charged with two crimes - both rape and sodomy.

Strangely enough, I'm fairly certain that most of the people I know, if asked what "sodomy" meant would answer, "Anal sex."

No, you have won. Accept your winnings.

You know you could do this gracefully. You're so angry. Look we're just explaining to you why your "comparison" is not apt. And it isn't. You can't defend it without making all kinds of weird requirements on it and ignoring the only, ONLY ways it could be apt. I'm trying to show you how.

Now, you could just look at it, ingest it, accept it, and admit your mistake, but instead I get "fuck this... you win". Which isn't so much a concession as an expression of exasperation.

You know you could do this gracefully. You're so angry. Look we're just explaining to you why your "comparison" is not apt. And it isn't. You can't defend it without making all kinds of weird requirements on it and ignoring the only, ONLY ways it could be apt. I'm trying to show you how.

Now, you could just look at it, ingest it, accept it, and admit your mistake, but instead I get "fuck this... you win". Which isn't so much a concession as an expression of exasperation.

I'm not angry. I'm just getting rather bored. I admit I was wrong about sodomy, I knew it, i just hate being wrong on NSG because thats boring to. I can't beat you, I would rather swallow my pride and admit I was wrong (and possibly get banned for trolling) then continue this debate.

I'm not angry. I'm just getting rather bored. I admit I was wrong about sodomy, I knew it, i just hate being wrong on NSG because thats boring to. I can't beat you, I would rather swallow my pride and admit I was wrong (and possibly get banned for trolling) then continue this debate.

You're not trolling. And now I feel bad. I'm glad you admit it, because honestly it felt like beating one's head against the wall. I appreciate the argument and you should take it as a compliment that I endured this long. I only do so when I find the other person interesting.

How's that? A decent end to a long discussion?

A decent end to a long discussion?

Decent enough i guess.

Wow, some lawsuit.
Kids these days...

I honestly don't see the big deal in the phrase (so long as there are no gays around, ha ha ha), but why file a lawsuit because you got in trouble for it? Suck it up, and watch your mouth next time.

Decent enough i guess.

Oh, come on. It was never fun for you? I don't know why you'd do it for so long if you didn't have any fun. And you even got a pretty serious compliment from me. Trust me, it's not one many people earn.

You mean this one?





Miss the emphasis?

Let's try again



Still missing it?



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


Public schools are under the Federal government..... part of the federal government is congress.... albiet its congress's fault. The girl should not have filed the lawsuit she did, however she should have filed one against the school for restricting freedom of speech.

I don't know why you'd do it for so long if you didn't have any fun.

'Cause i'm to arrogant to normally admit i'm wrong. Though I guess it was quite funny...

Public schools are under the Federal government..... part of the federal government is congress.... albiet its congress's fault. The girl should not have filed the lawsuit she did, however she should have filed one against the school for restricting freedom of speech.

Schools are part of the state. Not the federal. Strike one.

You don't have complete freedom of speech in schools. There have already been references to caselaw in this thread that show as much. Strike two.

Congress has nothing to do with this. At all. In any way. By no stretch of the imagination. Strike three.

Next batter.

'Cause i'm to arrogant to normally admit i'm wrong. Though I guess it was quite funny...

I honestly do try to goof around a little. I think it's why some people think I'm a prick, but to me stretching the bounds of an argument is hilarious. Some people find it entertaining and some people end up feeling disrespected. I'm always aiming for the former, however. I seperate arguments and people. For example, I didn't really like your stance, but you seem like a decent fellow to me.

Vittos think I personally attack him, but I'd more likely buy him a beer if we met in person. I could care less about how I feel about him as a person in debate. Bottle and I have throttled each other. Dem and I too. It's all about the argument. The person should be and is seperate in my book.

Public schools are under the Federal government..... part of the federal government is congress.... albiet its congress's fault. The girl should not have filed the lawsuit she did, however she should have filed one against the school for restricting freedom of speech.

Schools are already free to restrict offensive speech on school grounds, so unless we're going to let students casually comment that doing their homework is like "fucking a pile of shit" and unless we're going to outline what exact words they can restrict, schools are free to decide just what kind of speech is offensive. Also let me reiterate that she was basically told "Don't say that anymore" and not given any real punishment (detention, suspension, so on.)

He has been pulling the "holier than thou" crap since I was arguing with him.
"My opinion is right because it is mine." Then asserting I was wrong every time I pointed it out it was a my opinion v. his opinion argument.
Does it in every single thread, so I figured he could join the rest of the annoying crackpots that are on my ignore list.

No wonder you are annoyed.

How dare someone disagree with The_pantless_hero's opinion!

How dare they defend their opinion with argument!

You must have a lot of people on your ignore list.

No wonder you are annoyed.

How dare someone disagree with The_pantless_hero's opinion!

How dare they defend their opinion with argument!

You must have a lot of people on your ignore list.

Seems like every third post of his is telling someone about his ignore list. At this rate I think it might be shorter to list the people who aren't there.

Public schools are under the Federal government..... part of the federal government is congress.... albiet its congress's fault. The girl should not have filed the lawsuit she did, however she should have filed one against the school for restricting freedom of speech.


Wake up and smell the roses. Almost every clause of your argument is wrong (and has already been explained to be wrong in this thread).

1. Public schools are not controlled directly by Congress. Rather they are part of state and local authority. Sometimes Congress passes a law that effects local schools, but that isn't relevant here.

2. Nonetheless, as Neo Art and I discussed, it doesn't have to be Congress because the First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is wiki (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)) on the subject.

3. The girl did file a lawsuit arguing that the school had restricted her freedom of speech. She lost that argument as well.

4. The girl deserved to lose that argument because schools have the authority to limit language used in school, particularly epiteths. What might be protected speech in another context is not protected in school. (That is not to say that students don't still have robust First Amendment rights, just that those rights are not absolute and are less than those enjoyed outside a school setting.)

Saying "that's so gay", while plainly derogatory to homosexuals, does not imply that one is homophobic, or even intentionally insulting gays.

The intent and meaning of a word is solely determined by the person using it. If this were not the case, then shifting definitions would be impossible. As it is, the word "gay" as used in popular culture can have a separate definition from its original use.

While its popular use as "lame" or "uncool" is a reflection on society's opinion of homosexuals, someone can obviously pick it up and use it without actually intending to be derogatory.

Saying "that's so gay", while plainly derogatory to homosexuals, does not imply that one is homophobic, or even intentionally insulting gays.

The intent and meaning of a word is solely determined by the person using it. If this were not the case, then shifting definitions would be impossible. As it is, the word "gay" as used in popular culture can have a separate definition from its original use.

While its popular use as "lame" or "uncool" is a reflection on society's opinion of homosexuals, someone can obviously pick it up and use it without actually intending to be derogatory.

I'm gonna start using "black" to mean "lame" or "uncool". It's obviously not racist, since I'm not using it to directly insult black people.

Let's just say we're lucky most gay people aren't militant. Otherwise we'd be in trouble.

I'm gonna start using "black" to mean "lame" or "uncool". It's obviously not racist, since I'm not using it to directly insult black people.

Let's just say we're lucky most gay people aren't militant. Otherwise we'd be in trouble.

If one had no clue what a gay man was, one could still use the word gay to denote something as being "lame" because of its pervasive usage as such.

If one had no clue what a gay man was, one could still use the word gay to denote something as being "lame" because of its pervasive usage as such.

If you had no idea of the history of the word "******" one could use it to reference a black man meaning no insult to black people. It would still be an racial epithet. Your usage doesn't change what it means to people in general. To try and seperate language as if the listener doesn't matter ignores the purpose of language.

If you had no idea of the history of the word "******" one could use it to reference a black man meaning no insult to black people. It would still be an racial epithet. Your usage doesn't change what it means to people in general. To try and seperate language as if the listener doesn't matter ignores the purpose of language.

I agree completely.

I just wanted to show that we cannot determine this person's view of homosexuals simply by the word's use in this context.

Public schools are under the Federal government.....

No, they are not. Public schools are fully under the auspices of the state's department of education. Public schools may receive FUNDS from the federal government, but their guidelines, regulations, hirings, firings, and management are done entirely by the state.

The girl should not have filed the lawsuit she did, however she should have filed one against the school for restricting freedom of speech.

Um...that's exactly what she did. And it was stupid. And she lost. And she deserved to.

I'm gonna start using "black" to mean "lame" or "uncool". It's obviously not racist, since I'm not using it to directly insult black people.

Let's just say we're lucky most gay people aren't militant. Otherwise we'd be in trouble.

as I asked a few pages ago, I wonder what would happen if a bunch of us decided to describe something as stupid by saying "that's so christian"

I agree completely.

I just wanted to show that we cannot determine this person's view of homosexuals simply by the word's use in this context.

Who claimed that you could? That's not a rhetorical question. Who do you think made that claim? We said the usage was homophobic, but that people may very well be unaware of this. Much like one can ignorantly use a racist epithet in my example.

Then I am in agreement with all.