Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I'm pretty sure we're not in the habit of calling every state of being ever a medical condition. Let's not be absurd. In any case you know what I mean: it was thought of as an illness that could and should be treated and cured.

Some people, Michelle Bachmann for one, still believe that.

Which is one reason why Ink is saying its offensive. However, if we consider any word that someone can use incorrectly to be "offensive" we would literally not be able to speak.
I say using the word, but correctly is the best way to ensure people understand.

I wonder if sometime in the future we're going to look at pedophiles the same way we look at homosexuals today?
I saw a documentary on homosexuality in the states in the 60's. And people were learned to be afraid of/hate/fear homosexuals with a striking resemblance to how we are being taught to think of pedophiles today! Maybe one day our phobia of pedophiles will be regarded the same as our phobia for homosexuals. An interesting thought! I'm not looking forward to the day when you can't tell your kids to not jump into a strangers car without being a prejudice bastard !

(Somewhere in the western world the year 2068)
- Why won't you let Jason jump into my car?
- I don't think it's safe!
- You prejudice bastard! Just because I'm sexually attracted to kids doesn't mean I'm going to rape your son!! We were just going to cuddle! People like you make me sick!
Neighbor steps in - Yeah what's the harm in letting your son jump into a car with a pedophile? Just because he's attracted to kids doesn't mean he's going to harm him! You have no right to discriminate against pedophiles!

So, children will be able to consent to sex in Gillipig's future?

Gillipig wrote:I wonder if sometime in the future we're going to look at pedophiles the same way we look at homosexuals today?!

No. The reason is obvious to anyone with intelligence.

InkL0sed wrote:You don't get to decide on the meaning of words. No individual gets to do that. It's a process that happens on a macro scale, amongst large groups of people.

Does anyone else notice the irony and the absurdity of Ink's statement here? He derides people who don't accept this stupid article about the term homosexual yet he's doing the exact same thing by trying to convince everyone else to stop using it. He's one individual citing one article about how homosexual is offensive and DEMANDS the rest of us change the words we use.


Another case-in-point on how political correctness is downright stupid and absurd.

Night Strike wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:You don't get to decide on the meaning of words. No individual gets to do that. It's a process that happens on a macro scale, amongst large groups of people.

Does anyone else notice the irony and the absurdity of Ink's statement here? He derides people who don't accept this stupid article about the term homosexual yet he's doing the exact same thing by trying to convince everyone else to stop using it. He's one individual citing one article about how homosexual is offensive and DEMANDS the rest of us change the words we use.


Another case-in-point on how political correctness is downright stupid and absurd.

Does anyone else get how NS does not appear to have enough brain power to understand that Ink is merely making suggestions to let the people decide? Ink is not changing it, he is a conduit of the change.

C'mon NS, I'm certain if you actually opened your mind to different ideas you would grow as a person. There is more to life than the extreme "my way only" right.

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:You don't get to decide on the meaning of words. No individual gets to do that. It's a process that happens on a macro scale, amongst large groups of people.

Does anyone else notice the irony and the absurdity of Ink's statement here? He derides people who don't accept this stupid article about the term homosexual yet he's doing the exact same thing by trying to convince everyone else to stop using it. He's one individual citing one article about how homosexual is offensive and DEMANDS the rest of us change the words we use.


Another case-in-point on how political correctness is downright stupid and absurd.

Does anyone else get how NS does not appear to have enough brain power to understand that Ink is merely making suggestions to let the people decide? Ink is not changing it, he is a conduit of the change.

C'mon NS, I'm certain if you actually opened your mind to different ideas you would grow as a person. There is more to life than the extreme "my way only" right.

Wake Up, NY2.

Ink has been doing nothing but Championing the cause. Yes, terminology evolves in language from offensive to non-offensive and back again over time. (eg: N*gger....but only for African Americans.) How the "evolutionary" process begins is when one, or a group of overly passionate "speakers" put on their blinders and rail at the public to accept "What is Right and Decent", to the point of comparing homosexual which is a scientific category of human sexuality to a diagnosis?????? Bringing in the retarded stance of homosexuality is a disease absurdity over to his side of the argument to shore up his sheeple logic.


Ink has been doing this for the entire thread. Read a few pages before jumping in.

I'm not a N.S. neo con fan by any means, but he has the point spot on here.

The easiest way to obtain attention is to be a victim. When you are "Offended" you are victimized in a fashion, and some think you then have the flaming right to soapbox and chastise all who are around you to legitimize your OPINION of what is offensive.

Some people were taken off the teat too soon

Johnny Rockets

Neoteny wrote:So, children will be able to consent to sex in Gillipig's future?

Well age of consent hasn't always existed! And it wasn't long ago a woman was the property of a man so what you take for given today has not always existed and therefore probably will not always exist! My point is that both homosexuals and pedophiles are sexual preferences that has been classified as mental disorders by society! I'm against the principle of disorders because it seems they're more dependent on the current society than on human nature. And I think it should be the other way around!

Army of GOD wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Words only have meaning when we give them meaning. I choose to not be offended by words.

Also, everyone is a hypocrite. You, for example, probably still use offensive words, yet you're telling US not to use the word "homosexual". That's why being a hypocrite does not matter. It's trivial.

I'm not a hypocrite.

Yea, and I'm not a heartthrob.

Exactly

Army of GOD wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Words only have meaning when we give them meaning. I choose to not be offended by words.

Also, everyone is a hypocrite. You, for example, probably still use offensive words, yet you're telling US not to use the word "homosexual". That's why being a hypocrite does not matter. It's trivial.

I'm not a hypocrite.

Yea, and I'm not a heartthrob.

Seriously... just like you say not EVERYbody is offended by the word Homosexual... I say not EVERYbody is a hypocrite.

Prove me wrong.

Note... in my mind to be a hypocrite one must realize they are acting in a hypocritical manner. If someone is doing something hypocritical and that person is not aware of it... he/she ain't a hypocrite. Once the nature of the hypocritical action is pointed out to / or discovered by the "offending" individual.... their true nature becomes clear. If they are not a true hypocrite then the offender will adjust their actions / beliefs based on the new information.

Not hypocritical.

It's called learning.

I think being a hypocrite is one of the worst things you can be.

So yah... I ain't one.

You're double posting !

Gillipig wrote:You're double posting !

Shit.... I must be a cunt for doing that!

Does that get me a perma-ban here?

homosexuals are gay.

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:You don't get to decide on the meaning of words. No individual gets to do that. It's a process that happens on a macro scale, amongst large groups of people.

Does anyone else notice the irony and the absurdity of Ink's statement here? He derides people who don't accept this stupid article about the term homosexual yet he's doing the exact same thing by trying to convince everyone else to stop using it. He's one individual citing one article about how homosexual is offensive and DEMANDS the rest of us change the words we use.


Another case-in-point on how political correctness is downright stupid and absurd.

Does anyone else get how NS does not appear to have enough brain power to understand that Ink is merely making suggestions to let the people decide? Ink is not changing it, he is a conduit of the change.

C'mon NS, I'm certain if you actually opened your mind to different ideas you would grow as a person. There is more to life than the extreme "my way only" right.

Essentially, I was arguing something like NS's point earlier:

What I'm not buying is this: If language does not evolve by committee, then why should we take seriously the author's call against the word "homosexual"? Apparently, their decision to end that word must have come from some kind of committee--e.g., the professors who specialize in Gender Studies...

Apparently, language can change by committee, even by a committee of a few persuasive professors. Granted, the group whom they represent largely agree with the article's point that "homosexual" is offensive; nonetheless, a committee has acted in response to their group's demands. Obviously, they're changing language by committee.

I agree that the meaning of words doesn't change by fiat because an acceptance of that meaning only comes from a convincing reason (e.g. it's funny, or it's offensive, or it's practical).

jimboston wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You're double posting !

Shit.... I must be a cunt for doing that!

Does that get me a perma-ban here?

No only a dunce cap !

zimmah wrote:homosexuals are gay.

This post is incredibly inspired. We need some CC medals for these.

I think people should watch this if they haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZha8DXS-Cs (warning swearing, chris rock, nsfw, bad singing, ect)

I'm with the George Carlin school of thought on all this stuff. There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used. Also anytime you try to tell other people what to do on a large scale like this you have to know you are going to fail. You need some power or a lot of other like minded people to back you up. That just isn't going to happen with this topic.

Coleman wrote:

zimmah wrote:homosexuals are gay.

This post is incredibly inspired. We need some CC medals for these.

I think people should watch this if they haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZha8DXS-Cs (warning swearing, chris rock, nsfw, bad singing, ect)

I'm with the George Carlin school of thought on all this stuff. There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used. Also anytime you try to tell other people what to do on a large scale like this you have to know you are going to fail. You need some power or a lot of other like minded people to back you up. That just isn't going to happen with this topic.

According to the author, most gays agree with him, and his position seems to be common among the Gender Studies professors, so I think he's got the back-up.

What's lacking is enforcement.

For example, the main reason why white people tend not to call black people "niggers" is because the reaction has the potential to become violent. Does Mr. White Guy want to get hurt or risk getting hurt? No, so, he'll tend to refrain from saying such a word.

Then, the question turns to this: Do most people care if they hurt a homosexual's* feelings? What's really the risk involved here?

If you can answer that, then you can see whether 1) you value using that word enough after facing the consequences of doing so, or 2) you value not using that word because you respect other people's feelings in this issue. (1 and 2 can mix).


*"homosexual" is easier to write than "the individuals of the LGBT community"

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Coleman wrote:

zimmah wrote:homosexuals are gay.

This post is incredibly inspired. We need some CC medals for these.

I think people should watch this if they haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZha8DXS-Cs (warning swearing, chris rock, nsfw, bad singing, ect)

I'm with the George Carlin school of thought on all this stuff. There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used. Also anytime you try to tell other people what to do on a large scale like this you have to know you are going to fail. You need some power or a lot of other like minded people to back you up. That just isn't going to happen with this topic.

According to the author, most gays agree with him, and his position seems to be common among the Gender Studies professors, so I think he's got the back-up.

Though, amusingly, the article by Dr. Jessee Bering ("The Sneaky Fucker Theory" - linked at the top of the article in the OP) uses the word "homosexual" to refer to a "gaysexual" person no less than three times. And Professor Bering is, himself, a gaysexual professor.

But maybe this is just one of those things like where it's okay to say the "N" word in rap. Like, it's probably okay to say "homosexual" if you're a gay Rap Ambient House musician, but not otherwise.

Gillipig wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You're double posting !

Shit.... I must be a cunt for doing that!

Does that get me a perma-ban here?

No only a dunce cap !

Do I still get the dunce cap if it was intentional?

There's some Dbo ass homosexuals out there, would sure hate being smashed by a guy in heels

Also I've heard a lot of white folks use the N word. Black people know not to f*ck with the "crazy white guy" which is usually the idiot spouting the word. A "thug" is a whole different breed then a skinhead, thugs need to appear tough, and would rather yell or shoot. Skinheads really HATE people. Hate is vicious. There's a lunatic white guy in every ghetto.

Not to mention the "Wiggers"..


Nsfw- Old white man stomps out "thug".

Don't believe the movies, not every black dude is roy jones jr.


"Better sit your punk ass down" white guy, "say it again pinky" black lady, a mere

Wow dude

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Coleman wrote:

zimmah wrote:homosexuals are gay.

This post is incredibly inspired. We need some CC medals for these.

I think people should watch this if they haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZha8DXS-Cs (warning swearing, chris rock, nsfw, bad singing, ect)

I'm with the George Carlin school of thought on all this stuff. There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used. Also anytime you try to tell other people what to do on a large scale like this you have to know you are going to fail. You need some power or a lot of other like minded people to back you up. That just isn't going to happen with this topic.

According to the author, most gays agree with him, and his position seems to be common among the Gender Studies professors, so I think he's got the back-up.

Though, amusingly, the article by Dr. Jessee Bering ("The Sneaky Fucker Theory" - linked at the top of the article in the OP) uses the word "homosexual" to refer to a "gaysexual" person no less than three times. And Professor Bering is, himself, a gaysexual professor.

But maybe this is just one of those things like where it's okay to say the "N" word in rap. Like, it's probably okay to say "homosexual" if you're a gay Rap Ambient House musician, but not otherwise.

which explains why Joe Kort responded to such an article with the thesis of "don't use that word, it's rude."

Inkl0sed admitted that the term "homosexual" is suitable for discussions of a scientific nature (which is presumably the nature of the article "The Sneaky Fucker Theory"), so it's okay. Perhaps, Joe Kort would disagree, but even Joe Kort stated that some gays use the term homosexual, so they find that term to be not offensive.

Still, we're left with whatever the author says. There's no polls or numbers, but given his argument, it seems reasonable to assume that the term "homosexual" can be offensive. Wouldn't you agree?

Neoteny wrote:So, children will be able to consent to sex in Gillipig's future?

In my future as well. I think that as soon as a person hits sexual puberty, they should be able to consent.

Like I said in the other thread, bringing up beastiality, pedophilia, polygamy and incest in a gay marriage thread is completely legitimate. I don't believe these things are inherently immoral, though, as long as there's consent (obviously there's that problem with beastiality and pedophilia).

BigBallinStalin wrote:Inkl0sed admitted that the term "homosexual" is suitable for discussions of a scientific nature

Very well, this seems reasonable then.

On a different topic, the sparkly hot thing in the sky is really bright today. I was just driving around in my big box with four wheels and started to have water come out of the holes in my arms. I almost felt dizzy-wizzy because of heat wubberly.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Inkl0sed admitted that the term "homosexual" is suitable for discussions of a scientific nature (which is presumably the nature of the article "The Sneaky Fucker Theory"), so it's okay.

Very well, this seems reasonable then.

On a different topic, the sparkly hot thing in the sky is really bright today. I was just driving around in my big box with four wheels and started to have water come out of the holes in my arms.

I think you mean "have water come out of the holes of my penis".