Stop using the word "homosexual"

[saxitoxin]

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".

EXCUSE ME - that is offensive except in a scientific discussion. I believe you mean my dingly-dangly baby stick.

[BigBallinStalin]

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".

EXCUSE ME - that is offensive except in a scientific discussion. I believe you mean my dingly-dangly baby stick.

[Martin Ronne]

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".

EXCUSE ME - that is offensive except in a scientific discussion. I believe you mean my dingly-dangly baby stick.

Actually I believe it's the dingly-dangly disco stick.

[bedub1]

I don't have time to read all 8 pages, but I did find this line from the article interesting:

For example, I don't personally like to use the term homosexual. But when my clients identify themselves as "homosexual" and dislike the terms gay or lesbian, then that's the word I use.

I've learned that there is nothing I can say to make some people happy. I call them gay, the homosexuals are offended. If I call them homosexual, the lesbians are offended. If I call them lesbians, the gays are offended. The word's themselves aren't the problem, it's the people who hear them who are are. The people who hear the words, choose to be offended by it. The problem isn't with the word, or with us, but the people who take offense.

There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used.

The power isn't in the word, but the reaction to the word.

[PLAYER57832]

There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used.

The power isn't in the word, but the reaction to the word.

bedub and I agree

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't have time to read all 8 pages, but I did find this line from the article interesting:

For example, I don't personally like to use the term homosexual. But when my clients identify themselves as "homosexual" and dislike the terms gay or lesbian, then that's the word I use.

I've learned that there is nothing I can say to make some people happy. I call them gay, the homosexuals are offended. If I call them homosexual, the lesbians are offended. If I call them lesbians, the gays are offended. The word's themselves aren't the problem, it's the people who hear them who are are. The people who hear the words, choose to be offended by it. The problem isn't with the word, or with us, but the people who take offense.

There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used.

The power isn't in the word, but the reaction to the word.

How much of a "choice" does one have?

People with angry dispositions don't choose to get angry at an offensive slur directed at them. They react somewhat consciously, but more so subconsciously--that is, they're already wired to react a certain way. People who are sensitive tend to be offended by certain words too. It's more about the hard-wiring of one's personality. We're talking about years of development and knee-jerk reactions here, so it's not nearly as much as a "choosing to be offended."


tl;dr

It's not so much a choice as it is hard-wiring/personality. In other words, one's "choice" is really the result of an automatic reaction from learned behavior over time.

[Woodruff]

I don't have time to read all 8 pages, but I did find this line from the article interesting:

For example, I don't personally like to use the term homosexual. But when my clients identify themselves as "homosexual" and dislike the terms gay or lesbian, then that's the word I use.

I've learned that there is nothing I can say to make some people happy. I call them gay, the homosexuals are offended. If I call them homosexual, the lesbians are offended. If I call them lesbians, the gays are offended. The word's themselves aren't the problem, it's the people who hear them who are are. The people who hear the words, choose to be offended by it. The problem isn't with the word, or with us, but the people who take offense.

There is no such thing as a bad word, it is how the word is being used.

The power isn't in the word, but the reaction to the word.

Sure, that's true in the idealistic sense. But for almost everyone (AoG claims to be an exception), there ARE words or phrases or comparisons that each of us individually will be offended by.

[Gillipig]

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?

A double post is a tell that you're not satisfied with the first post! It's just a silly thing to do. Sort of like shooting yourself in the foot !

[daddy1gringo]

Not necessarily. I double-post a lot. Sometimes when I have something to say about 2 different people's comments, I want to get one posted real quick, then the other I want to think and futz a little more with before posting, especially if one is a joke and the other is serious, or sometimes I just don't want the one to get lost in the other.

[jammyjames]

Jesus hates gays...

[PLAYER57832]

[
How much of a "choice" does one have?

One ALWAYS has choice over one's own reactions. Always. Read Nietzsche for the extreme extent of this

People with angry dispositions don't choose to get angry at an offensive slur directed at them. They react somewhat consciously, but more so subconsciously--that is, they're already wired to react a certain way.

This is pathology, defines illness, not normal people.

People who are sensitive tend to be offended by certain words too. It's more about the hard-wiring of one's personality. We're talking about years of development and knee-jerk reactions here, so it's not nearly as much as a "choosing to be offended."

Everyone gets surges of this, but intelligent adult people have learned to conrol themselves. Enlightened people work hard to overcome their prejudices.

It's not so much a choice as it is hard-wiring/personality. In other words, one's "choice" is really the result of an automatic reaction from learned behavior over time.

Easy way to deny responsibility for your actions. Except, ultimately, we always are responsible. Some actions can mitigate damage from our reactions, but no... this is why we have brains. We are not animals, we think about how we react.

[PLAYER57832]

Jesus hates gays...

Show where, in the Bible he says that.

but in another thread, please. It's off topic.

[Gillipig]

Not necessarily. I double-post a lot. Sometimes when I have something to say about 2 different people's comments, I want to get one posted real quick, then the other I want to think and futz a little more with before posting, especially if one is a joke and the other is serious, or sometimes I just don't want the one to get lost in the other.

I suppose double posting can be done because of laziness as well but I don't think that was the case here! You can make several different points in the same post by leaving some space between the different quotes. There's no sense in double posting!

[BigBallinStalin]

[
How much of a "choice" does one have?

One ALWAYS has choice over one's own reactions. Always. Read Nietzsche for the extreme extent of this

People with angry dispositions don't choose to get angry at an offensive slur directed at them. They react somewhat consciously, but more so subconsciously--that is, they're already wired to react a certain way.

This is pathology, defines illness, not normal people.

People who are sensitive tend to be offended by certain words too. It's more about the hard-wiring of one's personality. We're talking about years of development and knee-jerk reactions here, so it's not nearly as much as a "choosing to be offended."

Everyone gets surges of this, but intelligent adult people have learned to conrol themselves. Enlightened people work hard to overcome their prejudices.

It's not so much a choice as it is hard-wiring/personality. In other words, one's "choice" is really the result of an automatic reaction from learned behavior over time.

Easy way to deny responsibility for your actions. Except, ultimately, we always are responsible. Some actions can mitigate damage from our reactions, but no... this is why we have brains. We are not animals, we think about how we react.

I typed a response, but I got a better question for you:

Do you know what I was talking about?

Do you recall the previous discussion?

[PLAYER57832]

Not playing today. You do this continually. The minute I truly challenge your world view, you resort to stupid insults and side tracks. Too bad. You actually have a decent mind when you choose to use it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not playing today. You do this continually. The minute I truly challenge your world view, you resort to stupid insults and side tracks. Too bad. You actually have a decent mind when you choose to use it.

Seriously, those are honest questions. I don't think you're understanding what I was talking about. You tend to take whatever I was saying and apply it to something completely different. Therefore, I have to ask you questions in order to see if you understand what I'm talking about.

They're simple questions; if you can't answer them, then I know that you've misunderstood what I was discussing.

[PLAYER57832]

Not playing today. You do this continually. The minute I truly challenge your world view, you resort to stupid insults and side tracks. Too bad. You actually have a decent mind when you choose to use it.

Seriously, those are honest questions. I don't think you're understanding what I was talking about. You tend to take whatever I was saying and apply it to something completely different. Therefore, I have to ask you questions in order to see if you understand what I'm talking about.

They're simple questions; if you can't answer them, then I know that you've misunderstood what I was discussing.

You say that choice is an illusion because chemicals, previous experiences, etc all dictate what we do. I say they influence us, but ultimately, we are human, we have chioce, we have free will.

My point about Neitzche is that he said that even standing, cold, ready to die in a concentration camp, one has the freedom to think, the freedom within. It is the ultimate freedom, the one thing that no one can take That is not my thought, it is his.

Another approach is something in some ways similar, though different in other ways that I remember reading about John Muir. He was stuck in a blizzard on a mountain with a friend. They were nearly freezing. Yet, Muir became fascinated by the shape of the snowflakes. His friend's attitude was basically f*** the snowflakes, we are ready to DIE! But here is the thing. If you are stuck in a snowstorm, ready to die, which is more likely to help? Of course, you try to make a fire, get to safety, etc... but if you wind up truly stuck in a cave, do you just sit there thinking about how miserable you are? Or, do you try to look around you, maybe even take pleasure in what you see? Which is more likely to get you to survive? The one thing that helps you survive above all else is attitude. So, in truth, Muir was not being stupid, he was actually more likely to survive.

How does that relate? Each of these steps is an individual choice.
I pay a lot of attention to these things because I care for kids and research is showing that many of these basic attitude things are formed very early. BUT... it also shows that much of this is biological in root. Except, biology never gives the full answer. I can do certain things to help my kids (not just my biological ones, but those I care for as well) to see things more openly to wind up being happier, healthier adults. However, I cannot dictate what will happen. Nor does coming from the worst of circumstances. We all, ultimately have choices. I have to believe that. We are not puppets on strings. We have free will.

[jimboston]

I suppose double posting can be done because of laziness as well but I don't think that was the case here! You can make several different points in the same post by leaving some space between the different quotes. There's no sense in double posting!

Are you like the double-post hall monitor?

[jimboston]

Not necessarily. I double-post a lot. Sometimes when I have something to say about 2 different people's comments, I want to get one posted real quick, then the other I want to think and futz a little more with before posting, especially if one is a joke and the other is serious, or sometimes I just don't want the one to get lost in the other.

I suppose double posting can be done because of laziness as well but I don't think that was the case here! You can make several different points in the same post by leaving some space between the different quotes. There's no sense in double posting!

Gillipig... Who the f*ck are You?

d1g makes just a couple (of many) valid reasons to double post... and you chalk it up to laziness.... Without addressing his valid reasons!?

Go away.

I will continue to double post where and when I want... and you can be annoyed and go f*ck yourself.

[Woodruff]

Another approach is something in some ways similar, though different in other ways that I remember reading about John Muir. He was stuck in a blizzard on a mountain with a friend. They were nearly freezing. Yet, Muir became fascinated by the shape of the snowflakes. His friend's attitude was basically f*** the snowflakes, we are ready to DIE! But here is the thing. If you are stuck in a snowstorm, ready to die, which is more likely to help? Of course, you try to make a fire, get to safety, etc... but if you wind up truly stuck in a cave, do you just sit there thinking about how miserable you are? Or, do you try to look around you, maybe even take pleasure in what you see? Which is more likely to get you to survive? The one thing that helps you survive above all else is attitude. So, in truth, Muir was not being stupid, he was actually more likely to survive.

Most likely, his body was beginning to shut down and he was losing the ability to focus in effective ways.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not playing today. You do this continually. The minute I truly challenge your world view, you resort to stupid insults and side tracks. Too bad. You actually have a decent mind when you choose to use it.

Seriously, those are honest questions. I don't think you're understanding what I was talking about. You tend to take whatever I was saying and apply it to something completely different. Therefore, I have to ask you questions in order to see if you understand what I'm talking about.

They're simple questions; if you can't answer them, then I know that you've misunderstood what I was discussing.

You say that choice is an illusion because chemicals, previous experiences, etc all dictate what we do. I say they influence us, but ultimately, we are human, we have chioce, we have free will.

Ok. This isn't a free will argument. This is about how much choice one has when reacting to an offensive term. Focus on: "how much choice?"

According to you, ultimately, we have choice, we have free will; therefore, what? You choose to be angry whenever faced with a negative comment?


Ask yourself: how do you arrive at the choices you make whenever confronted with a situation involving a negative comment?

____________________________________________________________________________

Consider the following:

According to your logic, you must admit that every time I annoy you, you are choosing to be annoyed. According to you, this is true, because you have refuted everything I've said earlier, and "ultimately, humans choose, they have free will." Never mind that your personality has the disposition to be annoyed toward certain methods, which I know how to employ. Supposedly, you choose every time to get angry--according to your logic because humans have free will, they can choose!

Ask yourself this: while reading certain sentences, do you actually consciously think: "boy, should I get angry about that comment? Hmm... Ok, yes, I am angry about this." No, sometimes, you'll react in a knee-jerk fashion, which is devoid of any conscious decision-making. That's more automatic; therefore, at times, one will react without much of a choice. Instead, that choice has been overridden by one's personality, or mental hard-wiring, or what have you. Do you believe that is never the case? If yes, then you contradict yourself.


tl;dr

How much choice does one exercise when committing a knee-jerk reaction to an offensive comment?

[PLAYER57832]

[
Ok. This isn't a free will argument. This is about how much choice one has when reacting to an offensive term. Focus on: "how much choice?"

According to you, ultimately, we have choice, we have free will; therefore, what? You choose to be angry whenever faced with a negative comment?

No, it takes a lot more than a "negative comment" to make me angry.

Ask yourself: how do you arrive at the choices you make whenever confronted with a situation involving a negative comment?

____________________________________________________________________________

Consider the following:

According to your logic, you must admit that every time I annoy you, you are choosing to be annoyed. According to you, this is true, because you have refuted everything I've said earlier, and "ultimately, humans choose, they have free will." Never mind that your personality has the disposition to be annoyed toward certain methods, which I know how to employ. Supposedly, you choose every time to get angry--according to your logic because humans have free will, they can choose!

Now you are changing the scenario. Everyone gets a knee-jerk reaction to be annoyed or even sometimes angry, at time. What matters is what we do. Speech is doing.

[
Ask yourself this: while reading certain sentences, do you actually consciously think: "boy, should I get angry about that comment? Hmm... Ok, yes, I am angry about this." No, sometimes, you'll react in a knee-jerk fashion, which is devoid of any conscious decision-making. That's more automatic; therefore, at times, one will react without much of a choice. Instead, that choice has been overridden by one's personality, or mental hard-wiring, or what have you. Do you believe that is never the case? If yes, then you contradict yourself.

You are mixing up feeling with acting. You can feel all kinds of things, cannot always controll how you feel. You can control how you act and what you say.

[
How much choice does one exercise when committing a knee-jerk reaction to an offensive comment?

When you are young.. not much. As you get older, you realize that reacting in those situations is letting other people control you. Also, the power of many words diminishes.

[BigBallinStalin]

[
How much choice does one exercise when committing a knee-jerk reaction to an offensive comment?

When you are young.. not much. As you get older, you realize that reacting in those situations is letting other people control you. Also, the power of many words diminishes.

Thank you.

[jimboston]

Make it a Triple.
... and still without content!

[daddy1gringo]

The premise of this thread is that it is offensive to use the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" because what the word "homosexual" implies about the nature of homosexuality is clearly proven not true (so clearly that only ignorant people who think the world is flat believe it). Therefore it is bigotry and hate. If, however, it is not clearly proven, the whole premise falls apart. I ask again, where is the compelling scientific proof?