Heterosexual Discrimination

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’ll pose the question again, for Emily:

If you said “I believe people should be able to eat steak/chicken/beef/pork/turkey”

And someone replied with:

“You think people should be able to eat anything they want, including human babies and drugs!”

Would you (a)become frustrated (especially if it happened every time the topic came up)?

Would you (b)consider them stupid, childish points, whereas the person firing the accusations (that you support cannibalism/controlled substance abuse) knew fully that you DONT?[/quote]

Frustrated? No, I don’t think so, unless I had to have them in my family. Then maybe I’d be frustrated (an idiot! in my very own family!). Otherwise I would just consider them goofy. As the philosopher Jay-Z said (paraphrased) “Don’t argue with a fool, because from a distance no one can tell who’s who.”

So my reaction would be something like “Okay, whatever dude!”

302

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’ll pose the question again, for Emily:

If you said “I believe people should be able to eat steak/chicken/beef/pork/turkey”

And someone replied with:

“You think people should be able to eat anything they want, including human babies and drugs!”

Would you (a)become frustrated (especially if it happened every time the topic came up)?

Would you (b)consider them stupid, childish points, whereas the person firing the accusations (that you support cannibalism/controlled substance abuse) knew fully that you DONT?

Frustrated? No, I don’t think so, unless I had to have them in my family. Then maybe I’d be frustrated (an idiot! in my very own family!). Otherwise I would just consider them goofy. As the philosopher Jay-Z said (paraphrased) “Don’t argue with a fool, because from a distance no one can tell who’s who.”

So my reaction would be something like “Okay, whatever dude!”
[/quote]

Perhaps you’re right.

However, what (for me) makes it particularly frustrating is that, in the hypothetical, its just a difference of opinion. You and the fool could disagree and you could walk away and order a steak.

Now, same scenerio, only laws have been passed making it illegal to order steak, and their argument (“its the same as eating a human child”) is being used to defend those laws.

Still wouldnt be frustrated?

303

I don’t know about that, Capped, but you know what I realized tonight as I ate my spaghetti? That I have been the victim of discrimination right here in this very thread (again!) and it was you who perpetrated it (this time!).

Because I don’t think you’d have reacted the way you did…

If I’d mentioned traditionally male pleasures instead of clothes. If I’d said “Oh, I’ve been scratching my nuts and playing Halo and working on greasy car engines, so I don’t feel like talking about it,” you’d have been all, “oh, that’s cool.”

Instead, I admitted that I was peacefully engaged in wearing new clothes (and then later eating sushi and ice cream, if the truth be told) and you’re all, “THAT’S NO EXCUSE.”

So you might want to take some time from your contemplation of the world’s victims to consider your own victimization of ME.

That goes for you, too, Mick.

304

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t know about that, Capped, but you know what I realized tonight as I ate my spaghetti? That I have been the victim of discrimination right here in this very thread (again!) and it was you who perpetrated it (this time!).

Because I don’t think you’d have reacted the way you did…

Pointing out that gays (and blacks, and fat people, and others who face such discrimination) dont get to “not worry about it today” or decide “I got nice clothes, I’m not gonna let it bring me down”

If I’d mentioned traditionally male pleasures instead of clothes. If I’d said “Oh, I’ve been scratching my nuts and playing Halo and working on greasy car engines, so I don’t feel like talking about it,” you’d have been all, “oh, that’s cool.”

Instead, I admitted that I was peacefully engaged in wearing new clothes (and then later eating sushi and ice cream, if the truth be told) and you’re all, “THAT’S NO EXCUSE.”

So you might want to take some time from your contemplation of the world’s victims to consider your own victimization of ME.

That goes for you, too, Mick.[/quote]

I hope this is satire. Really.

No, seriously. I’m trying not to laugh, but I’m not sure moreso at which prospect: That you’re serious or just fucking with me.

In case (hopehopehope not) you are serious;

What I said was in reference to your flippant “I’m in a good mood and I wont let it bring me down, tra-la-la” attitude.

by the way, grass is green. eeee.

305

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, no new clothes to cheer me today and my run is going to suck because it’s hot and muggy out, so I’m feeling nicely grim and ready to think about the discrimination some more.

I’m fairly certain making the obvious point that you lack the understanding and appreciation to realize the luxury of being able to decide when and if you’ll consider the topic of discrimination would be a waste of time.

Pointing out that gays (and blacks, and fat people, and others who face such discrimination) dont get to “not worry about it today” or decide “I got nice clothes, I’m not gonna let it bring me down” would just be more “wallowing in it” and “not wanting to fix things” and other nonsense.

So I’ll just let that one sail gently over your head.

Oh my goodness. I don’t mind admitting, you took my breath away with that one, Capped. Finally an insult that might be appropriate to me! I especially like the bit about sailing gently over my head, because as you know I don’t like for stuff to get in my hair. Well done!

[/quote]

Sarcastic, bitchy, over sensitive… wait, who’s the pest here?

har. har.

My cats breath smells like catfood.

Commendable and applaudable. For doing something genuinely good, I genuinely thank you.

However, the terms and conditions were still yours to make. You chose the class. You chose to go. You chose to continue the course. You choose now, and you chose then, when you wanted to address the issues and when you wanted to “ignore the thread” or “call in sick”. So, while not to take anything away from what you’ve done, the frivolous attitude is a bit irritating.

This is still insane to me. Lucasa makes ridiculous statements drawn from fallacious, convoluted reasoning. How is that something I can learn from?

Where is this “reasoned discourse” you keep talking about? He presents his case and then provides nonsense to back it up.

Unless you can actually argue that any of his points actually have merit, or that any of the “reasoning” behind his points actually have merit… I have no idea how you can continue to say that I should emulate him in any way.

Really, Emily, what are you thinking?

(Oh, by the way, it really hurt that you used the insulting phrase “Really, what are you thinking?” on a subject that you later turned out to be completely wrong about, and now ignore. It hurt me where my feelings live.)

306

This kind of stuff is just terrible. He was well within his rights to defend himself. NO ONE has a right to touch anyone like that without permission. The legal system seems pretty defunct.

307

Capped, yes, I was being playful in my last post. Still, I think there’s truth to what I said. I think you saw “frivolous” in the post you quoted below only because it was very female in focus. Gay, if you will, using the old-timey, Anne of Green Gables definition.

So I guess I would say to you “Pardon me for being too gay in my post and making you think less of me.”

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, no new clothes to cheer me today and my run is going to suck because it’s hot and muggy out, so I’m feeling nicely grim and ready to think about the discrimination some more…

…So I’ll just let that one sail gently over your head.

Oh my goodness. I don’t mind admitting, you took my breath away with that one, Capped. Finally an insult that might be appropriate to me! I especially like the bit about sailing gently over my head, because as you know I don’t like for stuff to get in my hair. Well done!

Sarcastic, bitchy, over sensitive… wait, who’s the pest here?

har. har. [/quote]

I’ll admit I used a slightly sarcastic tone there, but bitchy? I don’t see it. I was being mostly genuine! You’ve accused me of several things, but this was the first time you’d hit with any accuracy. And I certainly don’t feel that I’m over-sensitive. I feel no shame over my femininity. Liking new clothes and disliking bugs are both perfectly acceptable to me. Why would I feel sensitive about them? Capped, do you feel some of that “icky” factor we’ve talked about when you hear me talking about girly stuff? It sort of sounds like you’re having a visceral negative reaction.

[quote]Speaking of nice clothes, I need to order another pair of my ridiculously expensive running shoes. I don’t want to risk the current pair getting “flat,” as they say. It’s much nicer if I can feel as if I’m running on delightful little pillows. It makes the entire experience immeasurably more agreeable!

My cats breath smells like catfood.[/quote]

You’re sounding unhinged to me again.

[quote]
Commendable and applaudable. For doing something genuinely good, I genuinely thank you.

However, the terms and conditions were still yours to make. You chose the class. You chose to go. You chose to continue the course. You choose now, and you chose then, when you wanted to address the issues and when you wanted to “ignore the thread” or “call in sick”. So, while not to take anything away from what you’ve done, the frivolous attitude is a bit irritating.[/quote]

Um, Capped? This is an internet message board. Not a United Nations subcommittee. I can “call in sick” whenever I want. I can call in happy. I can ignore the thread because I’d rather watch porn. Work is work, and I take my work very, very seriously (though to be honest, I joke quite a bit there, too), but this isn’t work. You can be irritated all you want, but if you’re VERY irritated by stuff like this, you should examine that as a possible indication that maybe YOU should call in sick from posting now and them.

[quote]This is still insane to me. Lucasa makes ridiculous statements drawn from fallacious, convoluted reasoning. How is that something I can learn from?

Where is this “reasoned discourse” you keep talking about? He presents his case and then provides nonsense to back it up.

Unless you can actually argue that any of his points actually have merit, or that any of the “reasoning” behind his points actually have merit… I have no idea how you can continue to say that I should emulate him in any way.[/quote]

I guess if you can’t see it, you simply can’t see it.

[quote]
Really, Emily, what are you thinking?

(Oh, by the way, it really hurt that you used the insulting phrase “Really, what are you thinking?” on a subject that you later turned out to be completely wrong about, and now ignore. It hurt me where my feelings live.)[/quote]

Now THIS is interesting. You accept all manner of abuse from posters like Mick, and yet a little “What are you thinking?” is unacceptably harsh coming from me? And you don’t think that that has to do with me being female?

Let me see if I have this straight…I need to be nicer than the men posting? Not just nicer, but a LOT nicer?

I want you to know that in the interests of being a paragon of all that is desirable in a female forum poster, I am going to resist making a joke about this.

308

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Capped, yes, I was being playful in my last post. Still, I think there’s truth to what I said. I think you saw “frivolous” in the post you quoted below only because it was very female in focus. Gay, if you will, using the old-timey, Anne of Green Gables definition.

So I guess I would say to you “Pardon me for being too gay in my post and making you think less of me.”
[/quote]

Maybe its just a matter of perspective or semantics or something. You saw “playful”, I saw “stupid”.

Now why did you automatically assume the oversensitivity I accused you of had anything to do with your femininity?

Grasping for straws.

And you’re sounding, again, like you cant handle a grown up conversation. I figured if you could throw in irreverent, pointless asides, why shouldnt I?

Its irritating to be having a reasonably serious discussion and have you skip in talking some nonsense about something completely off topic.

I guess if you cant actually back up your claims, you may as well just say “I’m sorry Capped, I thought about it again and I guess he isn’t someone you should emulate”

Or how about

“I’m sorry Capped, I thought about it again and my parents DO say things that outright indicate my sexuality.”

Are they the little red ones? or the big white ones? Maybe the bendy ones or the “crazy” kind that loop in all different directions?

Really, Emily, what KIND of straws are you grasping at over there?

I dont take what Mick says too personally because he’s an idiot. I thought you were worthy of enough respect to actually take what you say seriously.

I’m sorry Emily, I thought about it again and you really aren’t worthy of that kind of respect.

hands you a straw

309

Seriously, Emily, you calling me sexist is along the same lines as Mick saying I support pedophila or Lucasa accusing me of “trampling peoples free speech”.

Its annoying on a few levels. First off, its not true. Secondly, I shouldnt HAVE to explain to you all the obvious reasons its not true. Thirdly, even AFTER I explain to you all the blindingly obvious reasons its not true, you’ll find some circular logic to come back to the same claim.

So I’ll listen to Jay-Z on this one and let you think what you want.

310

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Gays deserve the right to be able to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult who is not being forced into the decision.

Where is the “special right” in that?

And, at that point, you’d also be able to marry a man if you so desired.

So it would be fair: A man or woman could marry another man or woman.

What is unfair about that?[/quote]

To keep things brief we’ll say you have just two things wrong. Marriage is not a right. White people couldn’t marry black in very recent history ('67 I believe). Multiple marriages will probably always be illegal. The right to gather and practice whatever religious belief you may have is as far as it goes.

The gov’t sanctioning a certain behavior should benefit society and, IMO, marriage as it exists currently wasn’t established to establish and firmament heterosexual lifelong monogamy, it was established as the result of the benefits derived therefrom.

Similarly, gay marriage won’t establish and firmament a new ‘gay family’ social construct. Only when the ‘gay family’ becomes a prevalent and largely beneficial entity will gay marriage make sense. Read the literature of pro gay marriage groups, their goals aren’t to encourage homosexual lifelong monogamy or homosexual family/community behavior.

Their agenda is, quite literally, to legitimize and sanctify progressively more liberal behavior (many see serial monogamy as the most prevalent form of ‘gay marriage’) regardless of its effects on society. As I said before this goes against the very theme of rights as defining intrinsic individual freedom for mutual individual/society benefit.

Two questions for you;

  1. Do you believe in capital punishment as a deterrent?

  2. Which, in your opinion is worse; the derogative use of the term gay wrt to homosexuals or the use of the term motherfucker wrt fathers?

311

[quote]lucasa wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
2. Which, in your opinion is worse; the derogative use of the term gay wrt to homosexuals or the use of the term motherfucker wrt fathers?[/quote]

What about “Uncle Fucker” with Aunts?

Oops, I posted here again.

312

[quote]lucasa wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Gays deserve the right to be able to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult who is not being forced into the decision.

Where is the “special right” in that?

And, at that point, you’d also be able to marry a man if you so desired.

So it would be fair: A man or woman could marry another man or woman.

What is unfair about that?

To keep things brief we’ll say you have just two things wrong. Marriage is not a right. White people couldn’t marry black in very recent history ('67 I believe). Multiple marriages will probably always be illegal. The right to gather and practice whatever religious belief you may have is as far as it goes.

[/quote]

The right to enter into a contract with a consenting adult that does not harm any nonconsenting others.

Thats a right.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion… now where did I read that? I suppose if it was in the rulebook for the goverment, it would mean that marriage is NOT a religious contract, but a legal one, hence a RIGHT. The fact that marriage also has a religious cermony is moot; one can become legally married without any religious figure involved and one cannot become legally married without the government (no church can issue a marriage license).

Irrelevant.

Sorry, Lucasa, but homosexuals shouldnt have to wait till they win YOU over to get the same rights that heterosexuals have.

Their goals are for homosexuals to have equal rights in which consenting adult they choose to marry.

I’ve never heard the term “serial monogamy” before…?

And your roundabout claims that you’re trying to “protect society” from gays getting married is ridiculous.

The rights of a single individual outweigh the comfort of the rest of the planet. It doesnt matter if you’re paranoid into thinking the “conventional family” is going to crumble, or marriage will lose meaning, or your slippery slope theories, or your projected “effects on society”.

Irrelevant.

[quote]
2. Which, in your opinion is worse; the derogative use of the term gay wrt to homosexuals or the use of the term motherfucker wrt fathers?[/quote]

Irrelevant.

313

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The right to enter into a contract with a consenting adult that does not harm any nonconsenting others.

Thats a right.[/quote]

For the last time, this is not a right. Even if it were a right, the government allowing it vs. sanctifying it would be two different issues and on a cultural/group/society basis the phrase “does not harm any nonconsenting others” is paramount.

Okay good, so you’ve read at least part of the the Bill of Rights. Care to show me any mention of the words union or marriage? Contract? You’ve made up this myth that as long as two people aren’t hurting the two people to their immediate left and right then everything’s okay (and on this point, I have said, I agree).

How detrimental would something have to be demonstrated to be before we decide not to sanction it culturally? Considering we actually violate smokers’ first amendment rights in order to completely insulate the public against any possible chance of making a wrong decision that might lead to a slightly increased chance in contracting a disease, I’d say the bar is set pretty stringently.

As I said, the decision, in your mind, isn’t based on any sort of actual facts or rationalizations. It just is because you say it is and nothing can change it. I’ve repeatedly stated what data I would need to see in order to approve of and sanctify gay marriage. You’re just mad because it doesn’t exist.

They don’t have to wait until they win me over. Even if they did, it’s still not a right. And even then, they should still seek to eradicate/minimize disease and related behaviors, firmament rights and the reasons for their existence, and a reasonable amount social order.

I can’t be responsible for the entirety of your ignorance, but lifelong monogamy is “one partner”, serial monogamy is “one partner at a time”.

It’s not theory and they’re not projected effects. It’s eroding rationality to the point where someone can say “irrelevant” in an argument as if their opinions about relevance makes it so. Does lifting the HIV travel ban for the Gay Olympics make sense to you?

If HIV didn’t have greater prevalence among homosexuals then the ban shouldn’t affect them any more/less than everyone else and if it does affect them disproportionately, isn’t it that the point?

[quote]Two questions for you;

  1. Do you believe in capital punishment as a deterrent?

Irrelevant.[/quote]

[sarcasm]Yeah, I can see how (your perception of) federal legislation’s influence of social behavior is irrelevant.[/sarcasm]

[quote]2. Which, in your opinion is worse; the derogative use of the term gay wrt to homosexuals or the use of the term motherfucker wrt fathers?

Irrelevant.[/quote]

That’s funny, when you brought up the use of the pejorative use of the term gay it was relevant but when I bring it up it’s not? I wonder how your (or anyone else’s) father would feel about you defending a random homosexual from the harsh use of the word gay but declaring that someone using the term motherfucker (possibly even calling him that) is relatively meaningless. Good to see that even discussions of gay marriage aren’t corroding your sense of family.

314

I understand correlation isn’t causality and causality isn’t necessarily reciprocal, but an interesting read nonetheless;

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

[sic][i]high-school age adolescents with higher IQs and extremely low IQs were less likely to have had first intercourse than those with average to below average intelligence. (i.e. for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins, for those with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, 58.6% were virgins with IQs between 90-110, and 70.3% with IQs over 110 were virgins)

…

Not only do intelligent people have a delayed onset of sexual behavior, Half Sigma found that they also have a lower number of premarital sex partners throughout adulthood.

…

Religiousness correlates with lower IQ, and as HS shows in the same post, intelligent people were also more likely to say that premarital sex was not immoral.[/i]

Funny how when you focus on productivity and efficiency, sex tends to fall by the wayside. I assume we would all be amenable to making it easier for the intelligent and hardworking to reproduce, I would also assume that we, at the very least, wouldn’t want to sanctify behavior that detracted (not precluded!) from both productivity and reproduction. But there I go, being all rational again.

315

I have a personality flaw whereas I become too emotionally involved in debates like these. Its unhealthy.

As such, I’m going to respectfully bow out.

316

[quote]orion wrote:

They had a book whith only ONE God and he did not like anything sexual except married couples having sex after dark through a whole in the blanket and only if it was not too exciting.

[/quote]

That’s hot. I have to try that.

317

Suit to decide workplace ‘hate speech’
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” can be punished as “hate speech” in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court…

A U.S. District Court for Northern California ruling said the words “natural family” and “marriage” had “anti-homosexual import.”
http://www3.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070610-111445-6957r

319

sex is to make babies,

that is why most straight couples have trouble after one year and gay people try to have parades.

320

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
sex is to make babies,

that is why most straight couples have trouble after one year and gay people try to have parades.[/quote]

Have trouble with what? With sex, you mean?