And we would like to know how tolerant you are.
So share with us your traditionalist / Conservative Revolutionary theories on
racial differences
the deviance of homosexuals
immigrants
... you know. Enlighten us.
YES! That's why I use firefox. Without it, evetyone can tell I'm dlsixiks.
If what I'm saying is offensive to you, it's probably because you know it is true. Like I said before, people tend to be most offended by what they know to be true but are not willing to admit for themselves....;
If applying this "logic" to you, then if what the people on this forum are saying is being offensive and prejudiced to you, then it must mean that we're true on this. Lots of people who believe homosexuality is immoral are thoroughly offended at the idea of people being gay - by your reasoning this must be proof that being gay is okay is a true statement. Your "reasoning" here is inconsistent.
People get offended at both true and false things. While offense has more to do with feelings and beliefs than facts, with such a variety of opinions, there will be some that are right and some that are wrong. It's a ridiculous fallacy to say that "you don't believe and take offense to what I say, therefore I must be right"
That's because YOU attach these words to a value judgement and YOU therefore ASSUME that another person does this too when he uses those words. That assumption is where YOU are wrong. NOT everyone makes those same value judgements. I sure as hell don't.
Also, while the word "primitive" can conceivably be used in a value neutral way, though it's usually not, the word "superior", in the context of one person or one group of people being "overall" superior, CANNOT, by definition be used in a value neutral way. Even if you think the "inferior" groups should be respected, that doesn't make it value neutral.
Also, equal in the context of people doesn't mean "identical". Equal is about equivalent worth.
Norm being defined as a value neutral statistical majority, of course. No one's saying that everyone should become gay, even if it were possible. The problem is the statement I italicized, which is NOT a "simple fact". Most research indicates the opposite. It's the italicized statement that people take issue with here, not with the fact that without modern medical advances that heterosexuality is the only way to procreate.
If applying this "logic" to you, then if what the people on this forum are saying is being offensive and prejudiced to you, then it must mean that we're true on this. Lots of people who believe homosexuality is immoral are thoroughly offended at the idea of people being gay - by your reasoning this must be proof that being gay is okay is a true statement. Your "reasoning" here is inconsistent.
I'm not offended by the idea of homosexuality. If that would be the case, I would have a lesbian friend. Where do you find the idea that I'm offended by the idea of homosexuality?
I guess you must be referring to those radical "conservative" Christians out there whom I dislike as much as the equally hypocritical and condescending liberals out there.
Besides that, these people are offended by homosexuals in the same way ocampo is offended by my words. They make al sorts of assumptions and see the other as a threat to their way of life, which doesn't necessarilly have to be the case.
True. They just get more offended with facts than with lies, because they can provide rational arguments against lies but not against facts. Humans are at their most dangerous when they lack any rational arguments for the things they do or say.
I said that people tend to be more offended with facts than with lies. I did not say that being offended implies truth. To draw that from my words, my dear, is a logical fallacy.
I wasn't addressing your statement that people tend to be offended with facts that go against their beliefs. I was addressing your statement, towards people who took offense at your statements, that:
'Probably' in reference to particular individuals is different from "tendency" in reference to general population, and you make the implication that, "If what [you're] saying is offensive to [us], it's probably because [we] know it is true."
That pretty clearly implies that because we're finding offense with it, that it's probably because it must be true.
Also, in my example, I did not say that you are "offended by the idea of homosexuality". I was giving an example of how, if a person uses your "if you're so offended then it's probably true" argument in a reversed situation, then you'll come up with two opposing "facts", and that this isn't a valid way to argue a point.
All I can hear is Jack Nicholson saying "You can't handle the truth!" from "A Few Good Men" LOL!
LOL
They are promoting it as something cool and normal, which makes a lot of teenagers experiment with homosexuality who would otherwise not even have thought of the idea. As a consequences, many people unnecessarilly go through the more horrible identity crises for no reason whatsoever.
Heh. Wow, of all my involvement in gay advocacy groups, and gay-straight alliances, and my gay friends and myself, I've never heard any of us describe it as "cool" or "normal". (Actually, with regards to normal, actually I have heard it, though in the "natural variation" sense rather than statistically.) Much like I wouldn't describe being autistic as "normal" or any more "cool" than being NT - though it's a natural variation that should be respected for those with it and not be looked at as defective.
Also, you speak of rational arguments, and facts, in discourse, so surely you should be able to pony up some facts to the effect of:
Some people are on the verge of bisexual when younger, but then realize that in fact they're straight, or realize that they're gay, and some realize that they are in fact bisexual. The only difference between these identity crises and what would be there if it weren't for gay advocacy, is that those who were unsure would feel even more pressure to "aim for straight" regardless of where they are on the sexuality spectrum, as they wouldn't have a supportive voice for them.
In every single human civilisation, the marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm. Sometimes it's more men for one woman and sometimes it's the other way around, but homosexual relationships have always and everywhere been a deviance.
No one contests that heterosexual relationships are the statistical norm. And something being considered a deviance by a society doesn't mean that it's a "simple fact" - for instance autistics are considered deviant, not so much morally but in terms of neurological wiring - still considered defective by a lot of people, but that doesn't make it fact.
For instance, you even mentioned in an example about how people weren't lining up in droves to defend Galileo - his ideas about the earth and the sun were not at all respected by a lot of people. Just because a lot of people don't support something doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong, whether it's an idea about the solar system or an idea about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.
Deviance is a negative value judgment of a difference that is in the minority.
Those statements don't look very much alike in meaning. Perhaps you could enlighten us?
So you're implying that NTs are of little spine? *whistles and reports*
Sorry my post didn't relate specifically to anything currently going on...it was...ah what's the point...
You're right of course...carry on.