 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I have no problem with a school punishing bad language, though I think that there must have been a more apropriate punishment available.
I don't think that 10% of the population is gay. I think it's more like 1 to 2%.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tuberski
Do they ever "sound off" about homosexuals? I am not trying to offend or anything, but what is there view of homosexuals? Or what do you think is their view? |
I've never heard anything positive or negative about homosexuals from them, if I knew they'd be accepting I'd tell them. (Edit: Now that I think of it, my dad's made fun of people on TV and said they must be gay, like the Swim Team on Boston Public a couple months ago, but I don't know if that's necessarily bad)
My grandfather a couple years ago, while the gay pride parade in London, ON was on TV while I was on vacation there, told me that "them homosexuals serve no purpose" and "deserve to be round up and hauled away", which isn't encouraging.
I think it's their view that I'm an heterosexual computer geek. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999 time: 13:27
|
|
quote: If the term "gay" is an insult it doesn't necessarily follow that it's an insult to gays. That is a logical fallacy if you take it as a straight inference. If you'd bothered reading properly instead of trolling you would see why.. |
It appears that the problem you are having is that you persist in arguing that when someone uses "gay" to mean "lame' that they are not intending the expression to be an anti-gay epithet, so gay people should not take offense. In many or even most cases, you may well be correct about the speaker's intent. However, this is not at all relevant.
Because "gay" already had another, more commonly accepted meaning (i.e. as the primary identification of a particuliar social group), there is an implied equation - whether intended or not - between "gay/homosexual" and "gay/bad". Note carefully: it is because of the prior, commonly accepted meaning, not the immediate intent of someone who has perhaps not given more thought to the term's origin or useage.
Example to assist you: if someone, in a public forum in which Jews were present innocently used "jewed" to mean "cheated", Jewish people may well take offense, even if the naive speaker had not intended to make a slur. Does the speaker's intent mean that the Jews were unjustified in being offended? Again: It is not the intent, it is the implied equation, whether the speaker is aware of it or not. This is what you apparently are not getting. Advising the Jews to "grow up", calling their objections "rubbish", or accusing them of "trolling" would not appear to be helpful. 
quote: It only is if you buy into the idea that the term's meaning is such that it's necessarily an insult to gays, which I don't |
Question: Would using "jew" to mean "cheat" necessarily be an insult to Jews?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|