|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:12 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 12:15, 03 Jan 2015.
|
Quote:
It's not impolite, per say. You *perceive* it as impolite. Just like how I perceive it as not.
From now on I have the right to say you the same as an argument in any other discussions with you.
Your rights end where my rights begin. Isn't it right?
Quote:
If a straight couple kissed in the street would you consider that impolite as well?
You must have been reading the thread not so attentively. Yes, I am no less embarassed by straight couples kissing in public. Things like these are private and must belong to private life.
I also did like that once and I enjoyed my feelings because I didn't care about other people at that moment, but now I realize that it is just impolite and should not be like that.
JollyJoker said:
Or women with too short skirts, men with too tight trousers - or just women with bare faces and men without headgear.
Don't exaggerate.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:15 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
if for one reason or other, homosexuality percentage came to exceed the reproduction necessary rate to survival.
The absurdity of this notion exceeds the usual level of absurdity that comes with veiled anti-gay statements.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:17 PM |
|
|
That's a pretty fair point and one I don't disagree with actually. *I* personally wouldn't kiss a man in public either (and what I would do in private doesn't concern this thread - that's why it's called "private") unless i was around people whom I know won't take offense from it.
That being said though, if you do notice something (to put it mildly) don't approve of, the best course of action imo is to ignore it and return to your own personal musings and chores.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:18 PM |
|
|
Heh, you first ask for say what I think, then you say is absurd. Typically JJ arrogance and provocation, I am out, no worth arguing.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:18 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 12:18, 03 Jan 2015.
|
Quote:
That being said though, if you do notice something (to put it mildly) don't approve of, the best course of action imo is to ignore it and return to your own personal musings and chores.
That's how I usually do since I have no other choice. But forums are a place where I can say something more than I actually say irl. 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong example. It's like when people ban loud rock music from the streets along with offensive lyric rap music from the streets either.
And rock music is already banned from the streets.
Listening is not propaganda. Listening is experiencing. I never said anyone is restricted to experience non-traditional sexual contacts.
Gay people don't demand something more than the other people (such as being able to have intercourse on a children's park), I think both DG and JJ summerized the level of hyperbole and misrepresentation of those gay propaganda=loud music analogies pretty well.
You reduce your standards to public kissing and by your analogy public kissing is as disturbing as someone playing an extremely loud music. Now, as someone who is quite shy on such matters and who only kissed on public 4 or 5 times in my entire life, I would say you must be caught in the heat of the debate and not listening to the ramifications of your own suggestion. A state that finds in itself the right to interfere with people kissing on the street is a directly oppressive state, I'm talking like 1920's standard of oppressive. I would under no circumstance want to live under such a state and when the conservative Islamists over our heads try their best to achieve that, people who have any notion of freedom get together and publicly kiss each other just to protest the dare. You know what they say, be careful what you wish for...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:42 PM |
|
|
What's with all this prudishness? "I have nothing against gays, I don't want straight couples kissing in public either", "I have nothing against gays, it's just like people walking around without a shirt on" - so what if people want to kiss in public? So what if people want to walk around without a shirt on? If you dislike it, that's your problem, not theirs.Orzie said:
What makes right the opposite side?
Morality, the correctness of which is independent of law. Rather, it is law that must follow morality, and not the other way around.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:46 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:47, 03 Jan 2015.
|
This is about people's rights, not morals. Your "Ayn Rand objectivism" is nothing but irrelevant, to say the least. Nobody has to agree with it, but they should respect each other's rights. Gays don't protest for their moral values to be accepted by everyone, they protest to have the same rights as everyone.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 01:02 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
JollyJoker said:
Or women with too short skirts, men with too tight trousers - or just women with bare faces and men without headgear.
Don't exaggerate.
Regular examples from regular countries - no exaggeration necessary. And, what's more, you should know it. And that you have no point.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 01:06 PM |
|
|
DagothGares said:
That if you suspect malice from commercial television you are delusional. Commercial television, maybe that doesn't exist in Bulgaria I don't know. If Bulgarian television is about forcing the gay on you in a state-funded way, then I guess that's hilarious. Western television, however, which my country is 100%, is commercial. The people with money at hollywood try to make more money by making things that most people will want to watch. If you think some small-time hollywood executives have a bigger agenda than "make money" and "make a franchise"/ "make more money," then you are simply wrong. Calling Will and Grace gay propaganda is like calling Big Bang Theory nerd propaganda. Like calling national geographic environmentalist propaganda.
I believe there is no need to control people and media. You clearly seem to disagree and feel forced and disgusted that you've seen a dude kiss another dude once five years ago or something. Clearly, to someone who isn't forced to watch Bulgarian pray-you're-gay propaganda every day, a lot of people in this thread seem a little bit hyperbolic and frustrated that they're not being pandered to 100% and will bring up a lot of crazy sounding arguments.
Also, claiming that I will understand your argument by comparing this "gay propaganda" to 1984 is a bit flabbergasting.
Where do you see me using "gay propaganda"? It's actually you who simplify it to that level, probably to make my point more convenient to argue against (kind of self-constructed strawman). And the comparison of the example to 1984 means that you don't understand it one bit or don't understand the book (written by a socialist).
Imagine, commercial TV does exist in Bulgaria, actually it's the dominant type, with 3-4 main channels watched by 95% or so of the whole audience. Commercial TVs will show whatever will bring them profit or whatever they are paid to show. If they are paid to show a movie with socialist moral advertisements (or any such for that matter), you can bet your ass that they will broadcast it. But that's hardly the point, I'm asking about YOUR stance in such a scenario, not whether you think it will come true in real life any time soon.
Your other assumptions are all wrong and fairly childish actually. Perhaps it's easier for you to think that I'm anti-gay or something (the convenience mentioned above) but in fact don't care in the slightest about gays 99% of the time. The remaining 1% is filled with threads like this one and similar stuff. I also see no reason why should I care about them, as a group, without any special reason. If someone creates a gay-eradicating Gestapo I will oppose it just like I will oppose any form of mindless hatred but if you try to tell me that I should give a damn beyond that, we'll have a problem. That is what occasionally happens however and that is why otherwise indifferent and moderate people get irritated, especially when someone claims that you'll remain morally inferior or whatever if you don't share his or her views completely or even preach them. Eurocentrism all the way in XXI century. Hopefully one day you'll find out for yourself how intellectually-bankrupt such an attitude is.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 01:12 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Heh, you first ask for say what I think, then you say is absurd. Typically JJ arrogance and provocation, I am out, no worth arguing.
The problem is, that you actually don't see the absurdity of it. You said:
Quote:
What will be hypocrite is to have same chameleon politicians and scientists smacking our heads with "homosexuality is normal" suddenly say "oh my goodness, this is catastrophic", if for one reason or other, homosexuality percentage came to exceed the reproduction necessary rate to survival.
Someone else might say along the same lines:
"What will be hypocrite is to have some chameleon politicians and scientists smacking our heads with "having no religion/being faithless is normal suddenly say, "oh my goodness, this is catastrophic", if for one reason or other, immorality and crime percentage came to exceed the level of social cohesion necessary for survival."
There is an absurd notion based on some bias and warped perception in that statement, and I'm quite sorry for you that you are obviously unable to see that.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 01:42 PM |
|
|
@JJ:
You replace randomly my words, how is that going to make a point? Politicians and scientists never said immorality and crime are normal. Instead politicians and scientists claimed for a long time that homosexuality is a dysfunction (or even worse), so don't play suddenly the offended when someone points the hypocrisy of it.
There is place for a long discussion here, about acceptable sexual perversions as part of our "normality", how should we perceive them and how to deal with. But, in order to seek the closest to some evidence answer about what is normal and what is not, you have first to generalize: what if everyone did this?
Then you have your answer.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 01:49 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
@JJ:
You replace randomly my words, how is that going to make a point? Politicians and scientists never said immorality and crime are normal.
Who is randomly replacing words? Because no one said or claimed they did.
I suggest you read again what YOU wrote, then what I wrote and then start thinking. Seriously.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 01:55 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 14:10, 03 Jan 2015.
|
How is the hypothetical question "What if everyone was gay" even relevant what so ever when it is literally impossible for that to happen?
I also don't understand this obsession with what's normal and what's not normal. Lots of people do stuff that are outside of the normative box. Non-heterosexuality, polyamory, drugs, whatever. But as long as these things do not hurt others, what does it matter? Why should people not be able to live in liberty and peace?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 02:47 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 14:49, 03 Jan 2015.
|
Quote:
Regular examples from regular countries - no exaggeration necessary. And, what's more, you should know it. And that you have no point.
I don't know which countries you speak about, and barely can understand who can consider short skirts, lack of headgear or tight trousers as offending as public kissing or naked torso. You compare (sic) that with a public demonstration of sexual preferences which sound more like trolling than an actual argument. Islamic countries cannot be considered "regular" since their religion meddles too much with the simple people's life.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 03:06 PM |
|
|
You are wasting our time here. You said Orzie said:
It's impolite to people who are embarassed to see such kind of things in public. It's like men who walk with a naked torso on the street.
And I came up with other things that ALOT of people will consider AS impolite, since it will embarrass them to see these things.
You have no right to decide what people consider impolite or not. The question is, whether personal views in that regard should have legal consequences.
I also think that this whole point is a cheap strawman. Noone is bothered by seeing a happy couple. What people see, is actually what their brains make it and how they interpret it. You can simply ignore it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 03:08 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
Quote:
Regular examples from regular countries - no exaggeration necessary. And, what's more, you should know it. And that you have no point.
I don't know which countries you speak about, and barely can understand who can consider short skirts, lack of headgear or tight trousers as offending as public kissing or naked torso. You compare (sic) that with a public demonstration of sexual preferences which sound more like trolling than an actual argument. Islamic countries cannot be considered "regular" since their religion meddles too much with the simple people's life.
Well, the way you say "religion meddles too much with the simple people's life," about Islamic countries, what he means is your argument is not any different, and it's really not trollish and taking it to an extreme since you offer to ban something as regular and harmless as public kissing (I live in a country whose major population is Muslim and we don't have such a law) and defend your standards by saying things like "Orthodox Christianity is determining our values even if we are not religious" etc. You can have a theocracy or a secular state, you cant have both according to what you like or dislike personally. It's your suggestions that are extreme, not his comparisons.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 03:24 PM |
|
|
DagothGares said:
Not to make accusations here, but maybe the experience of the gay being "forced on you" is an irrational reaction?
No, I parcially agree with you about the fear to homosexual exposure but here in Portugal (as I believe in France, where Sal lives) we have homosexuality being imposed on ourselves by TV all day long.
Seeing two guys kissing themselves doesn't bother me at all but their not 1/4 to 1/3 of the population so there is no need to over represent them in every soap opera and TV contest. On the other hand, you can bet you will not ever saw someone like Barca from Spartacus on them, it's always some patetic queer reinforcing every stereotipe about homosexuality; someone like Kurt from Glee. And since lesbians are way more discrete they simply don't have a roll on all these political correctness show off. I find this to be offensive both to gays and straights.
P.S.
mvassilev said:
It's not actually that complex. Some people have a mom and a dad, some have two moms, and some have two dads. There's no need for further questions, and being kids, I wouldn't expect any actual questions to be complex .
There are two chances: or you don't remember what is to be a six years old kid or you were a very different kid then I was. I since I would probably already asked how babies were made, probably in front of some cousin carrying one, I would immediately associate both problems and ask very "complicated questions". I can recall one instance when I saw a black guy for the first time...
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 08:52 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
But as long as these things do not hurt others, what does it matter? Why should people not be able to live in liberty and peace?
Actually you are the perfect example of what I call gays lack of decency, provocative push-over of the limits, and why gay propaganda should be closely watched, thank you for such brilliant example. As you did today by adding that diarrhea thread with dick sucking, infected penises as main subjects, I pass the rest or I will puke. On the top of our glorious HC, sanctuary of our most creative artworks, sanctuary of such many creative and passioned discussions.
This is the main problem with out of ordinary things: you can't categorize them so they soon go out of hand. Imagine the uneasiness if a straight guy started a thread, with such crusty details about a girl he banged: mods wouldn't let it 1 hour online and all of you would call to lynch. But as it is now, the thread is still there, gloriously wallowing in its pestilent smelling.
Good luck all with your absolute tolerance, today it showed its rotten side. And I can say is rather ugly.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 09:00 PM |
|
|
We have the Men Talk about Girls and other threads where there were times it got quite graphical, (though none of us can match Xerox regarding that), it wasnt banned or anything, there were direct discussions about porn, body of women, std...
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
