Homophobic quote from Mormon fellow traveler NOM

[_Yoda]

But this doesn't justify the speakers of the same language, the lexical definitions and possible colorations of which have long been settled, to poison the well of discourse by labeling principles dissent as a sign of psychopathology in need of medical or psychological treatment.

By this statement, can you clarify exactly what you are driving at?

Are you saying that all homosexuals should receive medical and psychological evaluations because there is "something wrong with them"?

[_Droopy]

quote="Droopy"
So then pederasty isn't homosexual in nature, and homosexual attraction to young boys isn't pederasty.

You're ignoring the polysemy I warned you against ignoring. Pederasty is homosexual in nature, but the contemporary and non-polemical use of "homosexual" semantically focuses on adult-adult relationships.

But the gay male subculture does not distinguish between these categories so clearly. The demarcation lines there are not as distinct as they may be in common colloquial language usage.

In common usage it does not also encapsulate pederasty, which is a subcategory of ephebophilia (attraction of adults to adolescents).

The male homosexual subculture does encapsulate pederasty in a variety of ways, however, and it is not a sub-deviant subculture within the male homosexual culture, but is integrated within it in not inconspicuous ways.

Lumping adult relationships in with adult-child relationships is a rhetorical ploy meant to pad numbers and further promote guilt by association.

Its also occurring, and has been occurring, in the heterosexual world for sometime, and is proceeding apace. It is more prominent in the male homosexual world as an integral aspect of that culture, but not to the exclusion of the surrounding cultural milieu.

You obviously haven't taken the time to understand what post-modernism actually is, or modernism for that matter. You just label it and dismiss it.

And in that, you are quite mistaken. However, given postmodernism's chameleon-like nature, tying to pin it down as its proponents keep tearing off one mask and applying another when critique is attempted, is half the battle.

[_EAllusion]

Really? A heartbeat, huh? And who's intention was that, exactly? Oh, that's right... the genetics'.

I guess genetics are little gnomes sitting around in a room planning their next mutation.

Not conscious intention. Human genes contain data that exist in order to effect rections and mechanisms that contribute to the homeostasis and propagation of a human. Genetic code has an intended product, result, or outcome. It has intention. Do you wish to contend this point?

I would. Genetic code does not have an intended product, result, or outcome. Adaptation is a consequence of statistical likelihood, not intention.

[_Droopy]

quote="Droopy"But this doesn't justify the speakers of the same language, the lexical definitions and possible colorations of which have long been settled, to poison the well of discourse by labeling principles dissent as a sign of psychopathology in need of medical or psychological treatment.

By this statement, can you clarify exactly what you are driving at?

Are you saying that all homosexuals should receive medical and psychological evaluations because there is "something wrong with them"?

No, I'm responding to mak by saying that labeling someone a "homophobe" because they dissent from liberal orthodoxy on the subject of the nature, origins, and consequences of homosexual behavior isn't directly relevant to the observation that words themselves have no innate meaning until a community of speakers determines them. Once we all understand our common language and a substantial body of terms therein, we are not free to solipsistically alter the meaning of terms at will and expect others to accept them and their implications.

Calling someone who does not share your politics a "Nazi," for example, is well poisoning, regardless of one's own wholly subjective determination of meaning relative to that term. That term has a clear, settled body of meanings among speakers of the English language generally, and avant garde meanings attached to any such term, especially for purposes of moral anathema of opposing viewpoints in an attempt to circumvent rational, civil debate, can and should be ignored as irrelevant.

A postmodernist may wish to call opponents of the homosexual lobby and marriage movement "homophobes," and can if they wish, but no one outside that particular philosophical prism need take it seriously. The intellectually honest term would simply be something descriptive like "anti-gay marriage," not morally/psychologically prescriptive such as "homophobe," implying a psychiatric condition in need of therapeutic treatment.

[_Some Schmo]

I wonder if mak is going to take the sacrament today after calling me an asshat and accusing me of emotionally jacking off. Surely, he can make those actions fit within the confines of Christ's teaching so that he doesn't have to repent before participating in the ritual.

It's only a sin if he's wrong.

Hmph. That might be how he justifies it too.

You mos are pretty clever with your rationalization. Nice.

[_ControlFreak]

Obviously genes have no intentions, I would assume he's meaning mutations that further the success of the gene's tendency to propagate. However, it is interesting to note that many species have built-in ways of defeating this objective as a means of population control.

Homosexuality could well be triggered by something similar. Or not. It doesn't really matter. We allow people with all kinds of genetically unfavorable conditions to live and enjoy life.

[_harmony]

Calling someone who does not share your politics a "Nazi," for example, is well poisoning, regardless of one's own wholly subjective determination of meaning relative to that term.

You realize, of course, that calling women who tended to think outside the Mormon box as Femi-Nazi's (by yourself and your friends) is exactly the behavior you're now condemning. Amazing how what goes around comes around again eventually.

[_Some Schmo]

Obviously genes have no intentions, I would assume he's meaning mutations that further the success of the gene's tendency to propagate. However, it is interesting to note that many species have built-in ways of defeating this objective as a means of population control.

Homosexuality could well be triggered by something similar. Or not. It doesn't really matter. We allow people with all kinds of genetically unfavorable conditions to live and enjoy life.

The problem is that mak is trying to turn "intention" (or more specifically, "intended" as in "It's not an intended genetic condition") into a weasel word in order to justify calling homosexuality unnatural. If he was as smart as he thinks he is, he would readily acknowledge and admit he misspoke. There's no such thing as "any non-sentience within the semantic range of the word 'intention.'" That's why I asked about the intention of data in a database (which he notably did not answer). I'm fairly confident he knows he's full of it on this, but he doesn't want to appear ignorant (too late).

If you look at from the point of view of the question "What is the intention of the data" (which naturally follows from the claim "it is unintended") then you must first ask, "Who's intention?" Data is inserted into a database for certain intentions from sentient beings. The data itself has no intention, since it doesn't think.

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp, but when you're so heavily invested in making your presuppositions work, you're willing to desperately attempt to redefine a common word. That's why I called it "intention apologetics" because it fits the pattern of "make outrageous assertion/get called on it/make up more BS to smooth over the previous BS."

[_Some Schmo]

The interesting thing about this "debate" is that it's fine for mak to play fast and loose with certain definitions when it suits him (intended) but insists on strict adherence to definitions when that suits him instead (explicit).

But then, consistency never was a strong suit for mopologists.

[_Yoda]

I wonder if mak is going to take the sacrament today after calling me an asshat and accusing me of emotionally jacking off. Surely, he can make those actions fit within the confines of Christ's teaching so that he doesn't have to repent before participating in the ritual.

It's only a sin if he's wrong.

Hmph. That might be how he justifies it too.

You mos are pretty clever with your rationalization. Nice.

OK..you have to admit...Harmony's comment was pretty funny!