Homophobic quote from Mormon fellow traveler NOM

[_Droopy]

quote="bcspace"
And I hope you aren't conflating pederasty and homosexuality (in the sense predominantly used contemporaneously) in this number, wherever it came from. That's a separate psychological issue.

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

This is what the postmodern, or, perhaps more saliently, the postnormal processes of thought so prized and sought after by the contemporary pop culture and the academic culture that is the pop culture's sociocultural pimp have brought us. Well, mak clearly believes that language generates reality. Say it (like Peter Pan), and believe it, and it shall be.

[_maklelan]

So by this definition, I suppose data sitting in a database intends to be queried. Is that it?

(Hey look everyone! It's an "intention" apologetic. How about that!)

Not necessarily. If the data exists only to produce a specific product, then yes, it has an intention. I don't really see the need to continue to try to split this hair down any further, though. It has really travelled far afield from my original point.

[_maklelan]

So then, language creates reality?

No, it describes it. The reality is there whether it is described or not.

Any label I care to use against you, to describe "observable behavior" (which may be nothing more than thoughts, beliefs, arguments, and principled philosophical positions I find ideologically objectionable) must "stick" and be accepted as legitimate descriptive concepts in reality based upon nothing more than my creation and usage of the terms.

If it is observable, it exists, whatever name you give it. My point was that the behavior exists, not that any label attached to it is etymologically accurate. When you group a behavior with a preexisting category for rhetorical reasons, you're not so much describing it as judging it. The descriptor is secondary, and when value judgments are used for the labeling of behaviors, there is commonly disagreement. The disagreement is not over whether the behavior exists, though, it's over whether or not the label can be widely agreed upon. Whether or not "homophobia" is actually a phobia, the behavior that is described by the common use of the term exists.

I see.

We all know what this really is, and its known as Newspeak, or PC, or just good old well poisoning.

No, those are just rather naïve ways to stick on a label that you think will serve to pigeonhole it for easy dismissal. It is an undeniable fact that no letter, words, or phrases that exist or that have ever existed have carried any actual inherent meaning. Linguistic meaning is nothing more than an agreement about what semantic senses and referents are to be attached to what symbols. When there is agreement, there is meaning, even if it is only between two people. That's not up for debate.

Homophobe. Bigot. Racist. Sexist. Denier. Kulak. Fascist. Exploiter. Oppressor. Pig.

We've been down this dirty yellow brick road for a century now. 1917. 1933. 1968. He who controls the language controls perception, and perception is reality, isn't it?

Or is it?

You don't really seem to understand what I'm saying.

[_maklelan]

"Demonstrably did not answer it?" Really.

Well please, by all means, let's see that demonstration.

Sure thing. Here was my question:

In your mind does anything significant hang on the question of whether or not there is such a thing?

Here were your responses:

Man, I can't stop laughing at this question. It's as though mak has been completely absent for the entire intelligent design/god-guided evolution debate.

You can't buy organic laughs like that.

And:

And I would appreciate if you got a GED so you at least have shot at knowing when someone's answered your question, young'un.

I don't see any attempt to answer anything. All I see is you talking past me in an attempt to rhetorically marginalize my contribution, and then you slinging a rather childish insult at me. If you believe you provided a direct answer to my question in these posts, please identify it and explain how it answers it.

[_maklelan]

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. In common usage it does not also encapsulate pederasty, which is a subcategory of ephebophilia (attraction of adults to adolescents). Lumping adult relationships in with adult-child relationships is a rhetorical ploy meant to pad numbers and further promote guilt by association. Let me see the studies that produced that statistic and then let me see the numbers with adult-adult homosexual relationships separated out. I imagine there will be quite a discrepancy in the resulting figures. How about you?

This is what the postmodern, or, perhaps more saliently, the postnormal processes of thought so prized and sought after by the contemporary pop culture and the academic culture that is the pop culture's sociocultural pimp have brought us. Well, mak clearly believes that language generates reality. Say it (like Peter Pan), and believe it, and it shall be.

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.

[_Some Schmo]

"Demonstrably did not answer it?" Really.

Well please, by all means, let's see that demonstration.

Sure thing. Here was my question:

In your mind does anything significant hang on the question of whether or not there is such a thing?

Here were your responses:

Man, I can't stop laughing at this question. It's as though mak has been completely absent for the entire intelligent design/god-guided evolution debate.

You can't buy organic laughs like that.

And:

And I would appreciate if you got a GED so you at least have shot at knowing when someone's answered your question, young'un.

I don't see any attempt to answer anything. All I see is you talking past me in an attempt to rhetorically marginalize my contribution, and then you slinging a rather childish insult at me. If you believe you provided a direct answer to my question in these posts, please identify it and explain how it answers it.

Jesus motherfucking Christ, you are obtuse.

What's at issue here? It's the "intention" of genes. You made a statement that genes had intention. I challenged you on it. You asked why it was significant. I bring up intelligent design, and you accuse me of not answering the question.

You are quite daft when you want to be. It's rather impressive.

[_maklelan]

Jesus motherfucking Christ, you are obtuse.

That must be it. It couldn't possibly be that you're just an asshat.

What's at issue here?

That I asked you a direct question and would appreciate a direct response. Instead, however, I got juvenile insults and dishonesty about providing a response.

It's the "intention" of genes. You made a statement that genes had intention. I challenged you on it. You asked why it was significant. I bring up intelligent design, and you accuse me of not answering the question.

Yes, because bringing up intelligent design while talking past me has absolutely nothing to at all to do with my question about the relevance of my comment to the points I made. Barking about how I must be stupid because I can't see how you've directly answered my question is a rather stupid way to try to sidestep my concern, and it certainly doesn't contribute to your attempts to cultivate the impression that you're not an idiot. You know very well that I'm not stupid and that this childish rhetoric of yours doesn't fool anybody. I don't know who this puppet show is for, but I'd appreciate it if you could just speak honestly and respectfully for a bit. I've been doing that this entire time, and you keep acting like a frat boy. Being honest and respectful doesn't seem to be a possibility for you, though. You're hear to emotionally jerk off, and being honest or thinking objectively isn't really conducive to that.

You are quite daft when you want to be. It's rather impressive.

Not nearly as impressive as how self-absorbed and ignorant you must be to think you have a legitimate point here. Go ahead and tell me I'm stupid again. Maybe I'll be convinced you're right this time. It certainly can't hurt your case.

[_Some Schmo]

Jesus motherfucking Christ, you are obtuse.

That must be it. It couldn't possibly be that you're just an asshat.

What's at issue here?

That I asked you a direct question and would appreciate a direct response. Instead, however, I got juvenile insults and dishonesty about providing a response.

It's the "intention" of genes. You made a statement that genes had intention. I challenged you on it. You asked why it was significant. I bring up intelligent design, and you accuse me of not answering the question.

Yes, because bringing up intelligent design while talking past me has absolutely nothing to at all to do with my question about the relevance of my comment to the points I made. Barking about how I must be stupid because I can't see how you've directly answered my question is a rather stupid way to try to sidestep my concern, and it certainly doesn't contribute to your attempts to cultivate the impression that you're not an idiot. You know very well that I'm not stupid and that this childish rhetoric of yours doesn't fool anybody. I don't know who this puppet show is for, but I'd appreciate it if you could just speak honestly and respectfully for a bit. I've been doing that this entire time, and you keep acting like a frat boy. Being honest and respectful doesn't seem to be a possibility for you, though. You're hear to emotionally jerk off, and being honest or thinking objectively isn't really conducive to that.

You are quite daft when you want to be. It's rather impressive.

Not nearly as impressive as how self-absorbed and ignorant you must be to think you have a legitimate point here. Go ahead and tell me I'm stupid again. Maybe I'll be convinced you're right this time. It certainly can't hurt your case.

First of all... yes yes, we're all so very impressed with how mature and sophisticated you think you are. You have grown up oh so very mature. Congratulations. You're a big boy now. We'll ignore the stick up your ass because you're oh so advanced. How about that?

Secondly, whether genes have an intention is at very heart of the "god did it" matter (not to mention the issue of whether something might be "natural" or not). If you're going to claim genes do or do not have intention, you have to stake a claim about who's intention it is (something you've decided to omit, I see). Whether or not a god did it seems pretty significant, don't you think?

And thirdly, if you're under some illusion that you've been polite to me in this thread, you're even more daft than I originally imagined. You have a pattern of coming into thread, throwing around what you think are intellectual pearls, and when someone challenges you on them and demonstrates how silly you are being, you turn aggressive and eventually flee in a huff, accusing the other person of being uncivil or how this place is a cesspool. What makes it even richer is you tend to do it in this ridiculously condescending way, like you're better than your lowly opponents, so the nonsense you spout coupled with condescension makes you a target for derision, not civil discourse. But that's ok. Proceed along with your self-deception and put it all on me. I can take it. In fact, I think it's funny.

"You know very well that I'm not stupid..." I don't know what gave you this idea. Your posts in this thread certainly don't support it.

Dude, I don't care if you think I'm an idiot. It makes no difference to me. I don't think much of you either. Please, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it. Your self esteem could probably use some propping, so have fun. This one's on me. You're welcome.

[_maklelan]

First of all... yes yes, we're all so very impressed with how mature and sophisticated you think you are. You have grown up oh so very mature. Congratulations. You're a big boy now. We'll ignore the stick up your ass because you're oh so advanced. How about that?

You keep talking about a stick up my ass, but you're the one who is fighting tooth and nail over whether or not there is any non-sentience within the semantic range of the word "intention." Evidently you misunderstood me to be implicitly alluding to intelligent design, and now you've wasted tons of everyone's time in order to try to make sure everyone knows that you think you're smarter than me. I'm not the insecure one here, I'm the one trying to keep this focused on what I suggested matters. How has this managed to evade you?

Secondly, whether genes have an intention is at very heart of the "god did it" matter (not to mention the issue of whether something might be "natural" or not).

I don't give a crap. I am referring solely and exclusively to the fact that genetic code has an intended outcome. It exists for a reason, and specifically a reason that has developed through evolution. God has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you're going to claim genes do or do not have intention, you have to stake a claim about who's intention it is (something you've decided to omit, I see). Whether or not a god did it seems pretty significant, don't you think?

Perhaps for some other conversation, but not for this. God has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. I hope that my responses to the rest of your post make that abundantly clear.

And thirdly, if you're under some illusion that you've been polite to me in this thread, you're even more daft than I originally imagined.

I'm under no such illusions. You're a rather disagreeable emotional adolescent, and that kind of attitude tends not to respond to politeness. I've been polite to you enough in the past to know that.

You have a pattern of coming into thread, throwing around what you think are intellectual pearls, and when someone challenges you on them and demonstrates how silly you are being, you turn aggressive and eventually flee in a huff, accusing the other person of being uncivil or how this place is a cesspool.

Right, you telling me I'm stupid should have set me straight. You totally undermined my entire position with that comment about little gnomes sitting around in a room, and then telling me I need to get a GED.

What makes it even richer is you tend to do it in this ridiculously condescending way, like you're better than your lowly opponents, so the nonsense you spout coupled with condescension makes you a target for derision, not civil discourse.

I see. So because I point out when you're acting like a child, my argument becomes irrelevant. All that matters for you and for all the other intellectually transcendent philosophers here at that point is derision. I guess I need a GED to engage that level of discourse.

But that's ok. Proceed along with your self-deception and put it all on me. I can take it. In fact, I think it's funny.

"You know very well that I'm not stupid..." I don't know what gave you this idea. Your posts in this thread certainly don't support it.

You continue to be dishonest.

Dude, I don't care if you think I'm an idiot.

Your rhetoric certainly doesn't indicate that.

It makes no difference to me. I don't think much of you either. Please, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go for it. Your self esteem could probably use some propping, so have fun. This one's on me. You're welcome.

My self-esteem is just fine, thank you. This thread is about homosexuality, though, and I've been trying to get back to the topic. You had a concern with my initial post. I answered it and asked you a direct question. Do you have an answer to that question, or are we done here?

[_Some Schmo]

Meh... you're not worth it.