Questions for those who don't believe in God

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah, you've seen me post all kinds of crap like that, huh?

Feel free to quote it. That'll teach me.

Standard logic and discourse obviously escapes your feeble intellect. How about some piss in the eye? jAZ

 

[jAZ]

Standard logic and discourse obviously escapes your feeble intellect. How about some piss in the eye? jAZ

Wouldn't this be changing the subject?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wouldn't this be changing the subject?

no.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Baloney, I've proven that 1 rather prominant group of religous conservatives are trying to legislate thoughts, words and deeds (well in this case most likely just deeds). That's proof that such efforts to legislate such actions is not the exclusive realm of PC-liberals.

For beginners, "homophobe" is used by the left to paint a negative emotional opinion. Either we take its literal meaning, which is non sensical, or we take its updated version, "you hate homosexuals", which is simply not true.

As for conservatives passing laws to control behavior, your statement actually proves that conservatives are not doing it via OLIGARCHY. Look the word up, govt by a few.
The liberals try to do this by creating legislation from the judicial bench. They also like to do it by creating agencies that then impose rules and regulations. Those are methods of control without the approval of the majority
When the majority exercises its power by voting in something via a majority vote, that IS NOT OLIGARCHY.

 

[manu1959]

Baloney, I've proven that 1 rather prominant group of religous conservatives are trying to legislate thoughts, words and deeds (well in this case most likely just deeds). That's proof that such efforts to legislate such actions is not the exclusive realm of PC-liberals.

would you concede that one rather prominent group of liberals are trying to legislate thoughts words and deeds.

extra credit if you can tell me who i am thinking of

 

[archangel]

would you concede that one rather prominent group of liberals are trying to legislate thoughts words and deeds.

extra credit if you can tell me who i am thinking of

the ACLU or was that Teddy Kennedy et al...a toss up!

 

[jAZ]

For beginners, "homophobe" is used by the left to paint a negative emotional opinion.

Occasionally and maybe even often, this is entirely true.

Either we take its literal meaning, which is non sensical, or we take its updated version, "you hate homosexuals", which is simply not true.

False choice here... my point was to refute the statement that it wasn't a real word. It is in fact a real word. It was adopted to describe (as you say) "you hate homosexuals" (see the connection to the latin "fear of sameness" ie, two men).

I'm not going to deny that the term is often tossed around in ways that are inaccurate. And applied to some people who don't "hate". In return, I ask that you don't deny that there is a contingent of people who actually do "hate" homosexuals. Not saying anyone here is part of that group, but those people do exist. Literally they don't "fear" homosexuals (sameness), they just despise them or their actions.

As for conservatives passing laws to control behavior, your statement actually proves that conservatives are not doing it via OLIGARCHY. Look the word up, govt by a few.

I'm using it to the same degree (and in the same context) as RWavenger. If the PC crowd starts successfully legislating their views rather than just gaining unofficial agreement from like minded people, then they too are no longer merely "a few". And technically the entire of catagory "liberals" can't be described as "a few" when it's millions and millions. Anyway, I didn't bring up the term oligarchy, I'm just playing by RWA's standards. If you correct his assertions on the same grounds, then I have no need to refute the remainder of his statements. If you let him get away with asserting that liberals are pushing for "dark ages" oligarchy, then there's no justification for holding me to a higher standard when I'm only responding to him/her in kind.

Those are methods of control without the approval of the majority
When the majority exercises its power by voting in something via a majority vote, that IS NOT OLIGARCHY.

And merely being a marginal minority doesn't constitute an "oligarchy" either. At least hold yourself to the same literal rhetorical standards you are trying to hold me to.

 

[jAZ]

would you concede that one rather prominent group of liberals are trying to legislate thoughts words and deeds.

extra credit if you can tell me who i am thinking of

I've conceded that from the get-go. It's RWavenger and others who are trying to say liberals and ONLY liberals behave this way.

My guess would be (as we already discussed) those hate-crime liberals out there.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Occasionally and maybe even often, this is entirely true. .

False choice here... my point was to refute the statement that it wasn't a real word. It is in fact a real word. It was adopted to describe (as you say) "you hate homosexuals" (see the connection to the latin "fear of sameness" ie, two men)..

This isnt my issue here. I just wanted to bring up one aspect that has been missing. If anything it merely is a "made up word".

I'm not going to deny that the term is often tossed around in ways that are inaccurate. And applied to some people who don't "hate". In return, I ask that you don't deny that there is a contingent of people who actually do "hate" homosexuals. Not saying anyone here is part of that group, but those people do exist. Literally they don't "fear" homosexuals (sameness), they just despise them or their actions..

No, I dont deny such people exist. But there numbers to few, and their power too little for them to matter. WJ is a good example of someone who hates and/or fears. But nobody is really concerned about him or his ilk. We know he is religated to the ash heap of history, a dinasour, archaic and going extinct.

I'm using it to the same degree (and in the same context) as RWavenger. If the PC crowd starts successfully legislating their views rather than just gaining unofficial agreement from like minded people, then they too are no longer merely "a few". And technically the entire of catagory "liberals" can't be described as "a few" when it's millions and millions. Anyway, I didn't bring up the term oligarchy, I'm just playing by RWA's standards. If you correct his assertions on the same grounds, then I have no need to refute the remainder of his statements. If you let him get away with asserting that liberals are pushing for "dark ages" oligarchy, then there's no justification for holding me to a higher standard when I'm only responding to him/her in kind..

Im not sure what RWA is saying on this issue, seems to me most of your dialogue with him has been an attempt to prove who is wittier. But if you think Im afraid to take him on if I disagree with him, not true. He and I have disagreed on issues, as I have taken him to task and paddled his behind recently. JUST KIDDING! (kinda )

And merely being a marginal minority doesn't constitute an "oligarchy" either. At least hold yourself to the same literal rhetorical standards you are trying to hold me to.

The left of America doesnt represent any marginal minority. They represent minor splinter groups, of which even the largest cant compare to the base groups of conservatives/repubs. They gain their control and power mostly through judicial fiat and gaining votes by scare tactics and attacking the repubs while offering nothing except outdated concepts. A vast majority of Americans reject and dont like politically correct behavior/speech. PC is anti American through and through.

I do give you credit though. At least you are honest and couragous enough to admit SOME of the faults of your party.

 

[musicman]

False choice here... my point was to refute the statement that {homophobia} wasn't a real word. It is in fact a real word.

I knew - if I gave you enough rope - that you'd hang yourself.

It was adopted to describe (as you say) "you hate homosexuals" (see the connection to the latin "fear of sameness" ie, two men).

What you are saying - in no uncertain terms - is that "homophobia" is the adaptation of a legitimate Latin term; that - although the definition, "fear of sameness" would appear nonsensical - what the Romans of antiquity meant by "sameness" was "two men".

I'm calling you out. I accuse you of presenting fabrication as fact.

Just so we understand each other, jAZ - I'm calling you a liar.

 

[jAZ]

I knew - if I gave you enough rope - that you'd hang yourself.



What you are saying - in no uncertain terms - is that "homophobia" is the adaptation of a legitimate Latin term; that - although the definition, "fear of sameness" would appear nonsensical - what the Romans of antiquity meant by "sameness" was "two men".

I'm calling you out. I accuse you of presenting fabrication as fact.

Just so we understand each other, jAZ - I'm calling you a liar.

Nice. As well worded as this response is, I'm amazed that you don't understand the difference between

1) A word being real (homophobia)
2) A word having a a range of varying usage over time

Here's an example to get you started... Xenophobia.
The latin translation (as with homophobia) is "Fear of strange". The modern usage of the word is "contempt for foreign people".

How about a non-phobia example... distemper.
The latin translation is "to mix properly apart". The modern usage is "An infectious viral disease occurring in dogs".

How about another... barometer.
Greek for "Weight measuring device". The modern usage is "An instrument for measuring atmospheric pressure in weather forecasting".

I'm sure you are planning on telling me that IYO - like the word homophobia - neither distemper, xenophobia nor barometer are real words simply because their modern usage is different than their historical roots.

There's no "gotcha" moment here for you. It seems just a lack of familiarity with language.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nice. As well worded as this response is, I'm amazed that you don't understand the difference between

1) A word being real (homophobia)
2) A word having a a range of varying usage over time

Here's an example to get you started... Xenophobia.
The latin translation (as with homophobia) is "Fear of strange". The modern usage of the word is "contempt for foreign people".

How about a non-phobia example... distemper.
The latin translation is "to mix properly apart". The modern usage is "An infectious viral disease occurring in dogs".

How about another... barometer.
Greek for "Weight measuring device". The modern usage is "An instrument for measuring atmospheric pressure in weather forecasting".

I'm sure you are planning on telling me that IYO - like the word homophobia - neither distemper, xenophobia nor barometer are real words simply because their modern usage is different than their historical roots.

There's no "gotcha" moment here for you. It seems just a lack of familiarity with language.

Wrongo. Homophobia is cleary used outside the range of what it should mean according to it's simple lexical parts. Fear of same. This should mean men being afraid of men, women being afraid of women, whites being afraid of whites. What it reallys means is a belief that people of the same sex shouldn't have sex with each other. There's no fear involved. And no mention of sex is made in the word. It's totally twisted outside all bounds of lexical sense.

 

[musicman]

Nice. As well worded as this response is, I'm amazed that you don't understand the difference between

1) A word being real (homophobia)
2) A word having a a range of varying usage over time

Here's an example to get you started... Xenophobia.
The latin translation (as with homophobia) is "Fear of strange". The modern usage of the word is "contempt for foreign people".

How about a non-phobia example... distemper.
The latin translation is "to mix properly apart". The modern usage is "An infectious viral disease occurring in dogs".

How about another... barometer.
Greek for "Weight measuring device". The modern usage is "An instrument for measuring atmospheric pressure in weather forecasting".

I'm sure you are planning on telling me that IYO - like the word homophobia - neither distemper, xenophobia nor barometer are real words simply because their modern usage is different than their historical roots.

There's no "gotcha" moment here for you. It seems just a lack of familiarity with language.

No good, jAZ - not even a good try. At least those words are rooted in legitimate meanings. "Fear of sameness" is nonsense, and the attempt to present "sameness = two men" as fact makes you an agenda-driven liar. "Homophobia" is no more a legitimate Latin term than is "Mentos Domini" (the god of fresh breath) or "jAZarachnoeroticism" (the tendency of jAZ's posts to resemble Spiderman Tuba's). It is a non-word - a made-up term whose only reason for existing is to create a lie and manipulate thought.

 

[jAZ]

No good, jAZ - not even a good try. At least those words are rooted in legitimate meanings. "Fear of sameness" is nonsense, and the attempt to present "sameness = two men" as fact makes you an agenda-driven liar. "Homophobia" is no more a legitimate Latin term than is "Mentos Domini" (the god of fresh breath) or "jAZarachnoeroticism" (the tendency of jAZ's posts to resemble Spiderman Tuba's). It is a non-word - a made-up term whose only reason for existing is to create a lie and manipulate thought.

Look this is just silly.

"homo" = same
"hetero" = different
"homosexual" = same sex
"heterosexual" = different sex
"homophobia" = "fear of sameness" (sexually)

Didja know there is even a phrase "heterophobia"? It's a medical term used by sex therapists and sexual reseachers.

What agenda exactly "created" that phrase?

 

[jAZ]

Wrongo. Homophobia is cleary used outside the range of what it should mean according to it's simple lexical parts. Fear of same. This should mean men being afraid of men, women being afraid of women, whites being afraid of whites. What it reallys means is a belief that people of the same sex shouldn't have sex with each other. There's no fear involved. And no mention of sex is made in the word. It's totally twisted outside all bounds of lexical sense.

Wrongo yourself...

a barometer is an instrument that measures air pressure. The term "weight measuring device" literally means a scale.

A barometer doesn't measure any kind of weight. It measures air pressure. air pressure doesn't even drive weight. Weight is a product of gravity. A device that measures gravity is a gravimeter.

Barometer should be the name of a scale. Instead it's the name for a device used in predicting weather.

Not even remotely the same, and yet it makes sense as to why its the word commonly used. Strange how language is like that.

Or, was there some kind of agenda to morph confuse a weather tool with a scale?

On a more conciliatory (and less snarky note), in the same way that barometer is probably not the ideal term for measuring air pressure... I'd say that there is probably a slightly better term than "homophobia".

It is more accurate to use homosexualphobia (fear of same sex). Or maybe even homosexualrelationshiphobia (fear of same sex relationships). Of course those are too long, and would be just shortened to homophobia anyway. But hey, it's "let's all get along Monday" so I tried.

 

[musicman]

Look this is just silly.

Not silly. Dishonest. Disingenuous. Agenda-driven.

"homo" = same
"hetero" = different
"homosexual" = same sex
"heterosexual" = different sex
"homophobia" = "fear of sameness" (sexually)

The (sexually) is YOUR QUALIFICATION. It is not a given. It is not of language. It suits your purposes, and the purposes of homosexual activists who know that their preposterous agenda cannot survive in an atmosphere of plain talk. It is dishonest. YOU are dishonest. Dishonesty is boring. YOU are boring.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Im wondering, RWA and musicman. If you wanted to come up with a term meaning "fear of homos", what would you use?

I think language has been perverted more in the last 30 years than all of history combined. I think the mass communications we have now is mostly responsable.

Fact is we have to live with it.

I dont mind the creation of new words, what I dispise is when liberals, and sometimes conservatives intentionally mislead people with loaded terms.

Whether homophobia does or doesnt accurately translate into fear of homosexuals, the left still uses it as a loaded term. If a liberal were to dare say that to my face, I might be asking them if they have a "punchTOtheFACEphobia" joke joke joke (kinda)

 

[musicman]

Im wondering, RWA and musicman. If you wanted to come up with a term meaning "fear of homos", what would you use?

Well, my reflexive action would be to offer something like "agendaphobia", but my considered response would be that no term is required. You see, by assigning a "phobia" at all, the homosexual activists are framing the debate; one is either "tolerant" of homosexuality - meaning that he thinks it a lifestyle choice - no better or worse than any other - or he is "phobic". Do you see the manipulation? I refuse to play their game.

I think language has been perverted more in the last 30 years than all of history combined. I think the mass communications we have now is mostly responsable.

Fact is we have to live with it.

Not necessarily. We can still call "bullshit" when we hear bullshit.

I dont mind the creation of new words, what I dispise is when liberals, and sometimes conservatives intentionally mislead people with loaded terms.

Thought manipulation and the rape of language are exclusively liberal games, as far as I can see. I can't think of any conservative examples.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, my reflexive action would be to offer something like "agendaphobia", but my considered response would be that no term is required. You see, by assigning a "phobia" at all, the homosexual activists are framing the debate; one is either "tolerant" of homosexuality - meaning that he thinks it a lifestyle choice - no better or worse than any other - or he is "phobic". Do you see the manipulation? I refuse to play their game.



Not necessarily. We can still call "bullshit" when we hear bullshit.



Thought manipulation and the rape of language are exclusively liberal games, as far as I can see. I can't think of any conservative examples.

Nothing wrong with creating a new word to describe TRUE HOMOPHOBES, though they are few in number, and the leftists over use the term, no doubt, as they misuse all other terms to demonize conservatives.

Im not saying live with the "bullshit", I mean live with the fact that alot of new words and terms are being coined, and will continue to be created.

I have seen it occasionly, though not often, from the right. I just dont remember the details, but I do recall the emotion of cringing...

 

[Abbey Normal]

A few terms perhaps more descriptive of how some people feel than Homophobia (minus their correct word endings):

Homoopprobrium

Homodisesteem

Homodenunciation