The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Azuremen]

It is the point you guys are trying to make with judging my question, is it not?

No, not really. Not in that kind of an extreme Black and White mindset you've cast it into.

Next time I'll put up a sarcasm sign.

Not really sure how that statement could be considered sarcasm at all. Especially considering how clear it is that you don't agree with that statement.[/quote]

No, I'm just pointing out what I consider offensive when people use a specific word. Like the assumption Famine made... You make the assumption I decide for YOU what you should feel. I never said that.

What?

No, you build statements on what YOU think you read.

I know what I am reading, and build statements on what I think you are saying. If you want to suggest I'm at fault for misunderstanding you, when others are also having problems, I suggest you do some self-reflection.

And if you want to know what I actually am reading into your posts, then here goes: you're young (late teens, maybe early 20's) and insecure. Your posts and style make you seem like you're a victim, in this case the victim of assumptions that we all seem to be making. I suspect you were sheltered a decent amount while growing up, though mocked/teased in your youth a bit.

That paragraph above could be entirely wrong, as I am actually making assumptions and reading into things in it. Everything else I've posted is simply the product of me trying to understand, as a very basic level, the attitude you are presenting in posts.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well Johnnypenso, it appears you've proven your point. Gonales can be offended by literally anything...

Who says I'm offended? It literally says I could be, which does NOT mean I am. Seriously :/

It certainly appears so Summer. And to further drive the point home, Gonales is aghast that you said he/she/?? was offended because Gonales never said she was offended, just could be...

 

[homeforsummer]

Who says I'm offended? It literally says I could be, which does NOT mean I am. Seriously :/

You missed my point. You asked someone who made a harmless joke about your posting style to "now go try to be funny somewhere else". It's ironic that you also managed to get into a hissy fit over my post pointing this out, which rather proved my point.

Azuremen is right - you need to lighten up. And not just on the homophobia thing. Everything.

 

[Famine]

Yes, I think it's unacceptable.

Which is your decision, like I said.

Yes, I asked people to do it.

Which is your decision, like I said.

Since the first is an opinion, (opinions forum?), and the second is a polite request which people can and obviously have ignored, I don't see the problem.

The decision on what is offensive is not yours. The decision on what is offensive on GTPlanet is not yours either. Only the decision on what is offensive TO YOU is yours. The problem is making that call for other people and asking them to behave in a manner acceptable to you.

And yes, it IS my prerogative to ask things.

It isn't your prerogative here to ask people to behave in a manner that suits you.

Since my use of language has been vague, and you guys making conclusions time and again about the meaning of it, I suggest you don't make conclusions NOR assumptions and take my words LITERALLY. That's why it's called text.

We are. As I've said twice before, we can only respond to what you type and not what you mean if you don't type it.

No, nor did I write that I make fat jokes at all. Assumption.

This is now gibberish.

You said that you do not make fat jokes in the presence of your fat friend. The latter part of this sentence is a qualifier - that means you've cited an occasion on which you do not perform an action. If you meant you don't make fat jokes at all, the qualifier is unnecessary.

So either you don't make fat jokes at all (which you've just told me you didn't write) or you only make fat jokes when your fat friend isn't around (which you've told everyone you don't do), which would make you an appalling friend to have. Since you've excluded making fat jokes in the presence of your fat "friend", you've left only those as the two alternatives. There are no assumptions, except that what you've said is the truth.

"You should choose not to be offensive because it's offensive." Which IS what I asked in the first post I made on this thread.

Of other people. That's not your call.

But since you've thrice deliberately insulted other people in this thread, it's clear that you don't uphold the same behavioural standards for yourself as you do for other people.

Sure, if you want a joke that's not offensive: What is green and ski's down a mountain? (P.S.: the answer is a ski-wi, I know, it's lame but it's a perfect example.)

You're going to need to explain the answer there. And any joke you have to explain isn't much use as a joke.

 

[Flamedogg]

Oookay, so kinda back on topic here. In my opinion I don't think homosexuality is a serious problem. As long as I'm not involved I'm fine with it. I find it to be a life style that people choose and have their own way of life just as if any normal straight person would follow theirs in their own lives in this world.

 

[Joel]

You're going to need to explain the answer there. And any joke you have to explain isn't much use as a joke.

It's a kiwi fruit that skis. Sorry if I offended any EDIT: New Zealanders.

 

[Gonales]

It's a kiwi fruit that skis. Sorry if I offended any Australians.

Thanks for the explanation. I thought if the 3 year old girl next door told me a joke, that these guys would surely understand it...

 

[Gonales]

The decision on what is offensive is not yours. The decision on what is offensive on GTPlanet is not yours either. Only the decision on what is offensive TO YOU is yours. The problem is making that call for other people and asking them to behave in a manner acceptable to you.

This makes no sense. So you want Jordan, on his own to decide what is offensive or not?

It isn't your prerogative here to ask people to behave in a manner that suits you. We are. As I've said twice before, we can only respond to what you type and not what you mean if you don't type it.

Yes it is. Or can you point me to a rule in the AUP which states I can't ask questions? You seem to forget I'm not FORCING anything, I'm simply asking and pointing towards an issue.

Yeah, you can only respond to what I type.

You said that you do not make fat jokes in the presence of your fat friend. The latter part of this sentence is a qualifier - that means you've cited an occasion on which you do not perform an action. If you meant you don't make fat jokes at all, the qualifier is unnecessary.
So either you don't make fat jokes at all (which you've just told me you didn't write) or you only make fat jokes when your fat friend isn't around (which you've told everyone you don't do), which would make you an appalling friend to have. Since you've excluded making fat jokes in the presence of your fat "friend", you've left only those as the two alternatives. There are no assumptions, except that what you've said is the truth.

So, YOU make an assumption I know about your stupid rule? For me, When I say, I don't like black when it's combined with Purple, doesn't mean I don't like black at all. They aren't completely excluding one another. If I say, I don't make jokes about overweight people in the presence of my friend, means I don't make jokes about overweight people in his presence. What I do when I'm alone, or with other people is NOT specified. I don't know where you read about that qualifier and stuff, but re-read it, and please post the full rule here, or PM it to me, so I can learn. Maybe the English have some extra rules I've never heard of before.

This is now gibberish.

Not really, read above paragraph written by me.

But since you've thrice deliberately insulted other people in this thread, it's clear that you don't uphold the same behavioural standards for yourself as you do for other people.

I do. As long as people apologise, and discuss this subject without making fun of my opinion, otherwise they deserve the same amount of respect they gave me. (Nothing, in other words.)

 

[homeforsummer]

I do. As long as people apologise, and discuss this subject without making fun of my opinion, otherwise they deserve the same amount of respect they gave me. (Nothing, in other words.)

Again, you're being massively over-sensitive.

Disagreeing with your opinion doesn't automatically mean anyone isn't respectful of it. You've voiced plenty of confusing and misguided opinions over the last several pages, yet when people have responded to those with educated arguments and simple explanations, your responses have varied between indignancy and rudeness.

Your post to Famine's comment about your joke was a perfect example of this, as were your responses to my comment about you finding offense in everything.

I know there's a language barrier here to some extent and that it's understandable if you misunderstand some posts, but not as consistently as you've been doing. It seems much more like you've decided that your own opinion is right and that you're unwilling to see sense if it disagrees.

Let's put it this way:

Nobody here really gives five-eights of a toss if you're gay or not. Honestly. We couldn't give a crap. What you do with your emotions and your genitals is of absolutely no concern to me, and I doubt it's of much concern to anyone else here. It is no more an issue than me being straight. As long as neither of us acts like an ass on the forum, and conduct ourselves with decorum, our posts are just a few more 1s and 0s on a line of code somewhere.

You are just another person. You are both special for being unique, and utterly average for being one of the thousands of other people who post on this forum. Your sexuality has no bearing on any part of how anyone sees you.

Apart from... the fact that you've used it as a sort of pity card ever since your very first post in this thread.

We know that people maliciously use words sometimes, and that discrimination against gay people is still a problem in the world, unfortunately. But refusing to see that you should be treated no differently from anyone else - rather than getting special treatment because you're gay - and refusing to see that you are not the arbiter of the standards by which others are offended, is exactly why you seem to have so many people disagreeing with you.

 

[Gonales]

Again, you're being massively over-sensitive.

Disagreeing with your opinion doesn't automatically mean anyone isn't respectful of it. You've voiced plenty of confusing and misguided opinions over the last several pages, yet when people have responded to those with educated arguments and simple explanations, your responses have varied between indignancy and rudeness.

Your post to Famine's comment about your joke was a perfect example of this, as were your responses to my comment about you finding offense in everything.

I know there's a language barrier here to some extent and that it's understandable if you misunderstand some posts, but not as consistently as you've been doing. It seems much more like you've decided that your own opinion is right and that you're unwilling to see sense if it disagrees.

Let's put it this way:

Nobody here really gives five-eights of a toss if you're gay or not. Honestly. We couldn't give a crap. What you do with your emotions and your genitals is of absolutely no concern to me, and I doubt it's of much concern to anyone else here. It is no more an issue than me being straight. As long as neither of us acts like an ass on the forum, and conduct ourselves with decorum, our posts are just a few more 1s and 0s on a line of code somewhere.

You are just another person. You are both special for being unique, and utterly average for being one of the thousands of other people who post on this forum. Your sexuality has no bearing on any part of how anyone sees you.

Apart from... the fact that you've used it as a sort of pity card ever since your very first post in this thread.

We know that people maliciously use words sometimes, and that discrimination against gay people is still a problem in the world, unfortunately. But refusing to see that you should be treated no differently from anyone else - rather than getting special treatment because you're gay - and refusing to see that you are not the arbiter of the standards by which others are offended, is exactly why you seem to have so many people disagreeing with you.

All of this is nonsense. Is asking people not to insult other people willingly, a kind of wanting 'special treatment because you're gay' ? You're very wrong dude. Ever since my first post I made a lot of comments about what I think should be said, and what shouldn't be said.

And those that I was rude to, I have either apologised to or found it not necessary. If people want to be insensitive jerks, I will let them. But I will voice them my malcontent with their opinion very clearly.

 

[Azuremen]

All of this is nonsense. Is asking people not to insult other people willingly, a kind of wanting 'special treatment because you're gay' ? You're very wrong dude. Ever since my first post I made a lot of comments about what I think should be said, and what shouldn't be said.

You do realize you've been insulting on several occasions, calling the forum rules stupid, telling us we are saying non-sense and rubbish, and just basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALA."

Please, respond to the issues I quoted from you. Respond to my assumptions. Or just keep repeating yourself till you are blue in the face.

Oh, and learn how language works. When you tack on something at the end of a statement, like "I don't burn flags when I'm with friends" it suggests there are times you do burn flags. Then you tell us we are all wrong because we are reading into things

 

[Gonales]

You do realize you've been insulting on several occasions, calling the forum rules stupid, telling us we are saying non-sense and rubbish, and just basically sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALA."

1: Yes I have been offensive on purpose. No, I don't expect to be any kind of special, hence I told Famine a couple of times, to give me an infraction if he thought I went too far.

2: No, I didn't stick my fingers in my ears. You should read more before you make comments like that, I think you missed a couple of posts. (Want me to point those out?)

Please, respond to the issues I quoted from you. Respond to my assumptions. Or just keep repeating yourself till you are blue in the face.

Please, point me to where I gave you the wrong reply... -.- Maybe you should read more, as I stated above.

Oh, and learn how language works. When you tack on something at the end of a statement, like "I don't burn flags when I'm with friends" it suggests there are times you do burn flags. Then you tell us we are all wrong because we are reading into things

I already made it very clear, we don't have such a thing here. (Which you would know IF you read a little more of what I actually write.) Maybe English has that, idk.

 

[Famine]

Thanks for the explanation. I thought if the 3 year old girl next door told me a joke, that these guys would surely understand it...

Generally speaking, jokes made up by three year olds aren't jokes.

Incidentally, we call them Chinese Gooseberries, so as not to be offensive to New Zealanders by contracting their nationality (and reminding them of a fruit they don't actually grow).

This makes no sense. So you want Jordan, on his own to decide what is offensive or not?

For GTPlanet, yes. It's his site. How can that not make sense?

Yes it is. Or can you point me to a rule in the AUP which states I can't ask questions? You seem to forget I'm not FORCING anything, I'm simply asking and pointing towards an issue.

The only standards of behaviour people need to adhere to on GTP are Jordan's. Asking people to adhere to yours is trying to impose your own standards above and beyond his.

On your site, in your house, you can ask people to do whatever you want. On here you don't.

So, YOU make an assumption I know about your stupid rule? For me, When I say, I don't like black when it's combined with Purple, doesn't mean I don't like black at all. They aren't completely excluding one another. If I say, I don't make jokes about overweight people in the presence of my friend, means I don't make jokes about overweight people in his presence. What I do when I'm alone, or with other people is NOT specified. I don't know where you read about that qualifier and stuff, but re-read it, and please post the full rule here, or PM it to me, so I can learn. Maybe the English have some extra rules I've never heard of before.

Ah, it's now a "stupid" rule because it's something you're not familiar with. Figures.

I've already explained what your particular use of language indicated. You said you don't make fat jokes in the presence of your fat friend. "In the presence of your fat friend" is a qualifying statement, which modifies "I don't make fat jokes." to "I don't make fat jokes in some circumstances.". The statement changes from absolute ("I do not do this") to conditional ("I do not do this when..."). This implies that there are conditions when you do make fat jokes.

So either you don't make fat jokes at all and your use of language was lazy, or you do make fat jokes and they're behind your fat friend's back because you don't do it when he's there - making you an alarming hypocrite.

Assuming what you wrote was true. Given that you've already rejected both of these options, one of which must be true if you were telling the truth originally, I admit that's not a safe assumption at this point.

I do. As long as people apologise, and discuss this subject without making fun of my opinion, otherwise they deserve the same amount of respect they gave me. (Nothing, in other words.)

And you've yet to apologise to anyone for the unprovoked insults you've dished out in this thread.

Insulting people for no reason other than they don't automatically agree with you (when you say people should be banned from speaking and put in prison for opinions) is not the way to earn the respect you want others to give you.

 

[homeforsummer]

All of this is nonsense. Is asking people not to insult other people willingly, a kind of wanting 'special treatment because you're gay' ?

In your case, seemingly yes. Because right from the start you've been advocating restriction of speech primarily based on words and phrases which you find personally offensive because you're gay.

So yes, you're implying that you want special treatment because of it.

Trying to turn that around and suggest that people on GTP are okay with homophobia - as you've hinted at before - is completely the opposite of what we're actually doing. So the rest of my post applies too - you're taking it upon yourself to assume that we're all out to get you, when in reality we don't give a stuff what you do in your private life.

It seems you're utterly unable to make the distinction between people being "insensitive jerks" and those trying to debate with you in an adult manner. It's like you can't see where one ends and the other starts, which - again - is why you also seem to to be indignant every time someone disagrees with something.

The fact that you were prepared to write off my entire post with "this is nonsense" rather than respond individually to the several separate points I raised is pretty much proof of this.

 

[Gonales]

Generally speaking, jokes made up by three year olds aren't jokes.
Incidentally, we call them Chinese Gooseberries, so as not to be offensive to New Zealanders by contracting their nationality.

But you have to agree on the point that there ARE jokes without insulting anyone?

For GTPlanet, yes. It's his site. How can that not make sense?The only standards of behaviour people need to adhere to on GTP are Jordan's. Asking people to adhere to yours is trying to impose your own standards above and beyond his. On your site, in your house, you can ask people to do whatever you want. On here you don't.

It makes sense. It's just illogical. How can one person decide over a thousand others what's wrong and right? And no, this is the last time I'm going to explain it.

Ah, it's now a "stupid" rule because it's something you're not familiar with. Figures.

It's a stupid rule in the sense of the word stupid, as in dumb, not making sense. This rule, makes the meaning of a sentence also inherit a completely other and unintended meaning.

I've already explained what your particular use of language indicated. You said you don't make fat jokes in the presence of your fat friend. "In the presence of your fat friend" is a qualifying statement, which modifies "I don't make fat jokes." to "I don't make fat jokes in some circumstances.". The statement changes from absolute ("I do not do this") to conditional ("I do not do this when..."). This implies that there are conditions when you do make fat jokes.
So either you don't make fat jokes at all and your use of language was lazy, or you do make fat jokes and they're behind your fat friend's back because you don't do it when he's there - making you an alarming hypocrite.

Yes, it was lazy. So what? It's 100% clear if you don't bring in 'stupid' rules that makes it mean something completely different.

Assuming what you wrote was true. Given that you've already rejected both of these options, one of which must be true if you were telling the truth originally, I admit that's not a safe assumption at this point.And you've yet to apologise to anyone for the unprovoked insults you've dished out in this thread.

Every assumption is unsafe. (Which has been a point I've been making all along.)

No, I do not need to apologise to anyone whom I've not yet apologised to. The fact you don't know all, is an assumption I'm willing to make, based on your lack of knowledge of my apologies and conversations.

Insulting people for no reason other than they don't automatically agree with you (when you say people should be banned from speaking and put in prison for opinions) is not the way to earn the respect you want others to give you.

As I made clear to the other guy: "I'm making the distinction simple. As long as people can argue with me, without making fun of my statements, I won't make fun of their personality."

In your case, seemingly yes. Because right from the start you've been advocating restriction of speech primarily based on words and phrases which you find personally offensive because you're gay.

So yes, you're implying that you want special treatment because of it.

No, I don't find them personally offensive because I'm gay. I find them offensive. Just like a lot of other expressions. Like people judging others on the way they look, I find that really offensive, without being worried about my own appearance.

Trying to turn that around and suggest that people on GTP are okay with homophobia - as you've hinted at before - is completely the opposite of what we're actually doing. So the rest of my post applies too - you're taking it upon yourself to assume that we're all out to get you, when in reality we don't give a stuff what you do in your private life.

If people want to allow others to have homophobic comments, OR make fun of a polite request to drop those comments, you're a step closer to being a homophobe, yes.

It seems you're utterly unable to make the distinction between people being "insensitive jerks" and those trying to debate with you in an adult manner. It's like you can't see where one ends and the other starts, which - again - is why you also seem to to be indignant every time someone disagrees with something.

I'm making the distinction simple. As long as people can argue with me, without making fun of my statements, I won't make fun of their personality.

The fact that you were prepared to write off my entire post with "this is nonsense" rather than respond individually to the several separate points I raised is pretty much proof of this.

No, not really. Read the whole post I made, it's really clear what I thought of your post. No need for further explanation.


A bit of clearing up: I missed the top post on this page of the thread Azure. The fact you quoted comments I made to another person got me really confused as I'm busy with more things than this. I will respond to that now.

 

[Gonales]

No, not really. Not in that kind of an extreme Black and White mindset you've cast it into.

Yes it is. If people want Freedom of Speech at all costs, that is what happens. Can't help it.

Not really sure how that statement could be considered sarcasm at all. Especially considering how clear it is that you don't agree with that statement.

You made a very illogical comment about ignoring things and it will make them go away. It won't, believe me. Because of the fact that it is not always the same person who says it, and if you only say something once you won't get tired of it, will you?

I know what I am reading, and build statements on what I think you are saying. If you want to suggest I'm at fault for misunderstanding you, when others are also having problems, I suggest you do some self-reflection.

Like I said before, you (just like Famine), read something in my comments which wasn't there. (Explained in my last post.)

And if you want to know what I actually am reading into your posts, then here goes: you're young (late teens, maybe early 20's) and insecure. Your posts and style make you seem like you're a victim, in this case the victim of assumptions that we all seem to be making. I suspect you were sheltered a decent amount while growing up, though mocked/teased in your youth a bit.

1: im 20, youre right. 2: I'm insanely insecure, however I don't want to seem a victim. But considering I get mocked with the first simple request I make, ...
3: I was sheltered, yes. But only a bit. No extremes.
4: The mocked/teased part goes a bit further than you know, and need to know, Let's keep it at that.

That paragraph above could be entirely wrong, as I am actually making assumptions and reading into things in it. Everything else I've posted is simply the product of me trying to understand, as a very basic level, the attitude you are presenting in posts.

Yes, you are making assumptions which is unsafe (as I stated before). Don't try to understand me, unless you know me really well. Otherwise you leave more margin of error.

 

[homeforsummer]

No, I don't find them personally offensive because I'm gay. I find them offensive. Just like a lot of other expressions. Like people judging others on the way they look, I find that really offensive, without being worried about my own appearance.

And all of this is still based on what you decree is offensive.

If people want to allow others to have homophobic comments, OR make fun of a polite request to drop those comments, you're a step closer to being a homophobe, yes.

No.

We're advocating free speech. That has absolutely nothing to do with being "more" homophobic, in the same way debunking creationism in one of the other threads has to do with being anti-Christian, anti-semitic, anti-Islam or anti-any other religion.

Once again, you've set a personal standard in your head by which you're judging everyone else.

I'm making the distinction simple. As long as people can argue with me, without making fun of my statements, I won't make fun of their personality.

People aren't "making fun of your statements".

Again. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean people are ridiculing you. Though frankly, given some of the things you're coming out with, it'd be awfully easy to do were we not abiding by the AUP.

No, not really. Read the whole post I made, it's really clear what I thought of your post. No need for further explanation.

I did read the whole post you made. It was all of four and a half lines on my screen. You've used this line several times to imply that people simply aren't "getting" what you say and it isn't the case. People are reading your posts. I wonder if you're doing them the decency of reading theirs? I have to wonder after your half-hearted reply to my previous long post.

That we're disagreeing, or trying to point something out, is evidence that we're both reading them in full and still disagreeing with them/trying to point something out. It doesn't mean that we're just not bothering and writing whatever the heck we want.

 

[Famine]

But you have to agree on the point that there ARE jokes without insulting anyone?

Nope. Since the example you provided both wasn't a joke and the "punchline" was offensive to New Zealanders, as I explained.

It makes sense. It's just illogical. How can one person decide over a thousand others what's wrong and right?

It's his site. It's wholly logical that the owner of private property determines the rules that govern that property.

It's a stupid rule in the sense of the word stupid, as in dumb, not making sense. This rule, makes the meaning of a sentence also inherit a completely other and unintended meaning.

The "rule" is not at fault. You are. These two sentences are not equivalent:

I don't make fat jokes.
I don't make fat jokes around my fat friend.

The first is an absolute, the second is conditional. You said the second one. If that wasn't your meaning you should not have used it.

Like I said before, you (just like Famine), read something in my comments which wasn't there. (Explained in my last post.)

Except that it was clearly there.

No-one else is responsible for what you write but you. You wrote the conditional, not the absolute. You placed the conditions on your own behaviour. Your words, no-one else's interpretation.

No, I do not need to apologise to anyone whom I've not yet apologised to.

Then please explain how you reconcile your alleged dislike of abusiveness with your lack of apology to:

• Those who abhor attempts on limiting the freedom of speech (who you called lacking in intelligence)
• GTPlanet (who you denounced as homophobic)
• Me (who you denounced as homophobic)

As I made clear to the other guy: "I'm making the distinction simple. As long as people can argue with me, without making fun of my statements, I won't make fun of their personality."

And as I've made clear to you repeatedly, if you cannot discuss the subject without discussing the people who are discussing the subject, you have no place on this site.

The phrase is "Play the ball, not the man". The topic is for debate. Your opinions on anyone's character are irrelevant to the topic and they will not surface again.

If people want to allow others to have homophobic comments, OR make fun of a polite request to drop those comments, you're a step closer to being a homophobe, yes.

Utter tripe.

When you ban comments of any kind (by not allowing them - the opposite of allowing them) for any reason you open the door to banning all other language. If you support - as you have said you do - the banning of certain kinds of language because you don't like it, there is nothing to stop people banning kinds of language you do like because they don't like it. Supporting the legislated banning of language is supporting people who hate you and it's supporting having the right to identify yourself as homosexual removed.

That's what you support when you say freedom of speech must be limited - a society where calling yourself homosexual, even being homosexual itself, is banned...

You made a very illogical comment about ignoring things and it will make them go away. It won't, believe me.

Actually, no-one said that. We all said ignore it, but no-one said anything about that making them go away.

You speak as if you are the only person who can possibly know discrimination and abuse - the only person with any experience of it. You've lived half as long as many of us and you've grown up in a society that had already taken a step away from discriminatory language and a step towards inclusion. I grew up in a culture where black people were still only on TV to mock them and where homosexuality was not only a sin according to religion but considered dirty and responsible for HIV by society...

Both the first televised gay kiss and the first televised lesbian kiss occurred before you were even born - and I was already 14 for the latter one. That's how much more accepting the society you grew up in was compared to mine (and I'm not even that old by GTP standards). You don't have the only insight into and experience of discrimination here.

 

[Danny]

I don't make fat jokes.
I don't make fat jokes around my fat friend.

The first is an absolute, the second is conditional. You said the second one. If that wasn't your meaning you should not have used it.Except that it was clearly there.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, but that's pretty presumptuous.

 

[Famine]

They're not equivalent sentences. The first is absolute - I do not do this. The second is conditional - I do not do this when that occurs.

Compare "I don't kill puppies." to "I don't kill puppies when there's someone looking.".

The implication isn't that you do kill puppies when no-one's watching, but you have placed conditions on the occasion when you will kill puppies, compared to the sentence that says you don't do it.

 

[Danny]

'I don't make fat jokes around my fat friends' is different though. That could be implied as a separation of the person speaking's behaviour against the behaviour of others in the same situation, people who do make fat jokes around their fat friends.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making out, it depends on perspective.

But yeah, it's semantics really.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Yeah, but with the circles this conversation is going, and with Gonales accusing us lacking of reading skills, I'd say it's a fair call.

 

[Gonales]

Nope. Since the example you provided both wasn't a joke and the "punchline" was offensive to New Zealanders, as I explained.

You call them Chinese Gooseberries to not insult the New Zealanders. Good job -.- And no, mentioning the word kiwi, is not an offense to New-Zealanders.

It's his site. It's wholly logical that the owner of private property determines the rules that govern that property.

If that's your opinion, fine. I won't judge you, nor him on the way you rule that, but it's and will remain illogical to me.

The "rule" is not at fault. You are. These two sentences are not equivalent:

I don't make fat jokes.
I don't make fat jokes around my fat friend.

The first is an absolute, the second is conditional. You said the second one. If that wasn't your meaning you should not have used itExcept that it was clearly there.

Except the fact that second one, the conditional, does NOT mean you do the first part of the sentence. It can actually just be a superfluous piece of text (which it was).

No-one else is responsible for what you write but you. You wrote the conditional, not the absolute. You placed the conditions on your own behaviour. Your words, no-one else's interpretation.

Your interpretation, that the superfluous text meant more than it did.

Then please explain how you reconcile your alleged dislike of abusiveness with your lack of apology to:

• Those who abhor attempts on limiting the freedom of speech (who you called lacking in intelligence)
• GTPlanet (who you denounced as homophobic)
• Me (who you denounced as homophobic)

1: I only insulted those, who use the FoS as a trump card to throw with insults without consequence.

2: Yes, I got carried away, and may have called GTPlanet homophobic, considering one of their moderators was in favor of allowing homophobic talk.

3: You, I will not apologise to, untill you finally realise, and state the post I made to some people a couple of pages ago. And have the respect (to me), to actually respond to it.

And as I've made clear to you repeatedly, if you cannot discuss the subject without discussing the people who are discussing the subject, you have no place on this site.
The phrase is "Play the ball, not the man". The topic is for debate. Your opinions on anyone's character are irrelevant to the topic and they will not surface again.

The fact that I am discussing this topic, and get mocked by people means to me that some people actually discussing don't deserve the respect of staying on topic.

Utter tripe.
When you ban comments of any kind (by not allowing them - the opposite of allowing them) for any reason you open the door to banning all other language. If you support - as you have said you do - the banning of certain kinds of language because you don't like it, there is nothing to stop people banning kinds of language you do like because they don't like it. Supporting the legislated banning of language is supporting people who hate you and it's supporting having the right to identify yourself as homosexual removed.

That's what you support when you say freedom of speech must be limited - a society where calling yourself homosexual, even being homosexual itself, is banned...

Freedom of speech argument again. Which was closed, and imo doesn't need to be re-opened. I think there should be limitations to FoS, you don't. Case closed.

Actually, no-one said that. We all said ignore it, but no-one said anything about that making them go away.

That's just ... Why do you think things changed? Because people kept quiet? Because they ignored the inequality? Get real.

You speak as if you are the only person who can possibly know discrimination and abuse - the only person with any experience of it. You've lived half as long as many of us and you've grown up in a society that had already taken a step away from discriminatory language and a step towards inclusion. I grew up in a culture where black people were still only on TV to mock them and where homosexuality was not only a sin according to religion but considered dirty and responsible for HIV by society...

Both the first televised gay kiss and the first televised lesbian kiss occurred before you were even born - and I was already 14 for the latter one. That's how much more accepting the society you grew up in was compared to mine (and I'm not even that old by GTP standards). You don't have the only insight into and experience of discrimination here.

I know I'm not the only one who has had a rough life. But I want to change and make it easier for those who WILL come after me. My children maybe.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, but that's pretty presumptuous.

Thank you for being the first with a bit of understanding towards that point of view.

 

[Gonales]

Yeah, but with the circles this conversation is going, and with Gonales accusing us lacking of reading skills, I'd say it's a fair call.

Then your assumption, once again, is wrong. I made a clear couple of times how I meant it, and how I used my vocabulary and grammar in that instance.

 

[Famine]

'I don't make fat jokes around my fat friends' is different though. That could be implied as a separation of the person speaking's behaviour against the behaviour of others in the same situation, people who do make fat jokes around their fat friends.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as you're making out, it depends on perspective.

The emphasis would be the "I", rather than the qualifier. Since she referred to no other people who'd make [stereotype offending jokes] around [stereotype friend] and then repeatedly said that qualifier doesn't count in what she's learned of English (making all English speakers wrong), the emphasis is the qualifier.

Also, the concept amuses me. It's a short walk away from "I'm not racist. Some of my friends are black."...

semantics

Must... not... pun... Hnnngh!

You call them Chinese Gooseberries to not insult the New Zealanders. Good job -.- And no, mentioning the word kiwi, is not an offense to New-Zealanders.

Isn't it? Well, I'm glad you've got the big book of what's offensive open, deciding what's offensive for everyone on the planet again.

If that's your opinion, fine. I won't judge you, nor him on the way you rule that, but it's and will remain illogical to me.

Then you do not understand logic either.

Except the fact that second one, the conditional, does NOT mean you do the first part of the sentence. It can actually just be a superfluous piece of text (which it was).

No. It's a condition. It implies - the reader does not infer - that you place conditions on your behaviour, not absolutes.

1: I only insulted those, who use the FoS as a trump card to throw with insults without consequence.

No, you stated that freedom of speech was for the "averagely intelligent".

2: Yes, I got carried away, and may have called GTPlanet homophobic, considering one of their moderators was in favor of allowing homophobic talk.

Then you failed to understand what "one of their moderators" was getting across to you. GTPlanet doesn't permit homophobia because we don't entertain homophobes (and last time I said that, you interpreted "entertain" as "entertainment" not "permit entry to" and decided we'd allow homophobia if we found it funny). We don't want them here - we like our site when no-one is hateful and abusing others.

However, we are a private site. This is our house and these are our rules (specifically Jordan's). We are not a public place and no-one's speech should be censored in public places, however stupid they are.

3: You, I will not apologise to, untill you finally realise, and state the post I made to some people a couple of pages ago. And have the respect (to me), to actually respond to it.

Then you are no better than the people who call you gay and refuse to apologise when you complain.

Of course I don't actually want an apology, because it's not relevant.

The fact that I am discussing this topic, and get mocked by people means to me that some people actually discussing don't deserve the respect of staying on topic.

Mocking your points is different to mocking you. Learn the difference.

Freedom of speech argument again. Which was closed, and imo doesn't need to be re-opened. I think there should be limitations to FoS, you don't. Case closed.

It'll never be closed so long as there's folk like you who think you can regulate speech and thought to generate acceptance. Saying you support limiting speech is saying you think homosexuality should be banned - which is an incredible position for a homosexual to hold.

That's just ... Why do you think things changed? Because people kept quiet? Because they ignored the inequality? Get real.

Again, you speak as if you're the only one who experiences boorishness from others. You aren't.

I know I'm not the only one who has had a rough life. But I want to change and make it easier for those who WILL come after me. My children maybe.

Changing things by banning speech and having people locked up for holding opinions will not only not make things easier - it'll make things worse for everyone, including your children.

 

[sumbrownkid]

If that's your opinion, fine. I won't judge you, nor him on the way you rule that, but it's and will remain illogical to me.

How is it illogical for someone who pays the bills for this website and runs it as a form of income to set ground rules that everyone must agree to before posting?

Is it illogical of me to tell people to take their shoes off when they come to my home?

Then your assumption, once again, is wrong. I made a clear couple of times how I meant it, and how I used my vocabulary and grammar in that instance.

Then you need to work on your vocab and grammar since everyone pretty much agrees with that assumption. I really doubt that those agree with the assumption have reading comprehension problems.

 

[Gonales]

How is it illogical for someone who pays the bills for this website and runs it as a form of income to set ground rules that everyone must agree to before posting?

Is it illogical of me to tell people to take their shoes off when they come to my home?

No, But it IS illogical to forbid any kind of request, or question about it.

Then you need to work on your vocab and grammar since everyone pretty much agrees with that assumption. I really doubt that those agree with the assumption have reading comprehension problems.

Not everyone. 3 people. Danny thinks there is room for misunderstanding, and so do I.

 

[Gonales]

The emphasis would be the "I", rather than the qualifier. Since she referred to no other people who'd make [stereotype offending jokes] around [stereotype friend] and then repeatedly said that qualifier doesn't count in what she's learned of English (making all English speakers wrong), the emphasis is the qualifier.

Also, the concept amuses me. It's a short walk away from "I'm not racist. Some of my friends are black."...Must... not... pun... Hnnngh!

Actually, Danny was SPOT on, on his first bit of text.

 

[Danny]

Danny thinks there is room for misunderstanding, and so do I.

To be fair, I'm pretty hazy at the best of times.

 

[sumbrownkid]

No, But it IS illogical to forbid any kind of request, or question about it.

Oh you can request all you want, you have the freedom to do that. Just as much as I have the freedom to deny your request in my home, and the mods in this website.

Life is a two way street and sometimes you have to move over to avoid that oncoming truck.