Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

As per my edit above, I promise to be good. :angel:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No the only circular argument is yours.
I have not picked the definition that appears the best, I have pick the definition that by the rules of language applies in this case.
Discrimintion as defined by 'the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished' could in no way apply in this case.
I thought we were having a proper discussion but I can see your only interested in rhetoric and point scoring.
Not allowing men(gay or straight) to wear earrings, while allowing women to, is discrimination pure and simple.
If the gays wanna kick up a fuss, more power to them. Anyone who says they're over reacting is a either a queer hater or closet homophobe.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I intend to honour a promise (above) not to keep revisiting logical fallacies, so I am happy to leave it there and let anyone interested in reading this discussion decide whose reasoning best fits the definition.

As for the definition of descrimination, which is nearer to the heart of the topic, the 'cognitive process' definition is not to be so easily dismissed. It serves to point out, quite neatly, that it is possible to speak of discrimination without the very word necessarily implying something improper or unjustified. So, when you say women being allowed to wear ear rings while men are banned, is discrimination, you are correct. When you say that this is therefore wrong, you are incorrect - especially if the only evidence you have to back this up is a quote from a dictionary which, when you read it in full, does not back up your point of view.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So what am I?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Discrimination is wrong, letting women wear earrings but not men is discrimination, ergo it is wrong.
Its about time you justified your discriminatory stance on allowing police women but not policemen the right to wear earrings. Which is in apart, also pandering to the prejudice that men who wear earrings deserve less respect than women who wear earrings.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Thats absolute drivel zendawn - I am neither - and you already know that I think you (and they) are seriously over-reacting. You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a paid up member of some queer bashing brigade. Get a grip back on reality please.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Pray tell us 'what are you?'. What is your stance on homosexuality??

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I think they're overreacting. So which one am I?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ooooh hark at her and her handbag :)

Now who's over reacting? Im sure there we're pleanty of racists who thought that blacks were just causing trouble when they tried to fight for the right to sit at the front of a bus.
Im also sure that alot of white people didnt think of themselves as racists.
Im also sure that some black people thought that other black people were just causing trouble too.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes??? and what do you think of homosexuality???

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Answer MY question first please.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No you answer mine. please.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Sorry, your point was what exactly ?

That I am over over-reacting to your statement that I am either a "queer hater or closet homophobe" by saying such an assertion is "drivel" or are you trying to say I'm a racist now as well ?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yeah right, like you can't tell im using an analogy??

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Since I can't be bothered to read twelve pages of this - did anyone actually agree with you that they are not over-reacting, or that the thread title is insulting ?