Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

No you answer mine. please.

It would be polite for you to answer mine first, seeing as I asked first. You claimed that "Anyone who says they're over reacting is a either a queer hater or closet homophobe" so in direct response to that, I'm asking you which one you consider me to be, seeing as I am someone who believes they are overreacting.

Originally Posted by Russ D

It would be polite for you to answer mine first, seeing as I asked first. You claimed that "Anyone who says they're over reacting is a either a queer hater or closet homophobe" so in direct response to that, I'm asking you which one you consider me to be, seeing as I am someone who believes they are overreacting.

and since I also believe the same - I am also curious, which am I ?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Pem

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 ?

So far only Graham (I think). But Im not trying to get people to see my point of view. Im trying to understand how other people can allow a form of discrimination and accuse people of over reacting to it.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

It would be polite for you to answer mine first, seeing as I asked first. You claimed that "Anyone who says they're over reacting is a either a queer hater or closet homophobe" so in direct response to that, I'm asking you which one you consider me to be, seeing as I am someone who believes they are overreacting.

I dont feel I can answer that question without fear of being banned!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

I dont feel I can answer that question without fear of being banned!

It would certainly help if you could justify your answer. And you'd only get banned if you break forum rules.

Originally Posted by zendawn

So far only Graham (I think).

I see

Originally Posted by zendawn

Im trying to understand how other people can allow a form of discrimination and accuse people of over reacting to it.

Well that's easy. The discrimination in this case is against all the men wearing earrings - yet the gay community are trying to turn it into discrimination against them - since it isn't, then they are over reacting.

It would be like if they banned all the police from wearing leather jackets - and then the rockers claiming that it is deliberte discrimination against them because they like to wear lether jackets - clearly an over reaction.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Pem

I see Well that's easy. The discrimination in this case is against all the men wearing earrings - yet the gay community are trying to turn it into discrimination against them - since it isn't, then they are over reacting.

It would be like if they banned all the police from wearing leather jackets - and then the rockers claiming that it is deliberte discrimination against them because they like to wear lether jackets - clearly an over reaction.

Yes I can understand your way of thinking.
I can also see how some homosexuals may find this an irrelevance especially if they dont wanna be police officers.
Over reaction is a value judgement, one used against gays not the police.
It is the police who are causing trouble by not allowing both sexes to wear earrings and if homosexuals wanna fight for a right denied them (even if its just cuz they are men) then I say let them fight.

[Nikko]

Originally Posted by Russ D

This whole 'tautology' and 'circular argument' business is serious doing my nut in and is dragging the thread off-topic.

But that is by definition discriminatory to the intellectualists perpetrating their pedantry and definition refinement, as a sub clause to the ongoing discussion notwithstanding the original prospectus.

[Xaccers]

By Russ' god is this thread still going?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

god is this thread still going?

Well it seems it's ok to discriminate against a section of society, as long as their issues can be classed as insignificant.
It also seems ok to use discriminatory language that puts the already oppressed on the defensive.

Originally Posted by zendawn

Well it seems it's ok to discriminate against a section of society, as long as their issues can be classed as insignificant.
It also seems ok to use discriminatory language that puts the already oppressed on the defensive.

Except, of course, that so far you have completely failed to prove:
1. That discrimination is always wrong
2. That the language of the question is inflammatory
3a. That it is not possible for two sections of societies issues both to be significant at the same time, but one be judged more significant than the other and
3b. Choosing one over the other does not make the other 'insignificant'.

Other than that, good post.

Originally Posted by Pem

and since I also believe the same - I am also curious, which am I ?

This is beginning to sound like the Spartucus film!!!!

Incog.Who has completely lost the plot of this thread because she still doesn't understand some of the postings in this thread.I'm usually very good at getting meanings from poorly written,half syntaxed and poorly spelt meanderings by students but I've had real trouble comprehending some of the postings in THIS thread.I'm still trying to decipher posting 203.

However I know it will be my fault for not understanding.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

Except, of course, that so far you have completely failed to prove:
1. That discrimination is always wrong
2. That the language of the question is inflammatory
3a. That it is not possible for two sections of societies issues both to be significant at the same time, but one be judged more significant than the other and
3b. Choosing one over the other does not make the other 'insignificant'.

Other than that, good post.

I dont have to prove anything. Its discrimination. I think discrimination is wrong. Whatever the circumstances.
The languege is inflammatory as it's attacking gays and not the people who are either being discriminatory or those who hold prejudicial ideas about men and earrings. Yes! Even with a question mark at the end.
Let those who are prejudiced defend their ideas. What is it about policemen (as opposed to policewomen) wearing earrings, that means they deserve less respect than a policeman without earrings but a policewoman with earrings???

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I'm still trying to decipher posting 203.

However I know it will be my fault for not understanding.

Originally Posted by Zendawn

'DISCRIMINATION'
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/sear...=discrimination

'unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice'

Its an 'unfair' (a subjective value) treatment of a group (men and homosexuals) based on a prejudice (that men who wear earrings are less worthy than women who wear earrings).

I'd be the first to say that my grammar is poor but I dont see what's so hard to understand about that post and why I think it is discrimination to stop men or homosexuals from wearing earrings.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

I dont have to prove anything.

Maybe, but you DO have to back it up if you want people to take your point of view seriously.