Judge Apologists need to STFU

Here you can have intellectually stimulating conversations.
Plum Blossom
User avatar
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:11 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: Judge Apologists need to STFU

Post #101 by Plum Blossom » Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:12 pm

Why is this still going on.....

I don't care for pronounces and peeps can do what they want with their life. Feel like most are the same and don't care too much about other's decision or life.

Let's end it here and carry on with our life's.
Image
Duelingbook Resource Judge

Excellion
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:25 pm
Reputation: 4

Post #102 by Excellion » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:23 am

Renji Asuka wrote:
Excellion wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:What exactly is "homophobic" to you?

Cause all I see is facts.

If facts are homophobic, then that says more about you than it does about the facts.

"lgbtq people have too many rights" isnt homophobic? but when the genexwrecker impersonator posted the same phrase, replacing "lgbtq" with "black" we all agreed its racist.

I mean...when LGBTQ+ want to be able to control speech and what kind of speech on top of that, the fact that diversity hires are a thing.

That'd be "too many rights". Which is the context of what Genexwrecker stated.

So Lgbtq wanting to "control speech" by asking people acknowlege them properly is too far, but "dont say gay" bills are fine? Also show me the diversity hire that picks someone based on sexual preference or gender identity, because doing so is illegal, and using common sense, how would an employer know, or verify someones sexaul preference or gender identity to the government to get any kind of benifits from hiring them... Also, arent you the one who tried to "control speech" by telling people what they can and cant talk about in your threads? Didnt you also try telling me that "homophobia means fear of one" completely ignoring its definition, Didnt you also claim that speaking about gay people=gender politics, So someone who knows nothing about the subject, complaining about lgbtq "controling speech" while actively trying to police what gets talked about and claiming theyre "privlaged" from the position of a Cishet... Hypocrite.

Excellion
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:25 pm
Reputation: 4

Post #103 by Excellion » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:26 am

Renji Asuka wrote:
I Only Play Water Decks wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:Don't be intellectually dishonest and stay out any form of politics.

it's hilarious that this is your response, especially when I shown you just 1 piece of evidence of how you're wrong. You'd probably say the same thing if I shown you a mountain of evidence to back up reality :)

But hey, I did my job in exposing your own stupidity and bullshit.


literally, my response was made because I'm smart enough to know when to stop trying to educate someone who doesn't wanna be educated but continue sucking your own dick for no reason. pop off ig.

If that was the case, you wouldn't had responded ;)

But how can you "educate" when you misrepresent what is being told to you? No, you're intellectually dishonest. No, if you actually wanted an education on the matter, you have to listen to what others say and understand why they say what they do. That is how proper discussions are made.

You also can't "educate" others when there is a mountain of evidence to support what I have stated. I can drop many instances of what I stated happening, but because you were indoctrinated into your cult you refuse to see the actual issue. It's people like you (regarding the subject of the LGBTQ) that actively try to hide the issues that stem from the community instead of confronting them head on. You're just a coward and a fool.

you dont even know what homophobia means, you arent educated enough to take part in this discussion.

Excellion
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:25 pm
Reputation: 4

Post #104 by Excellion » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:50 am

Renji Asuka wrote:
I Only Play Water Decks wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:You mean forcing me (for instance) to give into the delusions of the mentally ill? Do you not realize how dangerous that is? Imagine giving in to the delusions of a schizophrenic, odds are you'd end up in a very dangerous situation or the person in question. The same can be said for those who have gender dysphoria. Especially if no pushback is allowed.

There is a minor group within the minor group of the trans community who are shunned by the trans community because they detransitioned. They realized they weren't pushed back enough. Yet the Trans community constantly pushes their ideology onto children effectively grooming them.

I can bring up many examples of this happening and I guarantee you'd call me transphobic after this conversation. Hell just look at the suicide rates of those who are trans. It isn't "society's fault" that they do decide to kill themselves, it's the fact they are mentally ill. I'm not saying there are not people out there that won't commit violence towards trans people, just the fact that odds are they have some form of depression that gets to be too much for them. Gender Dysphoria is already a chemical imbalance then adding depression on top of that, it's no wonder that trans community end up killing themselves.

How about instead of, oh I don't know, transitioning people, we look for REAL solutions to the problem like you would with any other mental illness.

The "hate" towards trans people these days aren't about the fact that the person is trans, but that the LGBTQ+ is pushing their toxic ideology on children. The LGBTQ+ community seems to (for whatever reason) want to prey on children. It doesn't help that their community is riddled with pedophiles and yet the community doesn't out them. It doesn't help that the community is indoctrinating children IN SCHOOLS which indoctrination is illegal FYI. There's a reason why public school teachers weren't allowed to teach children religion or push their religious beliefs onto children. Yet these days, it's perfectly fine? Sorry you don't get to talk to a child about adult topics or bring them to adult settings. At that point it's child abuse.

You'll probably deny all of this though or try to dismiss it, despite it being an actual problem. Hell, I can make a bet that you don't support Florida's "Don't Say Gay Bill".


Is this satire? Like all you are saying "Lgbtq = pedophilia" which it doesn't because pedophilia can be done by straight people. Aswell what you're complaining about is educating young children at a young age about lgbtq is child abuse?????? This is some bullshit because where i am we learned about lgbtq topics at grade 4, we however did not learn that dating an adult is okay because its gay. Aswell you're complaining about "Pushing religious beliefs on children" but if you don't educate children on topics like lgbtq and just say "they're bad" isn't that literally pushing religious beliefs on children? educating children gives them more education and gives them a better view on what they choose to believe in. aswell your first point is literally "its not society fault that someone killed themself even though people constantly judge them, physically and verbally harass them, make laws to give them less rights, and many more reasons. But again its not their fault. Its the trans person's fault for being trans".

It's almost like you're deliberately misrepresenting what I have stated while also showing you can't handle an actual conversation. In your mind you inherently believe you are right. That only your view is acceptable. So let's break down how stupid your response is.

1: "Is this satire?"
A pathetic attempt at trying to rationalize an opposing view point that fits against your incorrect world view.

2: "Like all you are saying "Lgbtq = pedophilia" which it doesn't because pedophilia can be done by straight people."
Never stated that, if you're going to quote someone do it properly. This is clearly an attempt at tearing down an argument in a dishonest way. Just like how you tried to misrepresent what Genexwrecker stated.

3: "Aswell what you're complaining about is educating young children at a young age about lgbtq is child abuse??????"
It's almost like you don't know that children are impressionable. If a child isn't allowed to pick their bed time, perhaps adult topics are not appropriate for children. Would you entertain a child's fantasy of being Luke Skywalker wanting their arm chopped off? No? By pushing trans ideology on children, that is exactly what you're encouraging. The human brain doesn't stop developing until around the age of 25. To push these ideologies onto a child that encourages children to "transition" for instance is always a bad idea as they don't grasp the long term consequences unlike how an adult can. Otherwise you'd effectively chemically castrate them or physically castrate them. Most people don't like child mutilation. There's a reason why a lot of people don't like circumcision or female mutilated genitalia.

4: "This is some bullshit because where i am we learned about lgbtq topics at grade 4, we however did not learn that dating an adult is okay because its gay."
Wait, did you just say that gays are pedophiles? Wuuuuut? Oh didn't like that response? Perhaps you shouldn't be intellectually dishonest. Also using anecdote with very vague information doesn't make for a strong case.

5: "Aswell you're complaining about "Pushing religious beliefs on children" but if you don't educate children on topics like lgbtq and just say "they're bad" isn't that literally pushing religious beliefs on children? "
You really should work on your reading comprehension. Where did I "complain" about "pushing religious beliefs on children"? It's almost like you actually can't be honest. Bringing up religion the way I did was to make a point of something teachers are not allowed to do when it comes to indoctrination.

6: "educating children gives them more education and gives them a better view on what they choose to believe in."
Learn the difference between indoctrination and education. That's not even going into the stupidity of this statement by itself. Children shouldn't "choose" to believe in an ideology that is fantasy. They need to have strong understanding of reality. I can bring up a ton of examples of indoctrination occurring in schools when it comes to LGBTQ+ related stuff. And that's not even an example from bias doctors on what medication they prescribe to their patients.

7: " aswell your first point is literally "its not society fault that someone killed themself even though people constantly judge them, physically and verbally harass them, make laws to give them less rights, and many more reasons. But again its not their fault. Its the trans person's fault for being trans"."
Which you conveniently ignore the fact that Gender Dysphoria is classified as a mental illness. You also conveniently ignore the rest of my post because you have no actual response.

Effectively your entire response is "waaah waaaah! You're Transphobic and Homophobic! Waaaah waaaah!". So my advice to you is, if you can't talk about topics like this without getting all pissy, you should stay out of said topics.

funny enough all these arguements would also apply to religion... yet the larger community has no problem accepting christianity even though you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a priest according to the DoJ, Churches have been indoctrinating children to believe in THEIR delusions for centuries, and no one ever seems to see an issue with forcing kids to join in religious practices like saying "one nation under god" every day in the class room, or being forced to take part in a prayer before sporting events in public schools, or banning and regulating "non-christian" books, But youre right, the real problem here are people who just want to go by "She" instead of "He", not the group that produces the highest amount of domestic terrorists and extremists in the nation.

troglyte
User avatar
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:23 pm
Reputation: 93
Mood:

Post #105 by troglyte » Sat Jul 16, 2022 5:33 am

Renji Asuka wrote:
troglyte wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:


My argument is that our perception of the world changes overtime. How we perceived/recorded science/history is very different from 1000 years ago (this is the 3rd time I've stated this argument)

It just hit me. You keep saying 'pregnant men (gender)' and not 'pregnant MALE (sex).' You don't understand the difference between gender and sex, or you're just assuming they're the same thing. You just proved to me that you do not understand the subject matter at the most basic level.

Do you know about the experiment that John Money had done? He is one of the founding fathers of the idea that "Gender is a social construct".

He raised a pair of twin boys. 1 as a boy and 1 as a girl. He forced the one that was raised as a girl to be in sexual submissive poses while having the brother dry hump him while John Money took photos. He forced the one that was raised as a girl to grow his hair out and to wear dresses while also being forced to play with dolls. In secret the boy that was raised as a girl played with his brother's toys.

John Money declared his experiment a success, when it wasn't. One of the boys died from drug overdose, the other shot himself in the face with a sawn off shotgun.

But please keep telling me that sex and gender is separate when even the end results of the experiment showed otherwise.


You already made this argument in a previous thread, and it has already been addressed by BoomerDuels, and I agree with him 100%. Here's the quote and the link.

"You understand that you both attack a strawman, give into reductio ad absurdum argumet fallacy, and assert "Common Sense" as superceding reality

1. The "Social Construct" theory does not get invalidated by 1 man and 1 man alone. Your argument is essentially, "1 man was a dickhead therefore, the point that him, alongside millions of others were making is wrong" which is not a very suitable argument. You also attack a strawman here, no-one is even using that as the main justification of their transgenderism. Over the past few decades, we have compiled strides in psychological research all of which confirms transgenderism neurological perspective, rather than a sociological one

2. You engage in Reductio ad Absurdum while also proclaiming that "Common Sense" is a better argument than reason. You blew up "we should listen to non-binary people" to, "Should we also listen to schitzophremic people, while also equating those as equally valid claims. You cannot do this and also claim that your argument doesn't lose its validity immediately. Transgender and Non-binary people are not schitzophrenic. And you seem to go by a simple "Men have penises, women have vaginas" argument, which you conpletely refused to back up. While it is true that this applies to most people, you use the common sense, to refer to someone with a penis as male, as a supposed argument which does not have anything to do with the argument we try to make"

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9874&p=83069#p83069
Crab Turtle respects your pronouns.
he/him
Sign the Crab Turtle petition here! http://chng.it/J4rvHFFfZG

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #106 by Renji Asuka » Sat Jul 16, 2022 5:35 am

troglyte wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
troglyte wrote:
My argument is that our perception of the world changes overtime. How we perceived/recorded science/history is very different from 1000 years ago (this is the 3rd time I've stated this argument)

It just hit me. You keep saying 'pregnant men (gender)' and not 'pregnant MALE (sex).' You don't understand the difference between gender and sex, or you're just assuming they're the same thing. You just proved to me that you do not understand the subject matter at the most basic level.

Do you know about the experiment that John Money had done? He is one of the founding fathers of the idea that "Gender is a social construct".

He raised a pair of twin boys. 1 as a boy and 1 as a girl. He forced the one that was raised as a girl to be in sexual submissive poses while having the brother dry hump him while John Money took photos. He forced the one that was raised as a girl to grow his hair out and to wear dresses while also being forced to play with dolls. In secret the boy that was raised as a girl played with his brother's toys.

John Money declared his experiment a success, when it wasn't. One of the boys died from drug overdose, the other shot himself in the face with a sawn off shotgun.

But please keep telling me that sex and gender is separate when even the end results of the experiment showed otherwise.


You already made this argument in a previous thread, and it has already been addressed by BoomerDuels, and I agree with him 100%. Here's the quote and the link.

"You understand that you both attack a strawman, give into reductio ad absurdum argumet fallacy, and assert "Common Sense" as superceding reality

1. The "Social Construct" theory does not get invalidated by 1 man and 1 man alone. Your argument is essentially, "1 man was a dickhead therefore, the point that him, alongside millions of others were making is wrong" which is not a very suitable argument. You also attack a strawman here, no-one is even using that as the main justification of their transgenderism. Over the past few decades, we have compiled strides in psychological research all of which confirms transgenderism neurological perspective, rather than a sociological one

2. You engage in Reductio ad Absurdum while also proclaiming that "Common Sense" is a better argument than reason. You blew up "we should listen to non-binary people" to, "Should we also listen to schitzophremic people, while also equating those as equally valid claims. You cannot do this and also claim that your argument doesn't lose its validity immediately. Transgender and Non-binary people are not schitzophrenic. And you seem to go by a simple "Men have penises, women have vaginas" argument, which you conpletely refused to back up. While it is true that this applies to most people, you use the common sense, to refer to someone with a penis as male, as a supposed argument which does not have anything to do with the argument we try to make"

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9874&p=83069#p83069

The thing is, it isn't a "strawman". This is the only experiment that has been done on the subject. (As far as I know) which went through the scientific process.

The results PROVED gender isn't a social construct.

Until it goes through the scientific process to PROVE that gender is a social construct, it's not.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

Renji Asuka
User avatar
Posts: 2680
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:37 am
Reputation: 242

Post #107 by Renji Asuka » Sat Jul 16, 2022 5:37 am

Excellion wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
I Only Play Water Decks wrote:
literally, my response was made because I'm smart enough to know when to stop trying to educate someone who doesn't wanna be educated but continue sucking your own dick for no reason. pop off ig.

If that was the case, you wouldn't had responded ;)

But how can you "educate" when you misrepresent what is being told to you? No, you're intellectually dishonest. No, if you actually wanted an education on the matter, you have to listen to what others say and understand why they say what they do. That is how proper discussions are made.

You also can't "educate" others when there is a mountain of evidence to support what I have stated. I can drop many instances of what I stated happening, but because you were indoctrinated into your cult you refuse to see the actual issue. It's people like you (regarding the subject of the LGBTQ) that actively try to hide the issues that stem from the community instead of confronting them head on. You're just a coward and a fool.

you dont even know what homophobia means, you arent educated enough to take part in this discussion.

You mean I don't know what your incorrect definition.

Homo derives from same.

phobia derives from irrational fear or aversion

C'mon now.
Image
Showing people that I'm The King of Games since September 30, 1996.

greg503
User avatar
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:43 pm
Reputation: 199
Location: Flundereeze

Post #108 by greg503 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 12:57 pm

Have you two learned NOTHING from the previous locked threads?
Buy Floowandereeze

itsmetristan
User avatar
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:16 am
Reputation: 35

Post #109 by itsmetristan » Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:20 pm

It amazes me just how fast these topics veer off the rails of their initial subject, and then proceed to keep getting further and further away from it until barreling off a cliff. How, in just a few pages of posts, did this thread change from being about "judge apologists" to more gender arguments?

I'll repeat what I said before in some of the other argument heavy threads. I don't know what you all expect to gain from arguing about this kind of thing publicly here. Whomever you're arguing against likely isn't going to change their stance, no matter what anyone else says. In the case of this whole gender argument that leaked into here from some other threads, those of you who think Genex's actions were unacceptable could just report them, and not complain about it publicly. It makes the process extremely easy for all parties by comparison. If what they said was uncalled for, something would then happen.

And as for you arguing against the people who make these threads, don't bother. They're likely not going to change their stance regardless of what any of you say, so leave those to us on the staff team.
Image

RC-2
PC-1

Senior Admin

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #110 by Christen57 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:50 pm

Excellion wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Excellion wrote:"lgbtq people have too many rights" isnt homophobic? but when the genexwrecker impersonator posted the same phrase, replacing "lgbtq" with "black" we all agreed its racist.

I mean...when LGBTQ+ want to be able to control speech and what kind of speech on top of that, the fact that diversity hires are a thing.

That'd be "too many rights". Which is the context of what Genexwrecker stated.

So Lgbtq wanting to "control speech" by asking people acknowlege them properly is too far,


You address people either casually, professionally, or by their title, depending on the person in question. You don't need to address anyone by their "preferred gender pronoun". In a casual setting, I'm gonna address someone as "dude" or by their first name or nickname if they have one. In a professional setting, I'm gonna address someone as "Mr." (or "Ms."/"Mrs." if they're female) followed by their last name, and if I don't know their last name I'll address them by their title such as "Your Honor," "Professor," or "Officer" or whatever. If I don't know their title either, or I know they don't have one but I also don't know their name, I'll simply address them as "Sir" or "Ma'am". I'll also address them as such in certain settings such as when I'm in the military and required to address people as such. I'm not gonna address anyone as an attack helicopter just because they chose to sexually identify as one, unless I'm absolutely required to do so to keep my job or whatever.

but "dont say gay" bills are fine?


It's a common misconception that Florida's bill bans the use of the word "gay". It doesn't. It only restricts elementary schools from indoctrinating young students through LGBTQ propaganda in said schools.

Also show me the diversity hire that picks someone based on sexual preference or gender identity, because doing so is illegal, and using common sense, how would an employer know, or verify someones sexaul preference or gender identity to the government to get any kind of benifits from hiring them...


https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/best-companies-lgbt-0617

funny enough all these arguements would also apply to religion... yet the larger community has no problem accepting christianity even though you are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a priest according to the DoJ,


What's "yet the larger community has no problem accepting christianity" supposed to mean? At least you get an option to pick between Straight, Gay, and Bi in the settings. On the other hand, you don't even get to pick Christian or Atheist or whatever in the settings, meaning it's the opposite that's true — duelingbook "accepts" orientations more than religions.

Churches have been indoctrinating children to believe in THEIR delusions for centuries,


Yes but unlike school, you have the legal option of choosing not to attend church, so if you're concerned about your child being "indoctrinated" in a church, you can just choose not to send him there, whereas in America, there are laws against truancy, which explains why there's a bigger push to keep indoctrination out of schools than churches. https://kidslegal.org/truancy

and no one ever seems to see an issue with forcing kids to join in religious practices like saying "one nation under god" every day in the class room, or being forced to take part in a prayer before sporting events in public schools, or banning and regulating "non-christian" books,


This depends on the school in question. Public schools generally don't force participation in these things, while some private schools may, and as a parent, you have the option of sending your child to either type of school depending on your values and what you can afford to do.

But youre right, the real problem here are people who just want to go by "She" instead of "He", not the group that produces the highest amount of domestic terrorists and extremists in the nation.


I'd argue both groups are equally problematic, but keep in mind that not all religions are the same, and not all religions produce that many terrorists/extremists.

Lil Oldman
User avatar
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Reputation: 178
Location: Toontown
Mood:

Post #111 by Lil Oldman » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:00 pm

Renji Asuka wrote:
Excellion wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:If that was the case, you wouldn't had responded ;)

But how can you "educate" when you misrepresent what is being told to you? No, you're intellectually dishonest. No, if you actually wanted an education on the matter, you have to listen to what others say and understand why they say what they do. That is how proper discussions are made.

You also can't "educate" others when there is a mountain of evidence to support what I have stated. I can drop many instances of what I stated happening, but because you were indoctrinated into your cult you refuse to see the actual issue. It's people like you (regarding the subject of the LGBTQ) that actively try to hide the issues that stem from the community instead of confronting them head on. You're just a coward and a fool.

you dont even know what homophobia means, you arent educated enough to take part in this discussion.

You mean I don't know what your incorrect definition.

Homo derives from same.

phobia derives from irrational fear or aversion

C'mon now.

If you are going to jump through hops just to not accept the appropiate context of a word, at least do it right. Homophobic doesn't mean fear of the same. It means fear of the man, since it comes from Homo Sapiens. Also do you have proof to back up your meaning of Homophobic, because Oxford, Cambridge and Webster agree that Homophobic is an "Irrational fear against Homosexuality and/or Gay people." And just because the creator says it is said Jif, it doesnt make it wrong to say Gif.
"Complacency? How rude. I live the stifling life of a high school student in our problematic modern society."
Help I cannot remove this music from my head
https://youtu.be/ZuXI7qcNsHQ
Will try reviewing custom cards if they look interesting.

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #112 by Christen57 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:04 pm

Lil Oldman wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:
Excellion wrote:you dont even know what homophobia means, you arent educated enough to take part in this discussion.

You mean I don't know what your incorrect definition.

Homo derives from same.

phobia derives from irrational fear or aversion

C'mon now.

If you are going to jump through hops just to not accept the appropiate context of a word, at least do it right. Homophobic doesn't mean fear of the same. It means fear of the man, since it comes from Homo Sapiens. Also do you have proof to back up your meaning of Homophobic, because Oxford, Cambridge and Webster agree that Homophobic is an "Irrational fear against Homosexuality and/or Gay people." And just because the creator says it is said Jif, it doesnt make it wrong to say Gif.


Yes, but again, Genexwrecker wasn't expressing any "fear" of homosexual/gay people. She was only criticizing them for allegedly having unfair rights/advantages over everyone else. Criticism isn't fear.

Lil Oldman
User avatar
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Reputation: 178
Location: Toontown
Mood:

Post #113 by Lil Oldman » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:10 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Lil Oldman wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:You mean I don't know what your incorrect definition.

Homo derives from same.

phobia derives from irrational fear or aversion

C'mon now.

If you are going to jump through hops just to not accept the appropiate context of a word, at least do it right. Homophobic doesn't mean fear of the same. It means fear of the man, since it comes from Homo Sapiens. Also do you have proof to back up your meaning of Homophobic, because Oxford, Cambridge and Webster agree that Homophobic is an "Irrational fear against Homosexuality and/or Gay people." And just because the creator says it is said Jif, it doesnt make it wrong to say Gif.


Yes, but again, Genexwrecker wasn't expressing any "fear" of homosexual/gay people. She was only criticizing them for allegedly having unfair rights/advantages over everyone else. Criticism isn't fear.

Oxford:
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
Webster:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Cambridge:
Involving fear or dislike of gay people.
"Complacency? How rude. I live the stifling life of a high school student in our problematic modern society."
Help I cannot remove this music from my head
https://youtu.be/ZuXI7qcNsHQ
Will try reviewing custom cards if they look interesting.

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #114 by Christen57 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:13 pm

Lil Oldman wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Lil Oldman wrote:If you are going to jump through hops just to not accept the appropiate context of a word, at least do it right. Homophobic doesn't mean fear of the same. It means fear of the man, since it comes from Homo Sapiens. Also do you have proof to back up your meaning of Homophobic, because Oxford, Cambridge and Webster agree that Homophobic is an "Irrational fear against Homosexuality and/or Gay people." And just because the creator says it is said Jif, it doesnt make it wrong to say Gif.


Yes, but again, Genexwrecker wasn't expressing any "fear" of homosexual/gay people. She was only criticizing them for allegedly having unfair rights/advantages over everyone else. Criticism isn't fear.

Oxford:
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
Webster:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Cambridge:
Involving fear or dislike of gay people.


Genexwrecker was only criticizing. She wasn't "disliking," "fearing," or "discriminating". You can criticize something that you still like, that you don't fear, and without being discriminatory.

Lil Oldman
User avatar
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Reputation: 178
Location: Toontown
Mood:

Post #115 by Lil Oldman » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:15 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Lil Oldman wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Yes, but again, Genexwrecker wasn't expressing any "fear" of homosexual/gay people. She was only criticizing them for allegedly having unfair rights/advantages over everyone else. Criticism isn't fear.

Oxford:
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
Webster:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Cambridge:
Involving fear or dislike of gay people.


Genexwrecker was only criticizing. She wasn't "disliking," "fearing," or "discriminating". You can criticize something that you still like, that you don't fear, and without being discriminatory.

And when did I in my post mention her? As far as I remember I am just telling Renji that that word distortion they are doing is stupid.
"Complacency? How rude. I live the stifling life of a high school student in our problematic modern society."
Help I cannot remove this music from my head
https://youtu.be/ZuXI7qcNsHQ
Will try reviewing custom cards if they look interesting.

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #116 by Christen57 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:17 pm

Lil Oldman wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Lil Oldman wrote:Oxford:
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
Webster:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Cambridge:
Involving fear or dislike of gay people.


Genexwrecker was only criticizing. She wasn't "disliking," "fearing," or "discriminating". You can criticize something that you still like, that you don't fear, and without being discriminatory.

And when did I in my post mention her?


Renji Asuka was responding to people who kept accusing her of homophobia.

Lil Oldman
User avatar
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Reputation: 178
Location: Toontown
Mood:

Post #117 by Lil Oldman » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:22 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Lil Oldman wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Genexwrecker was only criticizing. She wasn't "disliking," "fearing," or "discriminating". You can criticize something that you still like, that you don't fear, and without being discriminatory.

And when did I in my post mention her?


Renji Asuka was responding to people who kept accusing her of homophobia.

As far as I remember I am just telling Renji that that word distortion they are doing is stupid.
"Complacency? How rude. I live the stifling life of a high school student in our problematic modern society."
Help I cannot remove this music from my head
https://youtu.be/ZuXI7qcNsHQ
Will try reviewing custom cards if they look interesting.

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #118 by Christen57 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:22 pm

Lil Oldman wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Lil Oldman wrote:And when did I in my post mention her?


Renji Asuka was responding to people who kept accusing her of homophobia.

As far as I remember I am just telling Renji that that word distortion they are doing is stupid.


I think he was talking about "Homo" meaning "same," thus Homosexual meaning same sex, meaning being attracted to the same sex, though I suppose he should be more clear about that so there isn't confusion...

Lil Oldman
User avatar
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:23 pm
Reputation: 178
Location: Toontown
Mood:

Post #119 by Lil Oldman » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:46 pm

Christen57 wrote:
Lil Oldman wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Renji Asuka was responding to people who kept accusing her of homophobia.

As far as I remember I am just telling Renji that that word distortion they are doing is stupid.


I think he was talking about "Homo" meaning "same," thus Homosexual meaning same sex, meaning being attracted to the same sex, though I suppose he should be more clear about that so there isn't confusion...

No. Otherwise they wouldn't be calling the other side's meaning incorrect.
"Complacency? How rude. I live the stifling life of a high school student in our problematic modern society."
Help I cannot remove this music from my head
https://youtu.be/ZuXI7qcNsHQ
Will try reviewing custom cards if they look interesting.

MarshieDemon
User avatar
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:41 am
Reputation: 48

Post #120 by MarshieDemon » Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:06 pm

Is every single topic going to turn into a debate that goes nowhere and has nothing to do with the original topic?

I don't care if you want to have a pointless discussion about LGBT+ (pointless because nobody will successfully change any minds) but give it its own topic. But the second that topic becomes disrespectful towards other participants or my judges, I will lock that topic in a heartbeat too.
Image

Head Administrator


Return to “Serious Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests