Avengers >> View Post
·
Post By
Bk Ray

In Reply To
deron

Subj: Re: Are you really that ignorant............................
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:50:36 pm CST
Reply Subj: Re: Are you really that ignorant............................
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:11:40 pm CST

Previous Post

> > Well then perhaps you should work against the negative assumptions people have of homosexuals rather than accept them and rail against people who suggest that homosexual acts might have been repressed but not uncommon in a specific class of British society. And "Paki" is used as an epithet or lazy abbreviation by people who, generally speaking, don't know much about Pakistanis, Pakistani immigrants or their culture. They probably don't mind being called Pakistani, though. Similarly, homosexuals don't have a problem being called homosexual, though "homo" might offend. But you didn't object to an epithet, you objected to the suggestion that Mr. Sinister might be gay because it was not uncommon in Victorian upper classes -- you took it to mean that at least fifty percent of Brits must be gay. As such, it seems to me that you are indeed objecting to the suggestion of homosexuality. Now, that might not be what you intended to say or suggest, but it is what you did say and suggest.
> >
> Why the hell would I want to champion gay rights?!?! I mean, sure I've been to Iraq to fight 'international terror' but I voulentered because my girlfriend dumped me and I just wanted to legally go 'a bit extreme' not because I'm a moral person. What next - do you want me to save the rainforest?
> I am not going to be tricked into explaining why the word homosexual can be offensive (with it's related meanings) because that would start a HUGE flame war, sorry not that stupid.
> I reiterate (again) when asked who was likely to be gay - the poster said Mr Sinister because of the reasons mentioned numerous times. Therefore he based that it was likely.
> I take offense because of that (BTW - he hasn't responded so he doesn't give a toss). That is my reaction of it as a Brit. You are welcome to your opinion, I will be keeping mine.
>
Fair enough. Except I will point out your tendency to misinterpret what people write. The original poster clearly did not say that Mr. Sinister was likely homosexual, just that he suspected he might be. (Go back and look; he put Sinister under the heading "suspected.") Similarly, I never said you should champion gay rights; I said you should consider not accepting the negative connotations of the term homosexual and thus not behave as though the term were an insult. Which you have.

Best,

DO

> > > Well then perhaps you should work against the negative assumptions people have of homosexuals rather than accept them and rail against people who suggest that homosexual acts might have been repressed but not uncommon in a specific class of British society. And "Paki" is used as an epithet or lazy abbreviation by people who, generally speaking, don't know much about Pakistanis, Pakistani immigrants or their culture. They probably don't mind being called Pakistani, though. Similarly, homosexuals don't have a problem being called homosexual, though "homo" might offend. But you didn't object to an epithet, you objected to the suggestion that Mr. Sinister might be gay because it was not uncommon in Victorian upper classes -- you took it to mean that at least fifty percent of Brits must be gay. As such, it seems to me that you are indeed objecting to the suggestion of homosexuality. Now, that might not be what you intended to say or suggest, but it is what you did say and suggest.
> > >
> > Why the hell would I want to champion gay rights?!?! I mean, sure I've been to Iraq to fight 'international terror' but I voulentered because my girlfriend dumped me and I just wanted to legally go 'a bit extreme' not because I'm a moral person. What next - do you want me to save the rainforest?
> > I am not going to be tricked into explaining why the word homosexual can be offensive (with it's related meanings) because that would start a HUGE flame war, sorry not that stupid.
> > I reiterate (again) when asked who was likely to be gay - the poster said Mr Sinister because of the reasons mentioned numerous times. Therefore he based that it was likely.
> > I take offense because of that (BTW - he hasn't responded so he doesn't give a toss). That is my reaction of it as a Brit. You are welcome to your opinion, I will be keeping mine.
> >
> Fair enough. Except I will point out your tendency to misinterpret what people write. The original poster clearly did not say that Mr. Sinister was likely homosexual, just that he suspected he might be. (Go back and look; he put Sinister under the heading "suspected.") Similarly, I never said you should champion gay rights; I said you should consider not accepting the negative connotations of the term homosexual and thus not behave as though the term were an insult. Which you have.
>
> Best,
>
> DO

Heh, just realised we've highjacked the Avengers message board and turned it into a sociology project. Sorry if I came over a little strong, still sticking to ALL my opinions mind, but nice to have a civil debate

Regards


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software