Things that make you go hmmm

[Belly Bob]

Here's a very short video for anyone who may be interested. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, and he has been speaking out against the new legislation.

Some highlights:

     NY currently protects 31 genders.

     Facebook has identified 54 genders.

     Under current Canadian law, it may be illegal to discuss the appropriateness of the legislation governing the use of gender pronouns, since the very discussion may count as hate speech. 

The first two "highlights" should strike an ordinary person who didn't take gender studies or women's studies in college as puzzling.

But the last bit is very scary, and we should all be paying attention to it.

And it's all scary when you realize that it may become illegal for you to say, "I don't believe that there are 54 genders; and I'm not going to use 54 different made-up words or phrases to refer to them."

 

EDIT: Facebook has identified 58 genders, not 54.

 

[concha]

20 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

Here's a very short video for anyone who may be interested. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, and he has been speaking out against the new legislation.

Some highlights:

     NY currently protects 31 genders.

     Facebook has identified 54 genders.

     Under current Canadian law, it may be illegal to discuss the appropriateness of the legislation governing the use of gender pronouns, since the very discussion may count as hate speech. 

The first two "highlights" should strike an ordinary person who didn't take gender studies or women's studies in college as puzzling.

But the last bit is very scary, and we should all be paying attention to it.

And it's all scary when you realize that it may become illegal for you to say, "I don't believe that there are 54 genders; and I'm not going to use 54 different made-up words or phrases to refer to them."

 

Spot on.

The left attempts to control and distort the very basis of not only biology, but of the English language itself. UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

It was bad enough when silly things happened like "illegal alien" being twisted into "undocumented immigrant" (as if they were invited and someone forgot to hand them a visa as they hopped the fence).  Remember the attempt to change "terrorism" to "man-caused disaster"?  It's effing embarrassing.

[golfaddict1]

 

[HawgGoneIt]

1 hour ago, Belly Bob said:

I guess we disagree. I'm not as confident as you seem to be that it's unjustly discriminatory to refuse to use someone's own personal made-up language to refer to someone's own personal made-up gender. 

And I think we should all be very concerned that there are right now attempts being made to make it illegal to refuse to use such made-up words.

I see that legislation in the spirit of fascism and communism, and their attempts to infringe on free speech and to control the way people use language, because its goal is to force people by law to use certain words. 

That's scary. And if you're not at least a little concerned, then you're probably not paying attention.

Yep, we'll disagree then. Even of I think I'm a frog, and wear little googly eyes on springs off the top of my head, you won't be allowed to discriminate against me. 

You shouldn't be allowed to turn someone out of a business or lunch counter or off a bus if they think they are a frog, a girl, a boy or if they dye their skin orange. Period. 

We can argue the merits of whether someone that thinks they are a frog is a mental illness or whatever all day, it still doesn't change the fact that they are human, and enjoy all of the same rights as you. 

 

Now, as far as all the rest, I think we can agree that legislating speech is wrong, but I can boycott you and force your hand in other ways if I need to, in order to get my point across.

[TheMaximumHornetSting]

Everyone can just be a brick... 

Im all for freedom but damn that... 

54 genders? Ridiculous... 

 

[dbcaptiron]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Yep, we'll disagree then. Even of I think I'm a frog, and wear little googly eyes on springs off the top of my head, you won't be allowed to discriminate against me. 

You shouldn't be allowed to turn someone out of a business or lunch counter or off a bus if they think they are a frog, a girl, a boy or if they dye their skin orange. Period. 

We can argue the merits of whether someone that thinks they are a frog is a mental illness or whatever all day, it still doesn't change the fact that they are human, and enjoy all of the same rights as you. 

 

Now, as far as all the rest, I think we can agree that legislating speech is wrong, but I can boycott you and force your hand in other ways if I need to, in order to get my point across.

you're unbalanced dude...

How can you ever say a solution is correct if it does not even ADDRESS the flipside???

IE. Let's say...  I decide to like devil worshiping (let's call him Devil T , initials DT for fun ) , I make up my own ritualistic ceremony called MAGA that set's it up so that every weekend (all weekend, when the bussiness is best), we meet in the den of the anti-maga's  (we'll call them Mericuns for fun) With a full on debaucherioorgius orgy!! All weekend long !  And we can because for any mom+pop business their 'den' should always be owned by the public square... oh what fun...we've even figured out a way to erect DT statues as permanent fixtures  in their living rooms. 

The Rave and oppression is good you see, as it force's others to think like us (the true DT believers) The orgy culminates on the foes sabbath....and being the devils that we are, we force all those Mericans to genuflect and use those very same words of their own tradition to salute our new cake DT statues...and everyone drinks kool-aid and eats that very special celebration cake,...to memorialize the occaision...

Better to "oppress them before they oppress us" is the motto of DT'ers don't you see...don't you see how those shopkeepers are really oppressing us by having the nerve to set up shop in the 'public square'? The public square is ruled by us don't you see, we are the only one's who know what 'square' really is...if it were 'balanced' it would not have those 'violent' spikey points on it and be called a circle (where people get along)...

Now shut up and tell those damn Mericans to genuflect, and go get some more cake statues in support...You are a DT'er now...whether you like it or not....

 

 

 

BALANCE my friend......at least one eye one the ball please... 

[dbcaptiron]

dblpost

[HawgGoneIt]

3 hours ago, dbcaptiron said:

you're unbalanced dude...

How can you ever say a solution is correct if it does not even ADDRESS the flipside???

IE. Let's say...  I decide to like devil worshiping (let's call him Devil T , initials DT for fun ) , I make up my own ritualistic ceremony called MAGA that set's it up so that every weekend (all weekend, when the bussiness is best), we meet in the den of the anti-maga's  (we'll call them Mericuns for fun) With a full on debaucherioorgius orgy!! All weekend long !  And we can because for any mom+pop business their 'den' should always be owned by the public square... oh what fun...we've even figured out a way to erect DT statues as permanent fixtures  in their living rooms. 

The Rave and oppression is good you see, as it force's others to think like us (the true DT believers) The orgy culminates on the foes sabbath....and being the devils that we are, we force all those Mericans to genuflect and use those very same words of their own tradition to salute our new cake DT statues...and everyone drinks kool-aid and eats that very special celebration cake,...to memorialize the occaision...

Better to "oppress them before they oppress us" is the motto of DT'ers don't you see...don't you see how those shopkeepers are really oppressing us by having the nerve to set up shop in the 'public square'? The public square is ruled by us don't you see, we are the only one's who know what 'square' really is...if it were 'balanced' it would not have those 'violent' spikey points on it and be called a circle (where people get along)...

Now shut up and tell those damn Mericans to genuflect, and go get some more cake statues in support...You are a DT'er now...whether you like it or not....

 

 

 

BALANCE my friend......at least one eye one the ball please... 

 

Isn't that not totally dissimilar to what Christians did? Not trying to be funny or anything. Serious question. 

 

So am I to take from this snarky post that you think it would be ok to turn a black person away from your lunch counter? Or a homosexual? Or someone that dresses funny? Or someone with blonde hair and green eyes? Blonde hair is ok if they have brown eyes, just not green. Something about that combination gives the heeby jeebies. Can't have that on at our lunch counter. 

I think I'm balanced just fine. The flip side of treating every human the same as every other human can't be that terrible. I don't have to agree with how someone dresses, or a lot of other things that I can find issue with, but, it's a pretty simple thing to treat them just as any other human being. 

Now, as I said, I don't agree with someone telling me that I can't legally use one term or another, and as Belly said, some strange revolving door of terms. I guess I need to see where the legislation is that has forced me to use one term over another. I haven't seen it. 

 

Where is the balance if I'm allowed to tell all the blonde haired green eyed people that they can't sit at my lunch counter? 

Is the balance that they can then decide that all of the brown haired brown eyed people can't sit at their counter now since it's like that with the blonde haired green eyed people? 

 

Help me see the balance that comes from discriminating against any person for any reason. I'm all ears. 

 

 

[Belly Bob]

5 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Yep, we'll disagree then. Even of I think I'm a frog, and wear little googly eyes on springs off the top of my head, you won't be allowed to discriminate against me. 

You shouldn't be allowed to turn someone out of a business or lunch counter or off a bus if they think they are a frog, a girl, a boy or if they dye their skin orange. Period. 

We can argue the merits of whether someone that thinks they are a frog is a mental illness or whatever all day, it still doesn't change the fact that they are human, and enjoy all of the same rights as you. 

 

Now, as far as all the rest, I think we can agree that legislating speech is wrong, but I can boycott you and force your hand in other ways if I need to, in order to get my point across.

You sound confused to me, Hawg. I could be wrong about that.

Their claim is that if I don't use their made-up words when I refer to them, then I'm discriminating against them, which is why they're fighting for the legislation, that is, to protect themselves against unjust discrimination.

So I don't see how you can say that we shouldn't legislate speech, but we should pass laws to protect people from being discriminated against.

The heart of the issue is whether you have a right to be called a frog -- and so whether I have an obligation to call you a frog -- just because you happen to identify as a frog. 

Or maybe more to the point, whether any such right you may have is strong enough to trump my right to free speech. 

My own view is that I've never seen a plausible argument whose conclusion is that you have a right to be called a frog just because you identify as a frog. 

If you really believe that speech shouldn't be legislated, then you're on the right on this issue, which the left has been making so much noise about recently.

[HawgGoneIt]

9 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

You sound confused to me, Hawg.

Their claim is that if I don't use their made-up words when I refer to them, then I'm discriminating against them, which is why they're fighting for the legislation, that is, to protect them against unjust discrimination.

So I don't see how you can say that we shouldn't legislate speech, but we should pass laws to protect people from being discriminated against.

The heart of the issue is whether you have a right to be called a frog -- and so whether I have an obligation to call you a frog -- just because you happen to identify as a frog. 

Or maybe more to the point, whether any such right you may have is strong enough to trump my right to free speech. 

My own view is that I've never seen a plausible argument whose conclusion is that you have a right to be called a frog just because you identify as a frog. 

Well, this side of the thing, I can agree with. I think I did misunderstand what you were saying because my right eye twitched as I thought about how NoleBull chooses to articulate a similar subject. 

I think the first amendment trumps pretty much any statute that would make it illegal to use whatever word you want. Socially on the other hand, it could be very "socially illegal" and cause a person much strife, depending on how much support the person you used the "unacceptable" word against has. 

For instance, it's not illegal to use the N word, but, it will cause you much social strife if you do. I feel the same on these other issues. I personally am the type to try to fit in with the social norms rather than fighting them. If girls decide being called girls is unacceptable as a major unit, then, I suppose I'll do my best to call them what it is they wish.

I don't see that as any different that African Americans deciding that negro was unacceptable as a terminology, and, why should I? 

I guess I was unaware of any legislation to the contrary in the USA as far as making it illegal to use whatever term I choose. 

Now, I think hate speech thresholds can be crossed if you are using a term while committing a battery or assaulting someone. 

I do agree that there are places where one right rubs against another and judgments have to be made. This is why we ultimately have the SCOTUS for. In the cases where some legislation is damaging one's rights while favoring another's rights then it has to have some judgement from somewhere. 

 

[zulu1128]

6 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Yep, we'll disagree then. Even of I think I'm a frog, and wear little googly eyes on springs off the top of my head, you won't be allowed to discriminate against me. 

You shouldn't be allowed to turn someone out of a business or lunch counter or off a bus if they think they are a frog, a girl, a boy or if they dye their skin orange. Period. 

We can argue the merits of whether someone that thinks they are a frog is a mental illness or whatever all day, it still doesn't change the fact that they are human, and enjoy all of the same rights as you. 

All of them? 

[dbcaptiron]

2 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

Isn't that not totally dissimilar to what Christians did? Not trying to be funny or anything. Serious question. 

 

So am I to take from this snarky post that you think it would be ok to turn a black person away from your lunch counter? Or a homosexual? Or someone that dresses funny? Or someone with blonde hair and green eyes? Blonde hair is ok if they have brown eyes, just not green. Something about that combination gives the heeby jeebies. Can't have that on at our lunch counter. 

I think I'm balanced just fine. The flip side of treating every human the same as every other human can't be that terrible. I don't have to agree with how someone dresses, or a lot of other things that I can find issue with, but, it's a pretty simple thing to treat them just as any other human being. 

Now, as I said, I don't agree with someone telling me that I can't legally use one term or another, and as Belly said, some strange revolving door of terms. I guess I need to see where the legislation is that has forced me to use one term over another. I haven't seen it. 

 

Where is the balance if I'm allowed to tell all the blonde haired green eyed people that they can't sit at my lunch counter? 

Is the balance that they can then decide that all of the brown haired brown eyed people can't sit at their counter now since it's like that with the blonde haired green eyed people? 

 

Help me see the balance that comes from discriminating against any person for any reason. I'm all ears. 

 

 

Hawg, if I touched a nerve I don't know....

That's why I am trying to bang on 'balance'....your not 'wrong' per say at all, I would not even try to debate that...

The 'public square' is SQUARE...it has four little pointed corners that all point to opposite ends of the universe...and people use them as their 'safe spaces' in this regard...    Not everybody is the same....and everyone has rights...get it?

Maybe you don't see where I am coming from on this and you can file it under that categority of 'you can't legislate everything'.  At leasdt It's certainly a category where everything could go 'case by case'. but at some point you can't change all the rules to suit your wants...and then say others need to conform...

and that's not just bad form, that's bad policy... 

 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

27 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said:

Hawg, if I touched a nerve I don't know....

That's why I am trying to bang on 'balance'....your not 'wrong' per say at all, I would not even try to debate that...

The 'public square' is SQUARE...it has four little pointed corners that all point to opposite ends of the universe...and people use them as their 'safe spaces' in this regard...    Not everybody is the same....and everyone has rights...get it?

Maybe you don't see where I am coming from on this and you can file it under that categority of 'you can't legislate everything'.  At leasdt It's certainly a category where everything could go 'case by case'. but at some point you can't change all the rules to suit your wants...and then say others need to conform...

and that's not just bad form, that's bad policy... 

 

 

I understand completely. And no nerve touched. 

It simply can't be bad policy to expect that every person shares the same rights. 

The reason why, is, because of the next. If it's ok to discriminate against someone for sexual orientation, then the blonde haired green eyed person could be next. 

As it turns out, in spite of the constitution, and the civil rights act, the only way some people get equal treatment and rights is to take to the street with their cause. 

Not one person should have to do that, yet they still do have to. 

Nobody needs to conform to anything in order to allow every other human being the same rights they have. Do they? I don't think so. 

Just because you let a gay man eat at your lunch counter doesn't mean you have to want to sleep with a man, in spite of what some idiots might say. 

Just because a certain group is screeching that you must call them oogum, doesn't mean you can't call them boogum instead. They may call you some derogatory term as well. Same rights apply. 

What is offensive to one person may not be to another, and if you choose to be offensive in spite of knowing the person is offended, that's on you. As more and more people begin to support the offended person, your social standing may change due to a shift in support. Of course, that still remains totally up to you, whether you care about social standing and all. Some don't. That's fine too.

 

I can't really understand people arguing the contrary, but, I see they will and do. 

 

Should it be ok to beat up a gay kid while screeching the word faggot at the top of your lungs? I think not, and it should be a hate crime. 

Is that the legislation that people are being upset about? 

Would those same people be upset if they're Catholic and someone was targeting them strictly for being Catholic and beating them up while shouting "filthy bead mumbler" at them? Should that not be a hate crime? I think it should, just like the other example with the gay kid.

 

Is there some other legislation out there that people are being prosecuted under that I don't know about? 

Please someone produce it. 

 

[dbcaptiron]

32 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I understand completely. And no nerve touched. 

It simply can't be bad policy to expect that every person shares the same rights. 

The reason why, is, because of the next. If it's ok to discriminate against someone for WHATEVER

Here's the thing HAWG.....for WHATEVER...if it's something people find OFFENSIVE and not in their beliefs you must recognize where YOU in fact stand.... in that very same PUBLIC square ...

You can't jump in a room, demanding respect, and then fart in everyone's faces...

There is a long held tradition that 'nudists' are not allowed to walk down main street...havock ensues...

As long as your not interfering with anyone else, no one else cares what you do...

Probelm is most gays don't understand that....

I'ts not discriminationg to say 'keep it to yourself'...... the military uses it for that reason...

Be like any good 'nudist' and find your safe place where your NOT imposing on others, and they can respect that  ...and respect is even  better than 'tolerance'...And you should REALLY think about what THAT means, when fringe groups want to crossover and live within the boarders of mainstream and mainstreet society...

And always know that you can buy any cake that THEY serve...like everyone else...your welcome...no discrimination...easy, see?

Problem is where you go to a baker and tell him to bake differently (or something different) THAT"S NOT HIS BUSINESS, so you are really out of line and in the wrong store for your chore... 

The PUBLIC SQUARE is a big place...You can't run down main street screaming fire swinging your dong around...the corner that your looking for is south of canal... they have nude parades....

To streak naked thru a bakery, and claim discrimination when you get kicked out is LUDICROUS man.....

AND PEOPLE SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS !!!

 

 

[Belly Bob]

4 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Well, this side of the thing, I can agree with. I think I did misunderstand what you were saying because my right eye twitched as I thought about how NoleBull chooses to articulate a similar subject. 

I think the first amendment trumps pretty much any statute that would make it illegal to use whatever word you want. Socially on the other hand, it could be very "socially illegal" and cause a person much strife, depending on how much support the person you used the "unacceptable" word against has. 

For instance, it's not illegal to use the N word, but, it will cause you much social strife if you do. I feel the same on these other issues. I personally am the type to try to fit in with the social norms rather than fighting them. If girls decide being called girls is unacceptable as a major unit, then, I suppose I'll do my best to call them what it is they wish.

I don't see that as any different that African Americans deciding that negro was unacceptable as a terminology, and, why should I? 

I guess I was unaware of any legislation to the contrary in the USA as far as making it illegal to use whatever term I choose. 

Now, I think hate speech thresholds can be crossed if you are using a term while committing a battery or assaulting someone. 

I do agree that there are places where one right rubs against another and judgments have to be made. This is why we ultimately have the SCOTUS for. In the cases where some legislation is damaging one's rights while favoring another's rights then it has to have some judgement from somewhere. 

 

In almost any imaginable circumstance, if someone with testicles asked me to refer to him as "her", I would do that, because it's the nice, respectful thing to do. And we should treat people with respect. 

But the nice, respectful thing to do is not the same as what is owed. If I have a box of chocolates, it would be nice if I shared some with you; but you are not owed any of my chocolates. 

And what should be forced by law is yet a different category altogether. There may well be some things that are owed but shouldn't be legislated. If you promises to remain faithful to your wife, then she is owed your fidelity. But it would be unwise to make infidelity illegal, because it's unwise to encourage the state to enter into the intimate affairs of its citizens.  

And as for the N-word, I think that's importantly different from pronouns, because the N-word is a racist slur, and racist slurs are parts of speech designed to degrade or dehumanize. 

But referring to someone with testicles as "him" is not a slur of any kind.

[dbcaptiron]

2 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

In almost any imaginable circumstance, if someone with testicles asked me to refer to him as "her", I would do that, because it's the nice, respectful thing to do. And we should treat people with respect. 

But the nice, respectful thing to do is not the same as what is owed. If I have a box of chocolates, it would be nice if I shared some with you; but you are not owed any of my chocolates. 

And what should be forced by law is yet a different category altogether. There may well be some things that are owed but shouldn't be legislated. If you promises to remain faithful to your wife, then she is owed your fidelity. But it would be unwise to make infidelity illegal, because it's unwise to encourage the state to enter into the intimate affairs of its citizens.  

And as for the N-word, I think that's importantly different from pronouns, because the N-word is a racist slur, and racist slurs are parts of speech designed to degrade or dehumanize. 

But referring to someone with testicles as "him" is not a slur of any kind.

I was told to 'dumb it down' but after that, I might not have to.....

You make my dumbed down posts sound stupid by comparison.....

Could not have said it better myself...kudos...

Short, sweet, and cuts it to the Bone...

 

[HawgGoneIt]

7 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

In almost any imaginable circumstance, if someone with testicles asked me to refer to him as "her", I would do that, because it's the nice, respectful thing to do. And we should treat people with respect. 

But the nice, respectful thing to do is not the same as what is owed. If I have a box of chocolates, it would be nice if I shared some with you; but you are not owed any of my chocolates. 

And what should be forced by law is yet a different category altogether. There may well be some things that are owed but shouldn't be legislated. If you promises to remain faithful to your wife, then she is owed your fidelity. But it would be unwise to make infidelity illegal, because it's unwise to encourage the state to enter into the intimate affairs of its citizens.  

And as for the N-word, I think that's importantly different from pronouns, because the N-word is a racist slur, and racist slurs are parts of speech designed to degrade or dehumanize. 

But referring to someone with testicles as "him" is not a slur of any kind.

What if it's you that is the him that thinks he's a her? Is it a slur now? Since we were trying to see the flip sides and all. It depends on perception doesn't it? I mean, if you call someone a faggot, I may not view it as a slur, but a gay man probably would view it as a slur. Intent aside, there was a time when people used the N word and didn't think it was a slur either. It was just normal. Until the people that were being called that word let the world know resoundingly that they felt like the word was a slur, it was used by average ordinary people like grandmas and grandpas all the way to toddlers. 

There is no law saying you can't use a slur. You don't go to jail for dropping the N word, nor will you go to jail for calling he that wants to be called a her a him. 

I get that you don't think some words could be a slur, and some may not be, like calling him a him if he wants to be called a her, unless there is some additional context or intent, and I probably agree as a general rule. Yet the person on the other end of that could still be considering it offensive and a slur. Socially, the people that are gaining ground on this stuff, will eventually win out and just like people that still use the n word are considered on the wrong side of things, so shall those that use fag and whatever other terms they are finding unacceptable. 

I guess I just don't really see any legislation affecting this in any way other than in the hate crimes realm. Simply using what is now considered an offensive term isn't a hate crime by any definition that I can find, but, some thresholds can be crossed if you are committing a crime against someone while using those words. 

I think we can agree that we don't really need any further legislation on this stuff. We have the equal protections clause and the civil rights act. Adding additional words the the hate crimes prevention act is hardly new legislation and nothing to fear from law abiding citizens imo. The only reason to fear adding "new" slurs to the act should be from those that intend on committing some assault on another person or otherwise discriminate against someone for any reason. 

I think that, picking on NoleBull again here, if he has created a history online of slurring and downing gender-queer people and then tomorrow he goes out and beats a guy in a dress with a big beard, putting that guy in the hospital, he may well be prosecuted under the hate crimes act. He has developed a history of being hateful toward gender-queer people. 

I don't think he'll do that, but, his online history is there and if the police investigate it far enough, he could possibly fall under the hate crimes act. 

I say, be careful about the stuff you say. Especially if you plan on going out and attacking a transgender person later on today. Like it or not, that's the way it is. 

I know we aren't going to agree on this probably, and that's ok. I'll stand firm that I will be on the right end of this socially in the end and not fault you for feeling contrary to that. Convictions are convictions and some things are pretty difficult to come around to accepting depending on how a person's convictions lie. 

[HawgGoneIt]

11 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

All of them? 

Yes, unless they are somehow otherwise excluded from certain rights.* IE. a felon or diagnosed mentally ill etc. 

[zulu1128]

10 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Yes, unless they are somehow otherwise excluded from certain rights.* IE. a felon or diagnosed mentally ill etc. 

You seemed to insinuate that if one thinking he/she was a frog was diagnosed as a mental illness, that they’d still be entitled to the same rights. 

Just looking for a bit of clarification. 

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

What if it's you that is the him that thinks he's a her? Is it a slur now? Since we were trying to see the flip sides and all. It depends on perception doesn't it? I mean, if you call someone a faggot, I may not view it as a slur, but a gay man probably would view it as a slur. Intent aside, there was a time when people used the N word and didn't think it was a slur either. It was just normal. Until the people that were being called that word let the world know resoundingly that they felt like the word was a slur, it was used by average ordinary people like grandmas and grandpas all the way to toddlers. 

[...]

I get that you don't think some words could be a slur, and some may not be, like calling him a him if he wants to be called a her, unless there is some additional context or intent, and I probably agree as a general rule. Yet the person on the other end of that could still be considering it offensive and a slur. Socially, the people that are gaining ground on this stuff, will eventually win out and just like people that still use the n word are considered on the wrong side of things, so shall those that use fag and whatever other terms they are finding unacceptable. 

[...]

I don't think that the meanings of words are determined by someone or other's perception or feeling about them. You can find people on the internet who claim that the Earth is flat. It doesn't follow that there isn't a fact about the shape of the Earth, or that its shape is determined by someone's perception or conviction or even how many other people on the internet they convince that the Earth is flat.

If that's true of the shape of the Earth, why would it be any different with the meanings of words?

I think that the meanings of words can change because the meanings of words are determined in large part by the way they are used. So the word "faggot" wasn't always a slur. But at some point people began to use it that way.

If you don't think that the word "faggot' is a slur in contemporary English, then you're not a competent speaker of English. And the same goes for "him": if you feel really strongly that "him" is a slur, then you don't have a firm grasp on the English language. And that's because people don't generally use the word "him" to degrade or dehumanize. 

But you seem to want to project popular opinion on these issues and then put yourself on the popular side of things, since you seem to think that there is no real difference between a true opinion and a popular one.

I don't think that truth is determined by popular opinion.

[dbcaptiron]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I know we aren't going to agree on this probably, and that's ok. I'll stand firm that I will be on the right end of this socially in the end and not fault you for feeling contrary to that. Convictions are convictions and some things are pretty difficult to come around to accepting depending on how a person's convictions lie. 

You will stand firm in a public square that is a circle then.....have you figured out what the problem with that is yet? think PINPOINT !

Simple concept, if you want people to respect your rights, then you must respect theirs...

Since you show none, you get none.

I've got a gay brother in-law, and a nephew that went to Cornell and came out a niece. My brother in-law is just plain old gay, and it's not a problem who knows it (to me either).  That's not the point.  If he comes (and he is certainly welcome)  to my house, but then starts fucking on my 'living room couch' during dinner, then I have a right to call him F*G or any other derogatory word I feel like, not that I would, but he wouldn't be welcome for dinner much longer, and I would certainly lose respect for him.

Gonna have to wait until they figure out how many genders there are, and what the numbers or names are soon tho.  Gonna be up in Ithica  this weekend. Since the he that turned into a she informs everyone that he/she is a lesbian that likes women now... Can someone help a brother out and tell me what number I'm supposed to call he/she this weekend??  Bright kid but not the same as when he left home, and I'm not just talking physically....still as long as he's/she's happy that's fine by me, but it really has not been such a fun time for my sister, who invested a couple decades lovingly raising him as a perfectly happy him... but of course mom (who's unwavering in support, and now has some pretty unwavering medical bills, to go along with those unwavering Cornell bills has no reason to be upset right? No reason to be concerned about him leaving Cornell University for the Real World now, otherwise she's just a bigot, without her own child's best interest at heart? 

My personal opinion is that he will change to something else in a couple years when whatever 'novelty' this fad has wears off, because he was always the kid that had those OVERLY supporting parents that could never show 'tough love' or scold...thus the result. (Brother inlaw will ALWAYS be Gay, and always was)   If you think THAT's WACK....then I got news for ya,  check history.... Sexual fads come and go....Bowie, Stewart, and Jager when it was a musical thingy,  free love thru the 70's, aids hitting 80's, early 2000's with girlfriends that will also 3some (not a bad one LOL) etc. etc.  

Does not matter which one you are...only that you respect the others...and that INCLUDES respecting the rights of hetero-sexual's AS WELL

Selfishness is respect's enemy, and You can never legislate 'tolerance' never mind 'acceptance'...

Both requires some level of respect, to be taken to heart...and that should be your goal...not legislated 'forced compliance tolerance'...

IE...your barking up the wrong tree...

 

 

  

 

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

11 hours ago, dbcaptiron said:

Here's the thing HAWG.....for WHATEVER...if it's something people find OFFENSIVE and not in their beliefs you must recognize where YOU in fact stand.... in that very same PUBLIC square ...

You can't jump in a room, demanding respect, and then fart in everyone's faces...

There is a long held tradition that 'nudists' are not allowed to walk down main street...havock ensues...

As long as your not interfering with anyone else, no one else cares what you do...

Probelm is most gays don't understand that....

I'ts not discriminationg to say 'keep it to yourself'...... the military uses it for that reason...

Be like any good 'nudist' and find your safe place where your NOT imposing on others, and they can respect that  ...and respect is even  better than 'tolerance'...And you should REALLY think about what THAT means, when fringe groups want to crossover and live within the boarders of mainstream and mainstreet society...

And always know that you can buy any cake that THEY serve...like everyone else...your welcome...no discrimination...easy, see?

Problem is where you go to a baker and tell him to bake differently (or something different) THAT"S NOT HIS BUSINESS, so you are really out of line and in the wrong store for your chore... 

The PUBLIC SQUARE is a big place...You can't run down main street screaming fire swinging your dong around...the corner that your looking for is south of canal... they have nude parades....

To streak naked thru a bakery, and claim discrimination when you get kicked out is LUDICROUS man.....

AND PEOPLE SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS !!!

 

 

Baically be respectful and mindful of your environs? Would that be a Cliff Note version?

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

12 hours ago, dbcaptiron said:

Hawg, if I touched a nerve I don't know....

That's why I am trying to bang on 'balance'....your not 'wrong' per say at all, I would not even try to debate that...

The 'public square' is SQUARE...it has four little pointed corners that all point to opposite ends of the universe...and people use them as their 'safe spaces' in this regard...    Not everybody is the same....and everyone has rights...get it?

Maybe you don't see where I am coming from on this and you can file it under that categority of 'you can't legislate everything'.  At leasdt It's certainly a category where everything could go 'case by case'. but at some point you can't change all the rules to suit your wants...and then say others need to conform...

and that's not just bad form, that's bad policy... 

 

 

So, let's not legislate every single thing.... just some? Or none?

Basically some shoving belief system down others throats?

[World Citizen]

17 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Well, this side of the thing, I can agree with. I think I did misunderstand what you were saying because my right eye twitched as I thought about how NoleBull chooses to articulate a similar subject. 

I think the first amendment trumps pretty much any statute that would make it illegal to use whatever word you want. Socially on the other hand, it could be very "socially illegal" and cause a person much strife, depending on how much support the person you used the "unacceptable" word against has. 

For instance, it's not illegal to use the N word, but, it will cause you much social strife if you do. I feel the same on these other issues. I personally am the type to try to fit in with the social norms rather than fighting them. If girls decide being called girls is unacceptable as a major unit, then, I suppose I'll do my best to call them what it is they wish.

I don't see that as any different that African Americans deciding that negro was unacceptable as a terminology, and, why should I? 

I guess I was unaware of any legislation to the contrary in the USA as far as making it illegal to use whatever term I choose. 

Now, I think hate speech thresholds can be crossed if you are using a term while committing a battery or assaulting someone. 

I do agree that there are places where one right rubs against another and judgments have to be made. This is why we ultimately have the SCOTUS for. In the cases where some legislation is damaging one's rights while favoring another's rights then it has to have some judgement from somewhere. 

 

 

Hawg, I couldn't have said it better.  I feel exactly the same way and really don't understand the opposition to somebody wanting the same rights regardless if they think themselves a frog, a his her, or anything. 

As for legislating speech, well that's not something I have run up against and unless it is in a business setting or something like that it is not going to affect me in the least.  If I do come up against that then I will have a problem with it.  The idea of legislating speech is as ridiculous as somebody trying to deny somebody's rights.

Basically it comes down to "does your decision hurt somebody else and if it does, don't do it.  If the point is to deny somebody the same rights as you have, then its a bad thing, especially if they are not doing you any harm.  I have yet to hear anybody being harmed by another person doing whatever crazy shit they do to themselves.  And if the harm is having to address somebody by a certain word then maybe that that person should be addressed by that word.  If you don't want to then don't.  No one is going to jail bc of not using the correct word.  If that starts happening then I will be against it. 

I can understand Bob's position on legislating speech but the other arguments are very confusing and irrelevant and seem to take the "My offense is more important than your rights" stance when it has nothing to do with them or their choice to be offended. 

Anyway, excellent post. 

[World Citizen]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:14 PM, Belly Bob said:

Well, I think that some of us conservatives (I'm not even gonna say that I'm not speaking for Nolebull or HSBFfan, since I hope that's obvious enough) are reacting to certain political and legal campaigns coming from the LGBT community and their allies that do bump up against free speech and are troubling in other ways.

For example, consider the legislation that has been passed in NYC and in parts of Canada that forces people, by law, to use an ever-growing list of completely made-up pronouns to refer to persons who do not identify as either male or female. The list is indefinite and ever-growing because the number of genders that persons identify as is ever-growing.

When it comes to gender, you're limited only by your imagination. 

That does affect us, because it attempts to control the way we're allowed to talk and to write, and we should care about that, since (among other reasons) it's anything but obvious that there really is an indefinite number of genders or that your gender is determined by some act of identification.

Legislating speech is wrong and I don't agree with that.  Having said that, I have not been affected and do not see how another persons choice to do whatever the hell they are doing to themselves intrudes on my rights.  As for what to call them or refer to them by, I will call them what they want me to and if I decide to not call them that then I wont.  If they feel they are a frog and I own a business and they walk in to my store I will ask them if I can help them, that is it.  If the situation comes up where I ask if I can help them and they sue me for not addressing them in their preferred word choice, that would be a problem but I don't see that. 

I have read a little bit on this, a very little bit, and I think at the heart of the issue is equal rights and to not be discriminated bc of what you look like or what sex you think you are.  When society wrestles with these things It is likely that we go to far in order to work it all out and we must be aware and vigilant that we return to common sense.  The legislating speech is definitely one of these situations of going to far but I have yet to run into this myself. 

I agree that 58 genders is completely ridiculous and I don't understand it.  When I see that thing with a beard, breast and whatever, I do get a "wtf" thought and do not get it but it is not important for me to get it.  It is simply not important if I agree with a persons choice or not, what is important to me is that every human being feels that they are worthy of love and happiness and if someone decides they do not like that person's life choices, that is their responsibility and not that persons. 

They are making these decisions for themselves and are not making them to offend or piss off everyone else.  Their intent, I believe, is to be happy with themselves and I want everyone to be happy and have a great life.