Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,109 Year: 990/14,231 Month: 990/1,514 Week: 23/234 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New York Gay Marriage
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 211 of 284 (627491)
08-02-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 3:44 PM


None of that was highlighted.
Was the omission intentional, or do you just not know how to do it?
I don't know how to highlight, but if I did I would have done the whole message. Which is why I quoted it all.
Then when I asked if you could offer evidence in the contrary you admit that you can't.
So why bother? Seriously?
Is this how the rest of the thread is going to go? I post something. You say "what"? I repeat it. You say "what"? I repeat it. You say "what"?
Boooooring.
it is not clear in what sense there can be a debate.
There is no debate. There never has been a debate.
I made a statement. You guys admitted to it, but then told me that my opinion didn't count because I'm not gay.
That's not debate. That's just you guys being straightiphobic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:12 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 212 of 284 (627494)
08-02-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Ohruhen
08-02-2011 3:46 PM


However, I don't see why ONLY gays, as defined by the concensus as those who are only interested in members of the same gender as they, are the only ones who would want a "gay marrage".
You are trying to define the term "gay" as meaning strictly men who have sex with men.
I'm using the term "gay" to mean anyone who is involved in relationships with people of the same gender.
I'm pointing out that there is a movement for "gay marriage" which includes "lesbian marriage" and "bi marriage" and whatever else.
I'm pointing out there these is a movement for hate crime protection, for gay rights, etc.
The gay community (note the word "gay" there still covers everyone) is perfectly happy to accept the term gay when they want to use it. However, as has been made abundantly clear through this thread, they want to govern everyone else's use of the term and attack anyone who doesn't use it the "correct" way.
I don't know why some have a problem with you're use of the term gay
I do. It's because I'm straight. They told me as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 3:46 PM Ohruhen has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 213 of 284 (627496)
08-02-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 4:00 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Do you honestly honestly not care?
Do you honestly honestly want to know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 4:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 214 of 284 (627498)
08-02-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 3:17 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Nuggin writes:
Just like if I were to spend 40 posts arguing that I don't seek attention, you would be right to question whether or not that was true.
But your claim that bisexuals are "attention seekers" implies that people who are attracted to both sexes all seek attention far more than other groups, does it not? If not, you could have said "all humans are sometimes attention seekers". And how many people replying to you on this thread have described themselves as bisexual?
Nuggin writes:
Isn't "double denial" a double negative?
Not necessarily. You could be in denial about your own bisexuality, and also in denial about what the generally accepted English language description of your group is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:17 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:21 PM bluegenes has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1590 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 215 of 284 (627499)
08-02-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 4:04 PM


I made a statement. You guys admitted to it, but then told me that my opinion didn't count because I'm not gay.
The only person I recall saying anything like that was drunk, and they apologised for it in Message 131. Perhaps you should let it go?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:04 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:17 PM Modulous has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 216 of 284 (627500)
08-02-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Modulous
08-02-2011 4:12 PM


Perhaps you should let it go?
Notice I didn't respond to them.
Instead I'm responding to your attacks on me.
If you would stop attacking me, I'd stop fighting back. It's pretty simple. I've explained it enough times already.
Stop accusing me of being afraid of you. Stop telling me which words I can and can not use. Stop complaining about me being mean for standing up for myself and it will all be over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 217 of 284 (627501)
08-02-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
But your claim that bisexuals are "attention seekers" implies that people who are attracted to both sexes all seek attention far more than other groups, does it not?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are as gay as a (something that is gay) and that you are male.
You are seeking attention from men.
I am straight. I am male. I am seeking attention from women.
If someone is seeking attention from men AND women, then they are seeking...
...attention far more than other groups
Are they not?
Not necessarily. You could be in denial about your own bisexuality, and also in denial about what the generally accepted English language description of your group is.
Perhaps. Or maybe you are in denial in that you think that you are allowed to use the term "bisexual" without getting accused of being afraid of them since you don't have sex with them.
Or maybe you are in denial about being in denial about being denied the ability to use the word.
At the end of the day it comes down to people who claim that they are covered by the term "gay" when it comes to the TOPIC OF THE THREAD but don't want to be covered by the term "gay" when it comes from a "straight boy".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 4:12 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 4:47 PM Nuggin has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1590 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 218 of 284 (627503)
08-02-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 4:17 PM


If you would stop attacking me, I'd stop fighting back. It's pretty simple. I've explained it enough times already.
I don't remember starting to attack you. I remember objecting to your negative stereotype.
Stop accusing me of being afraid of you.
I've not acused you once, so stopping doing it is trivially easy
Stop telling me which words I can and can not use
My main point was telling you to stop using negative stereotypes. I said earlier that if you really insist on using words in a non-standard uncommon usage kind of way you were free to do so. OF course, it is likely to cause confusion when you are speaking with people using common usage, but that's your problem - not mine.
If, for instance, I claimed I was gay - most (if not all) people would assume that I did not find females attractive which would be giving them the wrong impression. But if you want me to use special rules of interpretation when dealing with you, I'll try to be accomodating to your personal idiosyncrasies. I'll just mentally convert every mention of 'gay' in your posts to 'NugginGay' which means something different than the common use of 'gay'.
Stop complaining about me being mean for standing up for myself and it will all be over
It wasn't for standing up for yourself that I complained. It was for your admission of breaking the forum rules, for arguing insincerely, for not discussing the topic in good faith. If you want to argue in good faith about your negative stereotype of bisexuals as being 'too full of themselves' or 'attention starved' etc I'm entirely happy to discuss that with you further.
I also objected to your negative stereotypes of bisexuals.
To be honest, I did not interpret your attitude as being the attitude of someone 'standing up for themselves', but instead of being a bigoted troll. That seems to be the impression that a lot of other people have too. Perhaps you should take a look at the methods you use to stand up for yourself, if you wish to avoid 'being attacked' in the future.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:17 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:00 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3715 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 219 of 284 (627506)
08-02-2011 4:38 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Your revelation that you were trolling makes it hard to know how to respond to your posts. Are we to assume that you are still trolling, or were there bits of that that you think are true? If the latter, could you please repeat the post with those bits highlighted? Thank you.
Why not debate the message instead of the messenger? I assume that you are trolling, times when I read a post from you, but that doesn’t affect how I formulate a response.
Nuggin writes:
I've told you multiple times that your response to my posts is just evidence that you want attention. I told you that if you stopped responding, it would be evidence that I was wrong about you guys just wanting attention.
But, you just CAN'T DO IT. Can you?
The attention is just too important to you.
It's deliciously ironic that you guys have spent pages and pages and pages complaining about how unfair it is that I color you as being gay (which you admit to) and wanting attention (which CLEARLY you do).
He is a troll too, except he is logical, and you can communicate with him on any given thread. The point of this website is to debate issues, why should someone’s intentions matter? It usually only gets out of hand when you jump in like a mad man, with your strawmen, and name calling.
For Example I play the heel, I disagree with almost everyone on just about every topic, to stimulate a discussion. Half the time I don’t care or believe the things I am typing, I am just trying to come up with relevant information to support the opposite POV. I am not very good at it, and you can often tell, because on many topics I am way off, and easily defeated, but there is no goal to win an argument here (I am not even sure its possible). I learn more about a topic as devilsdavocate, than I ever would if I just agreed with the consensus. I’m devilsadvocate about 75% of the tiem.
Modolous writes:
Hi! Welcome to a debate thread. The format is where you post your opinion and then others criticise or otherwise argue with you. It is not a sign of 'wanting attention' that we are debating with you, it is a sign of enjoying debating with people that we are debating with you. If you do not want someone debating with you, don't post and then there won't be anyone debating with you.
You don't get to disown your negative stereotypes by blaming the person responding to them, I'm afraid.
WORD.

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:01 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2011 5:12 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 226 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2011 5:21 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 220 of 284 (627509)
08-02-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 4:21 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Nuggin writes:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are as gay as a (something that is gay) and that you are male.
You are seeking attention from men.
I am straight. I am male. I am seeking attention from women.
If someone is seeking attention from men AND women, then they are seeking...
[...attention far more than other groups]
Are they not?
No. You could argue that for promiscuous people.
Bisexuals are just attracted to individuals from both groups.
Nuggin writes:
Or maybe you are in denial about being in denial about being denied the ability to use the word.
At the end of the day it comes down to people who claim that they are covered by the term "gay" when it comes to the TOPIC OF THE THREAD but don't want to be covered by the term "gay" when it comes from a "straight boy".
No. At the end of the day, it comes down to the difficulty of making psychological or behavioural generalizations about groups other than those included in the definition of the group.
I think that's what underlies much of the excessive attention you've been enjoying on this thread.
However, I won't entirely rule out my closet bisexual hypothesis. It sometimes does seem that those who would like to divide the complex of human sexuality into just two distinct compartments seem to have something in themselves to be frightened of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:21 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:07 PM bluegenes has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 221 of 284 (627514)
08-02-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Modulous
08-02-2011 4:34 PM


It wasn't for standing up for yourself that I complained. It was for your admission of breaking the forum rules, for arguing insincerely, for not discussing the topic in good faith.
After 4 days of people making gay rape jokes, you THEN decide that I'm the one not discussing the topic in good faith when I object to being told which words I can and can not use based on my sexuality.
Uh huh.
Great that you have such an even handed application of your perception of the rules of conduct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2011 4:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 222 of 284 (627516)
08-02-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 4:38 PM


I disagree!
For Example I play the heel, I disagree with almost everyone on just about every topic, to stimulate a discussion.
I disagree! I think you agree with everyone! I dare you to disagree back!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:38 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 5:07 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 223 of 284 (627519)
08-02-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
You could argue that for promiscuous people.
Bisexuals are just attracted to individuals from both groups.
No one is advocating for "promiscuous rights" or "promiscuous marriage".
No one is saying "because you don't have enough sex, you don't get to use the term promiscuous".
Bisexuals are perfectly willing to be "gay" when it comes to legal issues. They don't get to complain about being deemed "gay" if they themselves are allowing it to happen.
If the bisexuals were to raise a huge stink about "bisexual marriage", then I'd agree with you. They aren't. They are perfectly happy to be "gay" when it suits them. They just want to be able to object if someone from "outside of the club" uses one of their special words.
However, I won't entirely rule out my closet bisexual hypothesis. It sometimes does seem that those who would like to divide the complex of human sexuality into just two distinct compartments seem to have something in themselves to be frightened of.
All of humanity can be divided into two distinct compartments:
Those who agree they can be divided into two distinct compartments and those who disagree.
We can't accomplish _anything_ without using terminology to form collections of people.
Can you imagine how impossible it would be to carry on a debate about "gay marriage" in which EACH AND EVERY relationship was discussed in detail EVERY SINGLE TIME it came up?
Nothing would ever get done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 4:47 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 6:02 PM Nuggin has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3715 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 224 of 284 (627520)
08-02-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 5:01 PM


Re: I disagree!
maybe everyone just disagrees with me...hmm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 5:01 PM Nuggin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 284 (627523)
08-02-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
08-02-2011 4:38 PM


For Example I play the heel, I disagree with almost everyone on just about every topic, to stimulate a discussion. Half the time I don’t care or believe the things I am typing, I am just trying to come up with relevant information to support the opposite POV. I am not very good at it, and you can often tell, because on many topics I am way off, and easily defeated, but there is no goal to win an argument here (I am not even sure its possible). I learn more about a topic as devilsdavocate, than I ever would if I just agreed with the consensus. I’m devilsadvocate about 75% of the tiem.
How do we know that you're not just playing Devil's Advocate now, in claiming that you usually play Devil's Advocate? You could actually really believe everything you type!
Shit, there's no way to tell at all just what you actually believe!
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why you should argue the position instead of the person

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-02-2011 4:38 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023