Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New York Gay Marriage
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 65 of 284 (626808)
07-31-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Nuggin
07-31-2011 12:40 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Are you claiming that bi-sexuals don't have sex with women? It's sort of the whole point of the "bi" part in "bi-sexual".
No.
But claiming that bisexuals are homosexuals who have sex with women because they are 'too full of themselves' to limit their options is sometimes known as bisexual erasure. I'd characterise it as biphobia of a similar magnitude that saying that lesbians are straight women that just need a good rogering.
As someone that enjoys gay porn, straight porn and bisexual porn, as someone who has been in a straight relationship faithfully for 10 years, as someone that enjoys the feel of an erect cock as much as I enjoy a good pair of tits - I do find your understanding of bisexuality to be a little myopic.
You might be standing up for 'gay rights', but you're talking shit about bisexuals, which is I believe what Dr A. was calling you out on.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 12:40 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 1:28 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 70 of 284 (626821)
07-31-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Nuggin
07-31-2011 1:28 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Secondly, if one group wants to isolate themselves from the whole then they run the risk of being ignored.
I have no idea what you think this means. Are you suggesting that bisexuals want to 'isolate' themselves from some group? Is that like how gays want to isolate themselves from heteros?
If the Branch Davidians don't want to be known as "Protestant" as opposed to "Catholic", but rather want to be classified as their own group, then they end up with less voice and less power.
So?
What's next? Will bi-sexuals split into three different groups?
No.
bi-sexuals who strictly have straight sex and never gay sex but still want to be called bi-sexual.
bi sexuals who strictly have gay sex and never straight sex but still want to be called bi-sexual.
bi-sexuals who actually engage in sex with both groups
How about, if you find guys and girls to be attractive you are bisexual. It's not really very complicated.
Why not split further and be "bi-sexuals who have sex more often with men" vs "bi-sexuals who have sex more often with women" vs "bi-sexuals we are absolutely even"
Bisexuals do this. But they are still bisexuals. Because they like men and women to varying degrees (which may even vary through time).
Do you get all huffy about sadomasochists? Do they like to cause pain 10% and receive it 90%? When will the schisms end? Oh what a calamity! What about people's taste in music. Do we have to worry about people that like Mozart and Beethoven to approximately equal measure?
The more you split your special interest, the less interest anyone is going to pay to your group because no one thinks you're all that special.
OK. But what about people that find men and women attractive. Are they just gays, as you claim, who are 'too full of themselves' or are they better classified as bisexuals?
Are you saying that
Lesbian/gay/bi/transexual/transvestite/transgender are far too many categories of sexualities for nuggin's noggin to grasp?
Stop trying to re-label every single individual, get behind a single cause and work as a team.
Who am I trying to relabel? Which team am I on?
In fighting is what has kept social issues down for the entire history of the world.
Then might I suggest you don't accuse bisexuals of being 'too full of themselves' and call them 'homosexuals'. How about you simply acknowledge that such people actually exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 1:28 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 3:58 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 75 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 3:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 82 of 284 (626850)
07-31-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Nuggin
07-31-2011 3:58 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Keep splitting yourself into smaller and smaller groups and you are gonna get left behind by people who don't want to bother having to appease every little bitchy subgroup along the way
Your attitude makes no sense. There are people that find both men and women attractive. These people are called bisexual. Who is going to leave us behind? Who is asking for appeasement? All I am asking is that you don't call me gay when I'm not, and don't call me straight when I'm not. It's hardly a big demand.
It's not like I'm a gay person that acts camp and I insist that I'm not gay but I prefer to be called 'a queen'.
abe: And it's not like the groups can be made smaller and smaller. There are only three possible groups. Those that exclusively like their own sex (gay), people that exclusively like the opposite sex (straight), and those that do find one group exclusively attractive. There are no possible other combinations of human/human sexual attractiveness with regards to the biological sexes.
Sure. They exist. They exist in the same way that vegetarians who eat meat exist.
Then why call them 'homosexuals that are too full of themselves'? It's not like they are making the claim that they are gay while having sex with the opposite sex, like with people that eat meat but call themselves vegetarian.
I find men and women attractive. Am I gay? Am I straight? I submit that I am, by the definitions of gay and straight, neither. That's just the way it is.
By saying that bisexuals exist in the same way that vegetarians who eat meat exist, you are engaged in a biphobic slur by implying that at least one of my sexual attractions is in some way fraudulent.
abe: A vegetarian that eats meat is an omnivore. Are you going to say that omnivores are really vegetarians that are too full of themselves to limit themselves?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 3:58 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 4:44 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 87 of 284 (626862)
07-31-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Nuggin
07-31-2011 4:44 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Because they tend to spend an awful lot of time trying to explain the particulars of their sexual desires.
Great, so if we keep silent on the issue that confirms it, and if we try to correct erroneous views, that confirms it? What a pleasant unfalsifiable position you've created there.
If they weren't full of themselves, then it would be "okay I'm gay. I have sex with women sometimes".
But I'm not gay. I find women sexually attractive. Gay people don't. How is it full of myself to say, in one word, that I find myself sexually attracted to both sexes?
By the way, LOTS of gay guys have had sex with women, they don't identify themselves as Bi or "Used to be BI"
That should give you a clue. They don't identify themselves as bi, because they aren't. They only find men sexually attractive.
The "bi" community seems chock a block with people who want to stop you and say "well, I'm a part of this special group with a special label, because I like this and this and this other thing."
It's not about 'special groups' and 'special labels'. I'm not straight, and I'm not gay. If a term has to be used, then neither of those is useful and a new term needs to be devised. In real life I am closeted to almost all but a select group of friends, so I reject the notion that it's about being part of a special group. And it is definitely not a case of never letting it drop, I barely discuss this on this site - I think this might be the fourth time I have mentioned it.
There are three categories of animal: Those that eat animal meat, those that do not eat animal meat, and those that eat both. None of them are 'special' groups. They are just three different behaviours with regards to animal meat.
They just can't let it go. Can they?
You know how homophobes often find people talking to them about homophobia? Biphobes often find that bisexuals try to correct their view when people call them gays that are full of themselves, or gays that want to have their cake and eat it, indecisive gays, confused straights etc.
People that accept the existence of bisexuals tend not to find many bisexuals that are particularly interested in insisting bisexuality exists.
But if you want me to drop correcting your erroneous views, you have merely to stop airing them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 4:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 7:27 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 284 (626877)
07-31-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Nuggin
07-31-2011 3:55 PM


Re: You don't get it.
During the civil rights movement, you didn't see a bunch of "half blacks" complaining about "half black" rights. You didn't see yet another groups of "1/4 blacks" complaining about "1/4 black rights". Nor "1/8ths".
You didn't have the 1/4 blacks attacking the supporters of civil rights because those supporters weren't taking special care to say: "There shouldn't be segregation between black and white, AND ALSO there shouldn't be segregation between 1/4 blacks and whites".
When your special interest group gets so full of itself that it starts attacking supporters instead of opposition, you end up getting exactly what you deserve. Nothing.
So, instead of fighting for gay rights, you are now asking people to fight for gay AND bisexual rights.
I don't recall anyone saying there should be civil rights for bisexuals. All bisexuals care about is that there are civil rights for gay people and straight people and they will naturally have civil rights as a result. I don't plan to marry a guy, but I would like to have the option, and I'd like for other people to have that option too.
We're just asking to not be called promiscuous gays, confused straights or being told we're full of ourselves. It seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 3:55 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 7:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 105 of 284 (626908)
07-31-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Nuggin
07-31-2011 7:27 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Oh my GOD! Someone who points out that your group is involved in gay sex and we're somehow AFRAID OF YOU?!
Biphobia, like homophobia is not an anxiety disorder like arachnophobia is.
quote:
Biphobia is a term used to describe aversion felt toward bisexuality and bisexuals as a social group or as individuals.
Someone that says all bisexuals are self involved, full of themselves, gay people who don't want to limit themselves would fall under having averse feelings towards bisexuals as a social group.
You could be "straight plus" but since no one is lumping you in with the straights and fighting for "straight marriage" or "straight rights" or "hate crime protection for the straights", you aren't going to get any of that super important attention that you crave so much.
I don't crave attention. I just thought that you might value input from someone claiming to be bisexual. Apparently you'd rather be an arse. Gay people are exclusively attracted to people of their own sex. I am not exclusively attracted to people of my own sex. Therefore I'm not gay.
Given that straight people already have civil rights, the only important part of this claim is your admission that gay rights would INCLUDE BI-SEXUALS.
I never contested that, so why you would think that was an interesting 'admission' is beyond me.
How DARE you include bi-sexuals in gay rights. After all, don't you know, they are a completely separate group who don't want rights given to gays.
What was the point you were trying to make with this hysterical gibberish? Really, I can't understand it at all, could you please make the point in a straightforward manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 7:27 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 11:30 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 113 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 11:35 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 132 of 284 (626988)
08-01-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Nuggin
07-31-2011 11:30 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Here we've spent an entire weekend with a bunch of you guys droning on ENDLESSLY about your various special labels and special treatment.
I've not asked for a special label or special treatment. I've just asked that you don't call me a gay man that is too full of himself to limit myself. It's hardly asking for special treatment not to be insulted is it? It's like a black person asking not be called 'uppity'
...they accuse anyone who doesn't use todays special label of being afraid of them.
I didn't accuse you of being afraid of me. I accused you of biphobia. Biphobia is not strictly about fear. As I have already shown you, and you have evidently chosen to ignore.
You admitted yourself that there are gay guys who have had sex with women yet they are still considered "gay".
That's right, because they are only sexually attracted to people of their own sex. That makes them gay. I'm not only sexually attracted to people of my own sex. That makes me not gay. Not rocket science, really.
So you admit that bi-sexuals fall under the banner of "gay rights" but you deny that bi-sexuals should be considered gay.
Correct. And no, this is not a double standard. Obviously, if I want to marry a guy, I want men to be able to marry men.
Or is this a "nigger" thing? Where you can call bi-sexuals gay but no one else can because it's a special word that only you get to use?
I'm not calling bisexual people gay, so no, it is not like that. I am asking not be called a gay person that is full of himself. Some bisexuals may wish to marry someone within their own sex. In order to do this, gay marriage must be legal. Gay marriage is two people of the same sex getting married - it is not a comment on the sexual persuasion of the participants.
A bisexual person might be in a gay relationship, but if they also find the opposite sex attractive they are not gay.
"bi-sexuals" are just a subset of "gay". "Gay rights" (as you've conceded) covers bi-sexual rights. "Gay marriage" covers any issues bi-sexuals have with marriage equality.
If you had straightforwardly said that (and nothing else), I wouldn't have commented. That's because I have never challenged the notion that gay rights would give rights to bisexuals. It's not a concession, it's been my position all along!
Instead you said that bisexual people were basically attention starved gay people that were too full of themselves to limit who pays them attention, which is problematic.
Your chief complaint apparently is that you don't think it's fair that I use the word "gay" to describe bi-sexuals since I am not "gay" myself.
For my chief complaint, its strange how I never once brought it up. Instead, I have been talking about being called too full of myself to limit myself on the number of people that will give me attention.
Yet, despite bitching ENDLESSLY at me about how "bi-sexuals" are super special rare mystical unicorns, you go right on and talk about gay rights including bi-sexuals in the term.
You know when homophobes rant about how gays want special rights, but gays insist they just want equal rights? You're kind of doing that right now.
I am just asking you don't label me as a self-involved, full of myself, attention seeking gay based on nothing but who I find sexually attractive.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 07-31-2011 11:30 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 9:25 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 138 of 284 (627212)
08-01-2011 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Nuggin
08-01-2011 9:25 AM


Re: You don't get it.
Oh, am I making you mad by flaunting your attempt to put a label on me by arbitrarily declaring that the label doesn't fit because I have a special definition.
Boy, that must be so annoying. I WONDER what that's like.
No, you aren't making me mad. I am just informing you what I mean when I use a word, and backing it up with a reference to that usage. You are ignoring what I mean when I use the word, even after I've explained it. That doesn't make me mad, it just makes me question your sincerity.
How dare you arbitrarily label all gay people that way! Who the hell are you to make those kinds of decisions.
Definitions are arbitrary, by definition! But I'm using the terms as they are commonly used in discussions of sexuality, since we are discussing sexuality. I am an English speaker, that's what gives me the right to use such definitions. If you want to arbitrarily ignore those conventions, you'd better have a good reason beyond bluster.
So, you don't think bisexuals deserve rights under any legislation that protects gays? If you married a dude, it would be "bisexual marriage" not "gay marriage"
What makes you say that? I don't champion 'bisexual rights', I haven't talked about them. Gay rights sufficiently covers the areas where bisexuals feel most of their rights-based issues, I said this before, and I have not once disputed it. If I married a dude it would be a gay marriage, and I champion the option of getting married to someone of the same sex. I'm not demanding that special 'bisexual marriages' exist or anything of that sort, am I?
Are you beginning to see why I say this is all terribly self involved?
No, you haven't explained why it is terribly self-involved to object to being called a self involved, attention starved gay that is too full of himself to limit who I get attention from. That's the only thing I'm objecting too. I'm not suggesting that 'bisexual rights' are being ignored and we should all pay special attention to them, as you seem to be characterising my posts. I'm just objecting to your stereotyping of bisexuals as being self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from.
Silence is not the correct response to discrimination, prejudice or negative stereotyping. According to you, speaking out against such slurs is confirmation of the slur. As I said before - you've built yourself quite the unfalsifiable narrative construct there. Well done.
If you find yourself attracted to the same sex, you are gay. If you are also attracted to other things, you are STILL GAY.
Not by common usage. You are free to have idiosyncratic opinions on that, but my objection isn't really that you are calling me gay. That's entirely unimportant in the scheme of things. It seems to be an erroneous characterisation in the common definitions in use by English speakers, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that common usage is irrelevant to you, so I'm happy to let particular objection drop. The major objection is being called a self involved, attention starved gay that is too full of himself to limit who I get attention from.
If you like to ski, you are a skier. If you ALSO like to go sailing, that doesn't make you NOT a skier.
If you are an animal that only eats plant matter you are a herbivore. If you ALSO eat animal meat you are an omnivore NOT a herbivore.
And instead of letting that go, you spent a weekend screaming "Look at me! This is what I do in the bedroom! Oh god PLEASE pay attention to me! I'm so important! Don't label me as being part of the gay community! I'm part of the gay community, but only I get to say so!"
No I didn't. I wrote a about half a dozen posts trying to point out that characterising all bisexuals as being self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from is problematic. I haven't once declared that I am important, just deserving of not being plastered with a negative stereotype. I don't think I mentioned what I do the bedroom once, let alone beg for you to pay attention to it.
Yeah, you aren't attention starved at all!
Apparently I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. Nevertheless, if you wish to accuse me of being attention starved you are welcome to - I'd just rather you didn't paint all bisexuals in that way. And I'd rather you didn't try and claim that an individual bisexual person attempting to point out the problem with characterising all bisexual people as being self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from is confirmation that all bisexual people are self involved, attention starved gays that are too full of themselves to limit who they get attention from.
The difference here is that I'm FOR gay rights. I'm just not going to play games with every individual who wants a special label just for themselves.
That is an irrelevant difference to the point I was making. I'm not interested in playing games. I'm interested in criticising negative stereotyping. I'm not looking for a special label. I just don't want the label you are putting on me as being self involved, attention starved and too full of myself to limit who I get attention from
I say you're gay, I'm wrong. You say you're gay, you're right.
What are you talking about?
And I notice you're back on the whole "you're afraid of me" thing. AGAIN.
Except I haven't said that you are afraid of me once, and have explicitly said that I am not saying you are afraid of me on several occasions now. I'm beginning to assume you aren't really paying much attention.
nuggin writes:
cavediver writes:
I doubt it. I have often heard my gay friends speak of finally coming to terms that they were not bi, and were definitely gay; that they didn't have to pretend that they found women in any way sexually attractive. I found it fascinating myself how they would describe their revulsion to female genitalia as I would describe my revulsion to other males' genitalia
revulsion to female genitalia as I would describe my revulsion to other males' genitalia.
You are gonna want to edit and delete this section of your post.
As soon as the "bi"s see this, they are going to throw a shit fit and climb all over you for DARING to suggest that there are "gay" people out there who are "gay" yet having sex with women and calling themselves "bi".
You basically just called in a "biphobia drone attack" on yourself.
Be prepared to not really be afraid!
Nothing cavediver said was problematic to me. That you think it is, is evidence that you have misunderstood cavediver, me, or both of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 9:25 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 12:38 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 140 of 284 (627226)
08-01-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Nuggin
08-01-2011 12:38 PM


Re: You don't get it.
But if I make an arbitrary definition of a term, it's _wrong_. However if YOU make an arbitrary definition of a term, it's okay.
But THAT'S not self involved in the least. LOL.
When engaged in a conversation in written English it is expected one sticks to common usage. This is kind of the reason we are both using the same language. If you want to overturn common usage, you need a reason beyond bluster. I think I said that before, clearly you are not paying attention.
Thank you. The next time you make an off the cuff joke and find yourself attacked for 3 straight days about it, I hope you have the fortitude to fight back as well.
If it was a joke, you could have said that much earlier in the discussion couldn't you? You are therefore the only one to blame if you are unhappy about being 'attacked for three days straight'. Remember you are the one that called me self involved and attention starved, so be careful who you are saying is the one under attack. I'm just calling you out on your negative stereotyping, even if it was done in humour.
Yes, but omnivores are not picky about who gets to play the gay card and who doesn't.
This is gibberish. If you were to say that omnivores are really herbivores that are too full of themselves, I'd call you out on it.
If you are walking down the street holding some guys hand and you get attacked. You don't call it a "bi hate crime", you don't decry the discrimination you face as a bi-guy.
Most of the bisexual exclusive discrimination I get is people denying that bisexuals exist, and characterising me as being a gay that can't make up his mind, or who is promiscuous, unfussy, confused etc etc etc. That comes from people like you.
No, at that point you are MORE THAN HAPPY to proclaim that you are gay and that this is a crime against gays.
No I'm not. Nor was I happy to do this when it actually happened to me (though I was in a pub, not walking down the street). That was a homophobic attack if we are to go by their intentions, I don't think it would matter to them that I found women attractive, I was just a fag as far as they were concerned.
don't think I mentioned what I do the bedroom once, let alone beg for you to pay attention to it.
Oh really?!?
as someone that enjoys the feel of an erect cock as much as I enjoy a good pair of tits
Yeah, I guess that's not you talking about your sexual activities at all.
Its about my sexual preferences, not what I do in my bedroom. The latter is none of your business.
He's specifically talking about so called "bisexuals" who are really just gay guys who won't admit that they are gay and are still having sex with women.
No, he's talking about gay people who had to come to terms with the fact that they weren't bisexual. That's why he said 'I have often heard my gay friends speak of finally coming to terms that they were not bi'
However, when I say that there are gay guys who won't admit that they are gay and are still having sex with women - THAT is a problem for you.
No that isn't a problem for me.
See? I told you you had misunderstood cavediver, me or both. It transpires it was both.
Personally, if I was gay and refusing to admit it, I'd go with the positive characterization of "wanting attention" rather than "hating myself".
But if you want to go with "I hate myself" I won't stop you
I don't hate myself. I'm just sexually attracted to both men and women. I had the thought once that I was gay, but I kept finding women attractive, so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 12:38 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2011 1:49 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 147 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2011 7:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 284 (627239)
08-01-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
08-01-2011 1:49 PM


Re: You don't get it.
Frankly - Nuggin is being a twit.
Maybe so, but he's expressing a relatively common view, that in MeatSpace I tend to silently 'put up with', but here at EvC we have an environment suitable to conflict and disagreements so I feel safe expressing my views. Of course, my doing this is apparently just confirming Nuggin's prejudices but it at least puts them out there for everyone else to see.
Out of interest (and you can tell me to piss off or ignore me if this is too personal) are you physically attracted to a "type" that straddles male and female? For example liking slim tall women and boyishly good looking guys I guess would qualify whilst liking petite but curvy girls and huge muscle bound guys would be kinda opposite.
To be honest, while I have a few identifiable types, they don't conform to the expectations you cite. My present partner is quite the curvy girl who likes handbags and shoes. And although I like a squared jawed 'man's man' I also am attracted to people such as Tim Minchin whose quite skinny and slightly effiminate (in his stage getup at least).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2011 1:49 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by hooah212002, posted 08-01-2011 3:09 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 168 of 284 (627366)
08-02-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 3:32 AM


special treatment
You guys have been bitching up a storm demanding all sorts of special treatment
What special treatment are we bitching up a storm demanding? Please be specific.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:32 AM Nuggin has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 184 of 284 (627448)
08-02-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 2:09 PM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:09 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:19 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 187 of 284 (627452)
08-02-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 2:19 PM


I'd believe you except that you went running to mommy to bitch about how mean I was being.
The correct response to people trolling is to bring it up in the appropriate thread for moderator attention. There are rules here, don't cry to me that you admitted breaking them, and someone pointed this out.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:24 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
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

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024