Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

...Well, if we were to take a different example.

Imagine that everyone at school began using your name as a word for "generally bad".  Would you not interpret that as offensive?

Basically, using "gay" for "bad" means that you're strongly implying that homosexual = bad (and that therefore your sentence is valid).  The definitions aren't separate in any way at all.

People use my name while talking about hair drier settings, that does not mean I have anything to do with hair products.
If Adam's work in below standard, and Eve comes up to him and tell's him that 'He's work is max', then I may be offended. Unless, of coarse, it was just how people talked. If it was common to refer to a failer as 'Max', I would not care.

While there may be in link in the history of the word, it still doesn't have ill intent.

Intent isn't what's important in this situation. It's the link.

I can link the United states to slavery in the past. That does not mean that America supports slavery. Intent is what matters here, how the word came into it's current usage is less important.

[Willfor]

I have to wonder at future generations, when Christmas rolls around and they find themselves singing "our gay apparel" in traditional music. I, personally, would rather it not have negative connotations, and simply confusing ones. Gay had a positive connotation before it didn't all of a sudden.

[Vector]

Slavery: it ended a long time ago.  If you said "that's so American" every time some country or individual perpetuated a great act of cruelty, I imagine the United States would inherit a rather worse image by proxy.

Homophobia: it's happening right now.

[Max White]

I have to wonder at future generations, when Christmas rolls around and they find themselves singing "our gay apparel" in traditional music. I, personally, would rather it not have negative connotations, and simply confusing ones. Gay had a positive connotation before it didn't all of a sudden.

That does bring forward an interesting point. Were somebody to say they had a 'gay old time' after a fine day at the beach, an were using the word in a positive context, do we say it is 'charged with good will towards homosexuals'? Or do we accept the word has multiple meanings depending on context and intent.

[fqllve]

I can link the United states to slavery in the past. That does not mean that America supports slavery. Intent is what matters here, how the word came into it's current usage is less important.

That is a really poor comparison. Entities and words are not judged in the same way.

Intent might be more important if the link weren't so clear and obviously offensive.

[Criptfeind]

If it was common to refer to a failer as 'Max', I would not care.

Not even if it was used like that because it was referring to you?

I can link the United states to slavery in the past. That does not mean that America supports slavery. Intent is what matters here, how the word came into it's current usage is less important.

Really? You can link the positive usage of the word slavery in the U.S. to a past negative usage?

Hell, I was not even aware you could use it positively!

[Max White]

I can link the United states to slavery in the past. That does not mean that America supports slavery. Intent is what matters here, how the word came into it's current usage is less important.

That is a really poor comparison. Entities and words are not judged in the same way.

Intent might be more important if the link weren't so clear and obviously offensive.

No, entities and words are just judged the same way, so while the word 'gay' may in some cases have a negative connotation, the entity that is the gay community would not be judged the same way. After all, nobody mistakes me for a hair drier setting, despite the fact that the word 'Max' clearly can refer to the highest setting for a device. Although when somebody says 'Hey Max, could you come here for a second!' I can tell they don't want a setting, but are talking to me. Intent is very important in figuring out what people mean, and most people do not intent on slandering homosexuals.

If it was common to refer to a failer as 'Max', I would not care.

Not even if it was used like that because it was referring to you?

Unfair example. In my story of Adam and Eve, Eve was not referring to any gay person, or gay people in general.

[Criptfeind]

Hey, you know what? Turns out settings are not derogatories.

Unfair example. In my story of Adam and Eve, Eve was not referring to any gay person, or gay people in general.

Then you using your name was a bad example. The point is would you care if it was linked to failing because it was at one time linked to you?

[Vector]

You seem to not understand that something can occur without your express permission for it to occur.

It does slander homosexuals, so when you use that word negatively, you are slandering homosexuals whether you like it or not.  Now you know, so you can choose to stop--or you can choose to continue, knowingly and willingly.

[Max White]

Hey, you know what? Turns out settings are not derogatories.

I still don't believe I am being talked about when people use the term though, regardless of connotation.

You seem to not understand that something can occur without your express permission for it to occur.

It does slander homosexuals, so when you use that word negatively, you are slandering homosexuals whether you like it or not.  Now you know, so you can choose to stop--or you can choose to continue, knowingly and willingly.

You might want to read my past posts, where I said it would be unwise to continue to use the term like this for fear that it still might offend. I chose willingly to not use the term like that long before your post.

[Vector]

... Then why are you arguing about it?

[Max White]

Because I am arguing that the word is not 'charged with ill intent', like has already been said. If somebody uses the term like that, it is not because they hate gays, but because the word has two meanings.

[Vector]

... The point is not that the word is charged with ill intent, but that its use in that manner produces negative connotations for the other associated concept.

[Criptfeind]

... Then why are you arguing about it?

He is arguing it should not offend.

Pretty poorly considering he just ignored the point of what you posted in favor of pointing out something unrelated to your argument.

I still don't believe I am being talked about when people use the term though, regardless of connotation.

So? Once again you ignore my question of would you be offended if it was used derogatorily because its connection to you.

[Max White]

That's not exactly the case. It doesn't necessarily mean homosexual when used negatively.

However, it is very likely derived from gay's change to mean homosexual.

And yet, the statement remains charged with ill will towards homosexuals.

Seems that the point is that the word is charged with ill intent. At least for what I'm debating, if you happen to attack my points with something irrelevant that is hardly my fault.