Print

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

[Max White]

Fourth try.

Being openly lesbian, going to church, and insisting on taking a sacrament you do not qualify for under the tenets of the faith, is inappropriate. To then turn around and make a spectacle of the issue is flaunting your sexuality and using the death of your own mother to make a political or social point.

Making a spectacle , eh? You mean like leaving your own church in the middle of the service you are meant to be conducting?

[G-Flex]

Because you said different cultures have different attitudes toward homosexuality. Norse and Greek in particular had a certain acceptance to being the one "on top", and Greek was accepting of pederasty in some instances. Certainly no one was FORCING these people to participate.

So, different societal attitudes create different behaviors. You seem to also hint that these were more or less positive attitudes, but that turns out not to be entirely true.

Oh, I've read....

Cultural attitudes can affect people in ways that are not entirely up to those people. We internalize a lot of ideas as children, and are exposed to a lot of influences that, well, influence the development of our own ideas and senses of self. It is entirely plausible for cultural influences to, in some sense, guide the development of sexuality, without sexual orientation itself being a conscious decision at any stage in the game.

Speaking of objective science concerning the very core of what is subjective seems to me to be pretty amazingly ignorant. There is no scientific model concerning human will. Therefore whatever science can be brought to bear on this is haphazard at best. Most of it is based on polls, which is flatly ridiculous on its face. You do not establish scientific, reproducible models with polls.

People attempting to change their sexual orientation and failing provides evidence that it cannot be consciously changed, especially when there's virtually no evidence of people actually succeeding at it.

Also, for someone who's saying that no scientific knowledge is relevant here, you sure do claim to be able to make a hell of a lot of absolute statements about the subject.

[Lysabild]

Because you said different cultures have different attitudes toward homosexuality. Norse and Greek in particular had a certain acceptance to being the one "on top", and Greek was accepting of pederasty in some instances. Certainly no one was FORCING these people to participate.

So, different societal attitudes create different behaviors. You seem to also hint that these were more or less positive attitudes, but that turns out not to be entirely true.

Oh, I've read....

I'm not even touching the subject of positive and negative, at all.

I'm saying that sexuality is more complex than religion or science can explain, it's not a choice, nor is it necessarily genetic. You are pulling your religion out of your ass as some sort of proof that other cultures that don't even know or care about your religion is subject to it's ideals.

People can engage in homosexual behaviour, without being attracted to men, just like many gay men have children today from their attempts at fitting in.

Thus, your arguement has no relevance, because it does not touch upon what people feel, merely upon what they do.

People across all cultures have done both things they liked and disliked based on what their culture demanded, required and expected of them.

It does not touch their actual sexuality, who they fall in love with. Which faces they admire, which actions make their hearts beat.

What I did, was debunking your "All cultures think homosexuality is awkward." comment.

What you're doing is trying to argue that me and Truean are lesser humans due to your own sect of faith.

I'm pretty sure he's saying something like:

A.) Bringing a gay person to church (or to get the sacrament?)

is like

B.) bringing a stripper to a baby shower: the act would be wholly inappropriate and offensive.

A is B; they are the same or similar? Something along those lines?

I'm pretty sure he's not making any sense.

[Willfor]

To the people who are actually debating Durin with logic: Good on you.

To the people who are being snide and condescending while portraying his argument as something he has clearly stated it is not: Get out.

[Max White]

To the people who are actually debating Durin with logic: Good on you.

To the people who are being snide and condescending while portraying his argument as something he has clearly stated it is not: Get out.

I'm worried now, am I the first or the second? Introspection is never as keen as you want it to be...

[G-Flex]

Yeah, I have no idea who I am either. He's pretty directly stated that the APA/liberalism is an attack on Christianity, that homosexuality is inherently unwholesome to humans, and... yeah, I'm not sure what I could be misconstruing it as.

[Leafsnail]

It's kindof ironic when people choose to just make a vague blanket statement of condemnation rather than address the points they don't like.  I guess it means that people can't respond!

[Willfor]

I noticed a number of points where people were mischaracterizing, or even contradicting what Durin has already said in accusations against him, and I simple don't have time at the moment to type up a list of them. So far G-Flex, Max White and Lysabild have avoided this. Okay? Cool. I'm kind of under a time crunch here which sort of came on suddenly but I wanted to get that point out there before things went further. Possibly bad form of me, and I will accept that.

[kaijyuu]

What part of this thread ever ends well? Ending well is not what this thread does, it just gets more brutal until we decide to draw the line and introduce a new topic.

Allow me to say, if your views haven't been challenged here, and if you haven't learned anything or changed your opinions, you're Doin' it Wrong. I don't see this thread as a pointless "spew one's opinion" thread; discussion has a point and purpose, and that is seeing things from different points of view and refining one's opinions.

If anyone here is just posting things that annoy them and asking for a show of hands for agreement and nothing else, not caring about opposing views or arguments, all I have to say is: get out. Fortunately I don't think anyone's actually doing that.




*goes back and reads responses to my rant*

Ah yes, this is the discussion I wanted and wasn't getting elsewhere.


This looks like the cumulation of all the previous discussion so I'll reply to it:

You say this as if we're talking about a real person, here. We're not. "When they weren't at their best" is a little silly when we're talking about the initial characterization of a fictional entity, which serves as the only possible basis for their character so far, which is something any writer knows and will pay attention to. First impressions matter in life and in fiction, and in fiction, writers know to use a first impression to establish the character's traits in general.

Assuming that anyone is anything because of superficial traits is silly, yes, but we're talking about a fictional character being portrayed as a stereotypical caricature of something. This is completely different. A character having impaired motor control, screwy eyes, a dopey-sounding voice, a generally high level of ineptitude, and a lack of awareness of what they're doing is a pretty solid combination for the stereotypical caricature of a mentally-disabled person, whether you would assume a person to be mentally disabled because of those traits in real life or not. Hell, of course it's silly to assume that someone is a certain thing just because they happen to fit a stereotypical portrayal of that thing, but basing a character on a stereotypical portrayal of that thing is still not a very good idea. Especially not when you name them after something already connected with that thing. Not that I think I'll ever be able to convince you that the word "derp" is at all connected with the concept of ridiculous stupidity, but the fact is that it is.

First off I'll concede to a large degree about the name. The "herp derp" thing has always read to me as an insult roughly equal to "window licker." Were that the only thing changed I wouldn't of made my previous post.
Things of note about the name though:
- I know from personal experience that the name's use, in the fandom at least, is 100% benign. She's not dubbed "derpy" as a way to mock her or her behavior. Outside of that I can definitely see where you're coming from, though.
- An alternative (Ditzy Doo) was originally proposed by the showrunners, since an offscreen pony had that name in one of the episodes (flying dice referred to it). I honestly don't see it as any less offensive assuming one knows the meaning behind both words, and more so if one doesn't know the term "derp" at all (like, you know, the target audience).
- Finally the naming structure of the show revolves around naming characters based on traits, and it's not always positive traits. A haughty child character is named "silver spoon" due to being a spoiled brat, for example. Derpy's big trait is being clumsy (for whatever reason), so she should probably have a name about that. If we say Derpy can't have a name based around a flaw of hers, but others can, we're back to positive discrimination territory.

I'll be calling her Derpy rather than any other alternative for the remainder of this post though just to clarify any ambiguity.


The rest of the argument revolves around whether she's a "caricature" or not. G-Flex and Flying Dice both made good points about impressions; all we see is this minute and a half clip, and we're supposed to laugh at her antics. Is it saying that handicapped individuals are like this, or is it saying Derpy is like this? Only the former is actually bad; a character being a stereotype is nether a positive or negative thing. It only becomes a problem when the story in question appears to be extrapolating the portrayed characteristics to every other member of the minority's group, and when you only have one character like that (in one scene, no less), it's not too huge a logical leap.

I'm going to side with Flying Dice here and say that if she got more screentime with her old characteristics in different situations, these accusations of her being a caricature wouldn't hold water. Indeed, as the censored scene shows, there's nothing wrong with a character being clumsy or oblivious; it's only somehow wrong when a handicapped individual is being clumsy and oblivious. If she were shown to be more than just that, first impressions wouldn't be negative, and thus anyone complaining would be saying that handicapped individuals cannot have flaws: the very issue of positive discrimination I'm railing against.



I maintain throughout this that there is nothing wrong with Derpy's old voice or eyes (well, beyond the voice plain sucking -- nothing to do with whether it's indicative of a handicap or not). Things can be wrong though if these traits are portrayed in a negative manner; as if they're "bad" traits, and something to be ashamed of.

I can make an analogy with pretty much any other stereotype out there, so I'll go with another with an unusual voice: the flamboyant homosexual. It's become a bit of a cliche nowadays, but people like that actually exist, albeit rarely. Are they indicative of homosexuals as a whole? Hell no. And yes, it's a problem when every homosexual is portrayed that way, because then it's saying that all homosexuals are like that. But can a show portray such a character (and without positive discrimination)? It's possible. They just have to unfortunately explicitly state "these characteristics are this particular character's characteristics, not characteristics shared by every person in this minority" because people will unfairly extrapolate otherwise. And do note, if we were to say no flamboyant homosexuals can be portrayed on screen, that's a massive insult to everyone who is actually like that; they're somehow "bad" or "embarrassing" to the rest of their group. "Stop being so stereotypical" is a very offensive thing to say without backing it up with something beyond the mere existence of a stereotype.

I can't really say that real people exist that are 100% similar to Derpy, but I wouldn't be surprised. Regardless, you'll have a hell of a time convincing me that her traits are bad things to have. So she has wall eyes and a funny voice; whup-dee-fucking-do. None of those are reasons to look down on someone, real or fictional, handicapped or otherwise. As for being clumsy... well written characters have flaws. If you exclude flaws from a character out of fear of offending the group they belong to, then that only weakens the character. Women for example have been trying for decades to actually be depicted as human rather than a very short list of character types with "acceptable" flaws. Sure most of that is motivated by residual misogyny, but they're also pigeonholed into character types like this for non-malicious reasons, and it is absolutely no better. Doing the same to handicapped individuals, saying they can't be certain character types or have certain flaws for fear of offending them, is just as bad.

[Max White]

I noticed a number of points where people were mischaracterizing, or even contradicting what Durin has already said in accusations against him, and I simple don't have time at the moment to type up a list of them. So far G-Flex, Max White and Lysabild have avoided this. Okay? Cool. I'm kind of under a time crunch here which sort of came on suddenly but I wanted to get that point out there before things went further. Possibly bad form of me, and I will accept that.

So for once I'm not an antagonist? I feel... disappointed.

[Leafsnail]

I noticed a number of points where people were mischaracterizing, or even contradicting what Durin has already said in accusations against him, and I simple don't have time at the moment to type up a list of them. So far G-Flex, Max White and Lysabild have avoided this. Okay? Cool. I'm kind of under a time crunch here which sort of came on suddenly but I wanted to get that point out there before things went further. Possibly bad form of me, and I will accept that.

It wouldn't take long at all to point out the bit you don't like and briefly explain why.  As it is you're making a really vague criticism of me that I wouldn't be able to address even if I wanted to because you haven't specified what it is.

[Durin]

If homosexuality is not inherently unwholesome to humans, please explain to me why it is that people avoid participating in the behavior? If people are neutral toward it, then why would they nor participate in it in approximately the same frequency as masturbating?

People have not been shown to change their orientation? We have just discussed cultures where homosexual behaviors were accepted and seemed to be more common. There is also this.

"In many cases among men, the partner who penetrates another sexually is not regarded as homosexual among fellow inmates, and the receptive partner (who may or may not be consenting) is called a "woman", a "bitch", a "punk", or a "prag","
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

And yet, does not the penetrative partner have to get an erection first, and maintain it while having intercourse with someone of the same gender, assuming of course they are male? This is obviously a choice in opposition to previous so called "orientation". This exactly reflects attitudes we know existed in Greece and among the Norse. Celts, while lacking much in the way of their own literature to back this up, were said to be even more openly gay and less concerned with the dominance aspect. I am not sure what to make of this, as it seems to violate most of the cultures around the world, except to say that if it is true it utterly flies in the face of the idea that people cannot control their orientation.

The assertion that people cannot change it comes mostly from studies about people who were strongly oriented to be purely homosexual and claim not to have been able to change. However, other statistics also refute this evidence by pointing out that this sort of homosexuality is the exception and not the rule.

"Most surveys have reported that the great majority (80-90%)
of those with homosexual experience, both men and women, have also had full
sexual relations with the opposite sex, and most of those who call themselves
"gay" or "lesbian" have also had full sexual relations with the opposite sex. Not
that infrequently, these heterosexual contacts occur in so-called gay ghettoes,
with other gays and lesbians (Cameron 2000, Lemp et al. 1995)."

http://www.anthroserbia.org/Content/PDF/Articles/cvorovic_nonhuman_primates_sexual_behaviour.pdf

And yet, all around the world, for the vast majority of people, homosexual relations simply are not acceptable TO THEM PERSONALLY. And while all of you are loathe to admit to it, me and everyone else who are not sold out to the idea that homosexuality is the best thing ever, and a civil right, and that there just must be something intrinsically wrong with anyone who disagrees with that attitude, know in our own experience that even to see the behavior is to be at least mildly sickened.

Is this "homophobia"? Have you just decided to relegate the vast majority of men to the status of being mentally ill for having a natural revulsion towards the idea of having sex with other men?

I do not feel you are being honest. I also feel most of you are deeply motivated by anger and hatred. I feel that because of the way I am repeatedly treated when having this discussion with people deeply committed to the cause of gay rights. I also see in history, and have made mention of aspects of it to you without any real response from any of you to the contrary, that there is an anti-religious undercurrent in recent western society that has no good basis in fact, has been repeatedly debunked in terms of people, even if they abandon Christianity, typically going back to some neo-pagan or "new age" religious views rather than becoming good atheists as Enlightenment era philosophers thought would happen.

In other words, people experience life spiritually (I think most likely due to the experience of being conscious and of perceiving themselves as making choices) and therefore reject the exclusively materialistic model of reality.

So to sum up, it seems clear to me that there is a lot of choice in homosexual behavior. It seems clear that the reason it tends to be frowned upon, not just by Christianity but by most cultures through most of history, is that there is an intrinsic revulsion there for most people. I find that people who deny these facts tend to use sensationalistic arguments and threats and name calling rather than addressing these issues head on, and finally I see it mostly from people with an emphatically anti-Christian mindset.

I was raised to be gay friendly and tolerant. Until the last what... four or five years, I would have qualified as a liberal on these issues. It is you who have decided to take it to the next level, liken a specific sexual behavior to things like gender, race, or religion, and then push the issue to the point where people have quite literally been arrested for saying rather innocuous things like, "homosexuality is a sin," in the Christian context.

If you do not see the danger to freedom of conscience or religion in this development, I can only say that is even more dangerous than all the rest.

[G-Flex]

If homosexuality is not inherently unwholesome to humans, please explain to me why it is that people avoid participating in the behavior? If people are neutral toward it, then why would they nor participate in it in approximately the same frequency as masturbating?

You might as well ask why fewer people are left-handed. Some traits are just, for whatever reason, less common than others, even if they aren't "unwholesome".

Also, non-heterosexual orientation carries with it a pretty significant social stigma. You ask me why people would avoid it when they grow up learning that men like women and women like men, and that anything else is abhorrent.

People have not been shown to change their orientation? We have just discussed cultures where homosexual behaviors were accepted and seemed to be more common.

... These are not the same thing. Demographics changing does not mean individuals have changed, and individuals changing does not mean that those individuals make the conscious decision to change.

And yet, does not the penetrative partner have to get an erection first, and maintain it while having intercourse with someone of the same gender, assuming of course they are male? This is obviously a choice in opposition to previous so called "orientation".

Situational behavior like that occurs sometimes when there's no other sexual outlet, and in any case, this is obviously not normal or healthy sexual behavior; it's predatory and used to establish dominance. There are complex motivations there aside from just sex.

You also can't assume that people who feel the impulse to engage in situational homosexual behavior choose consciously to feel that impulse.

This exactly reflects attitudes we know existed in Greece and among the Norse. Celts, while lacking much in the way of their own literature to back this up, were said to be even more openly gay and less concerned with the dominance aspect. I am not sure what to make of this, as it seems to violate most of the cultures around the world, except to say that if it is true it utterly flies in the face of the idea that people cannot control their orientation.

How exactly does "more people are gay in one culture than other" fly in the face of conscious choice of orientation? All it flies in the face of is the idea that sexual orientation is purely genetic.

And yet, all around the world, for the vast majority of people, homosexual relations simply are not acceptable TO THEM PERSONALLY. And while all of you are loathe to admit to it, me and everyone else who are not sold out to the idea that homosexuality is the best thing ever, and a civil right, and that there just must be something intrinsically wrong with anyone who disagrees with that attitude, know in our own experience that even to see the behavior is to be at least mildly sickened.

You know that people in the US used to feel almost exactly the same way about interracial marriage/children, right?

Is this "homophobia"? Have you just decided to relegate the vast majority of men to the status of being mentally ill for having a natural revulsion towards the idea of having sex with other men?

I never called homophobia a mental illness. As I understand the term, it refers to the same thing you're referring to: A revulsion toward homosexuality in other people.

has been repeatedly debunked in terms of people, even if they abandon Christianity, typically going back to some neo-pagan or "new age" religious views rather than becoming good atheists as Enlightenment era philosophers thought would happen.

Those who don't affiliate themselves with any religion have been growing in recent generations as a demographic. I did not make this up.

In other words, people experience life spiritually (I think most likely due to the experience of being conscious and of perceiving themselves as making choices) and therefore reject the exclusively materialistic model of reality.

Some people do. Others don't. Why can't you accept that?

I was raised to be gay friendly and tolerant. Until the last what... four or five years, I would have qualified as a liberal on these issues. It is you who have decided to take it to the next level, liken a specific sexual behavior to things like gender, race, or religion, and then push the issue to the point where people have quite literally been arrested for saying rather innocuous things like, "homosexuality is a sin," in the Christian context.

If you do not see the danger to freedom of conscience or religion in this development, I can only say that is even more dangerous than all the rest.

Your persecution complex is showing. Nobody worth mentioning in the US is telling you how to live your life at all, or what to believe, or that you have to think homosexuality is okay. Nobody is telling churches that they have to marry gay people. The only thing the gay rights movement has to do with is allowing non-heterosexuals to live their lives as they please, just as heterosexuals do. That's it. This is nothing that persecutes Christianity or Christians whatsoever, or that infringes upon their right to think gay people are icky.

[Durin]

Your refusal to answer the first question in any sort of thoughtful manner made me pretty much skip the rest of your post. If you cannot discuss the issue openly, and directly address people's thoughts, then really what is the point?

Persecution complex? People have been arrested, sir. Arrested. Merely for saying the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Gays invade churches in costume to mock the procedures, and people such as yourself name call constantly. No... it's not a complex.

[G-Flex]

Your refusal to answer the first question in any sort of thoughtful manner made me pretty much skip the rest of your post. If you cannot discuss the issue openly, and directly address people's thoughts, then really what is the point?

I did answer the question. I answered it by saying that you could ask the exact same question about being left-handed. Some traits are less common than others, and sometimes it's not clear why. I also gave a potential sociological reason for it.

Persecution complex? People have been arrested, sir. Arrested. Merely for saying the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Gays invade churches in costume to mock the procedures, and people such as yourself name call constantly. No... it's not a complex.

I've never actually heard of these things happening, yet I've heard of many, many, many hate crimes against homosexuals, from actual murder to bullying teenagers to the point of suicide. Can you please back up your claims?