Am I a close-minded bigot?

[0roo0roo]

lets look at boones unhealthy arguement here.


homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other, even though they have the ability to procreate with the opposite sex. reproduction is key to health, therefore homosexuals are unhealthy.

priests cannot reproduce because they are celibate, even though they have the ability to procreate with the opposite sex. reproduction is key to health, therefore priests are unhealthy.

priests for the most part choose this unhealthy life style. homosexuals are genetically doomed. choosing evil is worse then predisposition. priests are more vile then homosexuals.

infertile couples...well more unhealthiness there.

don't get me started on nuns.


too bad the premises are false but boone doesnt know that his head is in the sand. ah well, its his faulty logic. it doesn't work even if you accept the false premises.

 

[Moonbeam]

So Boone, did you get your answer?

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So Boone, did you get your answer?

Yes, but I don't think it's the answer you are thinking of.

On the topic of whether I am a close-minded I would say that I receive input and form an opinion. Just like anyone else. Given overwhelming information to the contrary, I am open to changing my opinion. Here's an example: I used to be an Apple/Mac user. I did not like PCs. After more education on PCs, I saw the flexibility and expandability offered by the PC over the Mac. So I reversed my position.

To say that I am a bigot, I think that you have to prove the position that I am intolerant. Bigot: person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

Your repeated claim that I must have a mental disease because I do not like homosexuals rings more true of bigotry than anything I have said.

I am tolerant, I just don't agree with you.

As far as the poll is concerned, there was a 2:1 "Yes" majority yesterday, but it's slowly swinging back the other way...

 

[DaFinn]

Didn't read the thread, nor do I know you, but I answered yes just for the heck of it!

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: DaFinn
Didn't read the thread, nor do I know you, but I answered yes just for the heck of it!

Thank you! It's always nice to get an unbiased opinion!

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

To say that I am a bigot, I think that you have to prove the position that I am intolerant. Bigot: person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

The label of bigot appears to be tossed around because you seem to ignore both evidence and logic in support of the opposing position.

Homosexuals do not reproduce, therefore they are "bad" (If A, then B).

By logical extension, it follows that other groups that do not reproduce, either by virtue of celibacy or cause of infertility, are also "bad" (If A2, then B). If B is not true in the second case, that is, if you have no quibble with those who are infertile or celibate, one of two conclusions can be drawn. Either the implication (lack of reproduction being "bad") is wrong, or there is something specific about homosexual non-reproduction which is bad independent of lack or reproduction, which suggests the bias you're denying.

I don't care if you like homosexuals or not, but to continue to say that your arguments are logical either exposes a lack of logical training, or self-assuring rationalization.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

To say that I am a bigot, I think that you have to prove the position that I am intolerant. Bigot: person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

The label of bigot appears to be tossed around because you seem to ignore both evidence and logic in support of the opposing position.

Homosexuals do not reproduce, therefore they are "bad" (If A, then B).

By logical extension, it follows that other groups that do not reproduce, either by virtue of celibacy or cause of infertility, are also "bad" (If A2, then B). If B is not true in the second case, that is, if you have no quibble with those who are infertile or celibate, one of two conclusions can be drawn. Either the implication (lack of reproduction being "bad") is wrong, or there is something specific about homosexual non-reproduction which is bad independent of lack or reproduction, which suggests the bias you're denying.

I don't care if you like homosexuals or not, but to continue to say that your arguments are logical either exposes a lack of logical training, or self-assuring rationalization.

I said that homosexuals were unhealthy and unnatural. One of the reasons given was the inability to reproduce. This is not the same thing as saying they don't reproduce so they are "bad". I'm not lumping all non-reproductive members of society into one 'bad' bucket. However, I think you have to ignore simple biological facts not to notice that homoesexuals don't benefit from offspring.

 

[Gaard]

I'm just not seeing it as unhealthy due to the inability to reproduce. Maybe you could elaborate/explain a little? Why do you think the inability to reproduce is unhealthy? Unhealthy as in sick? Diseased? Damn it! Explain yourself, man!

 

[Maetryx]

From The Weird Republic

Indeed, our first lessons in disgust begin with toilet training. Feces are the universal disgust substance. Children must be taught that poop is yucky. Later this fussy judgemental emotion will be directed toward other squishy, crawly, slimy, smelly things. As the child matures, this most moral of emotions will be used to take the measure of less material things such as behaviors, images or abstract ideas. Soon our disgust responses have become second nature, a part of our essense. Eventually, we learn to be offended by the history of things; the idea of contamination, both actual and spiritual, becomes a dimension of our disgust response.

A favorite test item used by disgust researchers Paul Rozin and Jonathan Haidt (University of Pennsylvania) is Hitler?s sweater. People were asked if they would wear Hitler?s sweater. The answer? ?No.?
?What if we washed it??
?No.?
?What if we completely unravelled it and then knitted a new sweater from the yarn??
?Still no.?

The sweater had become unalterably spiritually contaminated. Said psychologist Rozin: ?You can?t do anything for most people to make it un-Hitlered.?

To repeat, the seat of all of this judgement making is the potty seat. It all begins with toilet training. Now consider: the most emotionally charged homoerotic image is that of a man plunging his erect penis through another man?s anal sphincter and deep into his rectum. This is the image that makes straight people really squirm and it?s a direct contradiction of the excrement taboo. The participants have stained themselves with the universal disgust substance; they have become spiritually contaminated. This explains why male homosexuals are so often the targets of strong emotion while lesbians are regarded as little more than curiosities. Most people find this easy violation of our earliest taboo simply disgusting.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Maetryx
From The Weird Republic

Indeed, our first lessons in disgust begin with toilet training. Feces are the universal disgust substance. Children must be taught that poop is yucky. Later this fussy judgemental emotion will be directed toward other squishy, crawly, slimy, smelly things. As the child matures, this most moral of emotions will be used to take the measure of less material things such as behaviors, images or abstract ideas. Soon our disgust responses have become second nature, a part of our essense. Eventually, we learn to be offended by the history of things; the idea of contamination, both actual and spiritual, becomes a dimension of our disgust response.

A favorite test item used by disgust researchers Paul Rozin and Jonathan Haidt (University of Pennsylvania) is Hitler?s sweater. People were asked if they would wear Hitler?s sweater. The answer? ?No.?
?What if we washed it??
?No.?
?What if we completely unravelled it and then knitted a new sweater from the yarn??
?Still no.?

The sweater had become unalterably spiritually contaminated. Said psychologist Rozin: ?You can?t do anything for most people to make it un-Hitlered.?

To repeat, the seat of all of this judgement making is the potty seat. It all begins with toilet training. Now consider: the most emotionally charged homoerotic image is that of a man plunging his erect penis through another man?s anal sphincter and deep into his rectum. This is the image that makes straight people really squirm and it?s a direct contradiction of the excrement taboo. The participants have stained themselves with the universal disgust substance; they have become spiritually contaminated. This explains why male homosexuals are so often the targets of strong emotion while lesbians are regarded as little more than curiosities. Most people find this easy violation of our earliest taboo simply disgusting.

Well there ya go. That's why I find it repulsive, I bet. If, yesterday, someone had asked me why I find homosexuality disgusting, I woul've just said "I don't know. I just find the thought of man on man repulsive." But, thanks to Maetryx, I now understand why I find it repulsive.

Now can we drop all this unhealthy crap?


PS to Maetryx - Whatever happened to your trademark "Maetryx here "?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Love is love, whether mother & father, father & father, or mother & mother.

Why is it so hard to live at let live?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Am I a close-minded bigot?

Which begs the question; Can others label you one without in turn being one for doing so?

BINGO, we have a winner!! (in this otherwise pointless and stupid thread)

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Last I checked, we humans were polluting cities, the environment, and starving to death in many areas because there are just too damn many of us. It's not like Homo sapiens sapiens is teetering on the brink of extinction right now.

And we have a real bigot revealing himself here. Didn't know until now that you were an anti-human, Fausto1. :|

Do I agree with everything BooneRebel has posted (as if anyone really cares)? No.
Do I think he's a bigot? No to that as well. He has his opinions and he's entitled to them. He has his right to free speech and he has exercized it. Personally, judging from the tone, attitude, style of argument, and manner of those who have opposed him, I'm pretty disgusted by you all.
When do we institute Crimethink? :disgust:

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Am I a close-minded bigot?

Which begs the question; Can others label you one without in turn being one for doing so?

BINGO, we have a winner!! (in this otherwise pointless and stupid thread)

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Last I checked, we humans were polluting cities, the environment, and starving to death in many areas because there are just too damn many of us. It's not like Homo sapiens sapiens is teetering on the brink of extinction right now.

And we have a real bigot revealing himself here. Didn't know until now that you were an anti-human, Fausto1. :|

Do I agree with everything BooneRebel has posted (as if anyone really cares)? No.
Do I think he's a bigot? No to that as well. He has his opinions and he's entitled to them. He has his right to free speech and he has exercized it. Personally, judging from the tone, attitude, style of argument, and manner of those who have opposed him, I'm pretty disgusted by you all.
When do we institute Crimethink? :disgust:

You hate a group of people who have done no harm to you and you're a bigot.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
You hate a group of people who have done no harm to you and you're a bigot.

Are you talking to me? I have not said I "hated" anyone. I said I was "disgusted." Big difference. And the people I am disgusted by have harmed me. They are creating a world with limited freedom of expression.
And no one, NO ONE, has ever called me a bigot before in my entire life. Be aware of that. To people who know me, I am considered extremely open-minded. edit: I'm sure you've heard it all before so I won't elaborate.
People are entitled to their own beliefs, opinions, and ways of life so long as they do not harm others. By attacking anyone who does not hold to your own standards, you make yourself no better than those you accuse.

edit: emphasis added for Moonie's benefit.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're right, Vic. Nobody should has any business pointing out to a Nazi that their belief system is sick.

 

[Gnurb]

15 year-old performs oral sex on a school bus - right or wrong? My answer: Wrong

oh soo right...what was wrong with my school bus in middle school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tom]

I am posting this without reading the thread, because I don't think I'm all that interested in the question.

But it occured to me that if someone is concerned enough to ask the question, the chances are you are not close-minded. As for the other part I don't know the answer.

(btw, if I posted in this thread earlier, I don't remember doing so. Any conflicts between what I say in this post and what I might have said before, I claim feeble-mindeness caused by advanced aging as a defense. )

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're right, Vic. Nobody should has any business pointing out to a Nazi that their belief system is sick.

Sure, sure, Moonie... but which one's the Nazi?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're right, Vic. Nobody should has any business pointing out to a Nazi that their belief system is sick.

Sure, sure, Moonie... but which one's the Nazi?

There are three choices here, the opressor, the opressed or the defender... you figure it out...

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're right, Vic. Nobody should has any business pointing out to a Nazi that their belief system is sick.

Sure, sure, Moonie... but which one's the Nazi?

There are three choices here, the opressor, the opressed or the defender... you figure it out...

And there are the indifference. In some situation, they are the worst kind.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

you're definitely close minded. bigot? probably not. just ignorant.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
you're definitely close minded. bigot? probably not. just ignorant.

Enlighten me...

 

[skace]

So if the ability to reproduce makes you a hero in Boone's eyes, those moms on welfare with 12 children must be his ideal image for everyone. Seriously, where do you get off thinking reproducing automatically makes you healthy?

Reproduction is a balance, it is neither good nor bad

You need to reproduce the number of people you had in previous generation to maintain numbers.
If your society has too few people, you need to reproduce more.
If your society has too many people, you need to reproduce less.

As a whole, humans have been reproducing A LOT. This should be quite obvious by the numbers of people. Some nations even have laws against having more than 1 kid. If a nation has a law against having more than 1 kid, how is a homosexual couple all that bad? It sounds like in this case, they are doing the nation a favor.

In your quest for proving homosexuality is bad because they can't reproduce, you skipped the obvious reality of the issue you are arguing.

I find it sad that in this thread you actually went and brought up that we still don't need a comic book for homosexuals. I thought I covered the ground quite nicely in the last thread when I tore apart your argument. It went a little like this: We don't need any comics because comics are entertainment . The basis of the question is BROKEN because entertainment and need do not mix. A better question is do we want a homosexual comic. That question can only be answered by the masses who will buy the product. You cannot say we shouldn't have a comic because the lifestyle it portrays is unhealthy. MOST LIFESTYLES IN COMICBOOKS ARE UNHEALTHY. Lifestyles where the main character is getting shot at, or saving the world. None of these are 'healthy' because usually the characters in the book are either dying or getting hurt. Any adult comic portrays an unhealthy image in your regards. If that is the case, go after adult comics in general.

Bleh. Your arguments have been beaten, yet you cling to them and bring them up again and again, even after others have argued them. That is why some are calling you a bigot. Realize it.

 

[Fausto]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Last I checked, we humans were polluting cities, the environment, and starving to death in many areas because there are just too damn many of us. It's not like Homo sapiens sapiens is teetering on the brink of extinction right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And we have a real bigot revealing himself here. Didn't know until now that you were an anti-human, Fausto1.

You need to work on your reading comprehension a tad. I was merely pointing out that BR's argument that being gay is "harmful" because no children will come out of it is absurd given the current state of the Earth's populus. Sorry if you got bogged down in all the big words.