Hills slams over 11 million American Citizens

[BmorePat87]

(09-12-2016, 01:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The phobias are irrational fears; it has nothing to do with wanting to vote for someone that has a shared interest with you or laws that support your value system.

I have a freind that is truly homophobic and he will tell you to his face. it is so bad that he will not let a man cut his hair. it's just that you and others like to throw the term(s) around without fully understanding what they mean.

lol, a semantics argument. At least you're consistent. 

Homophobia and Islamaphobia can mean a fear of or the holding of prejudicial views against gays or Muslims. You can justify your beliefs by saying it's just your values, but that doesn't make it any less homophobic or Islamaphobic. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 01:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol, a semantics argument. At least you're consistent. 

Homophobia and Islamaphobia can mean a fear of or the holding of prejudicial views against gays or Muslims. You can justify your beliefs by saying it's just your values, but that doesn't make it any less homophobic or Islamaphobic. 

If you and Hills say so; whose to argue.

Are you a conservativephobe?

BTW, What other type of arguement would one have over the meaning of a word? "lol"

[BmorePat87]

(09-12-2016, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you and Hills say so; whose to argue.

and Webster, Oxford, and every sociology text I've taught with. 

Quote:Are you a conservativephobe?

No, conservatives deserve all of the same rights as every other American and are qualified to be President. I'd really be questioning why I voted the way I did in 2008 and 2012 if I was a "conservativephobe". 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-12-2016, 01:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol, a semantics argument. At least you're consistent. 

Homophobia and Islamaphobia can mean a fear of or the holding of prejudicial views against gays or Muslims. You can justify your beliefs by saying it's just your values, but that doesn't make it any less homophobic or Islamaphobic. 

You must be mistaken. He doesn't argue semantics. Or definitions. Or proper word usage. Or anything that might resemble any of those. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 01:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and Webster, Oxford, and every sociology text I've taught with. 

(09-12-2016, 01:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol, a semantics argument. At least you're consistent.

What he said...

But as I asked: What other type of arguement can you have over the definition of a word. I see you have breech thinging there is another, lol.

But here's what that Webster dude said:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobe

webster Wrote:a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly

So by pat and Hills logic if someone chooses not to vote for someone because they are homosexual they hate, are afraid, and/or treat them badly.

I do hope the scope of your teachings is quite narrow; we need more independent thinking people in the world.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-12-2016, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do hope the scope of your teachings is quite narrow; we need more independent thinking people in the world.

Thank goodness you're here to set the example for your "t-shirt message," attack the message and not the messenger. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 02:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Thank goodness you're here to set the example for your "t-shirt message," attack the message and not the messenger. 

If you re-read it; you will (should) see that is exactly what I did. You are welcome.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-12-2016, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What he said...

But as I asked: What other type of arguement can you have over the definition of a word. I see you have breech thinging there is another, lol.

But here's what that Webster dude said:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobe


So by pat and Hills logic if someone chooses not to vote for someone because they are homosexual they hate, are afraid, and/or treat them badly.

I do hope the scope of your teachings is quite narrow; we need more independent thinking people in the world.

I think there is a lot who hope that your influence is equally as narrow for the exact same reason.  What is it you like to preach about attacking the message and not the...

[BmorePat87]

(09-12-2016, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What he said...

But as I asked: What other type of arguement can you have over the definition of a word. I see you have breech thinging there is another, lol.

But here's what that Webster dude said:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobe


So by pat and Hills logic if someone chooses not to vote for someone because they are homosexual they hate, are afraid, and/or treat them badly.

I do hope the scope of your teachings is quite narrow; we need more independent thinking people in the world.

Just so I understand this correctly, you're not arguing that a majority of Republicans don't hold these views that I cited, you're just trying to argue against the definition of homophobia and islamaphobia... By linking me to a page that says homophobia is "discrimination against" gay people?


Thanks for having nothing to contribute. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 02:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just so I understand this correctly, you're not arguing that a majority of Republicans don't hold these views that I cited, you're just trying to argue against the definition of homophobia and islamaphobia... By linking me to a page that says homophobia is "discrimination against" gay people?


Thanks for having nothing to contribute. 

No. I'm saying many are too lose with their definitions and to whom they apply them. It actually is doing a service to those that are truly homophobic and others.

As to the contribution: you can only lead the horse to water.

[Belsnickel]

(09-12-2016, 02:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just so I understand this correctly, you're not arguing that a majority of Republicans don't hold these views that I cited, you're just trying to argue against the definition of homophobia and islamaphobia... By linking me to a page that says homophobia is "discrimination against" gay people?


Thanks for having nothing to contribute. 

Well, that lists the full definition of homophobe as a person characterized by homophobia, which then directs you to homophobia.

Just to cover the bases.

[BmorePat87]

(09-12-2016, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No. I'm saying many are too lose with their definitions and to whom they apply them. It actually is doing a service to those that are truly homophobic and others.

As to the contribution: you can only lead the horse to water.

So you proved this by linking me to a page that defines it the same way as me?

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 02:35 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I think there is a lot who hope that your influence is equally as narrow for the exact same reason.  What is it you like to preach about attacking the message and not the...

The message was attacked; if I attacked the messenger I would have said "You are a dumbass for teaching kids that folks that follow their belief systems suffer from various irrational fears and apply terms to them that are negative in connotation.

Instead I simply responded to the teachings that he freely admitted providing. I think there should be more love and less hate in the world.

Do you have any issues with his teaching of children that if you do not vote for a gay person or muslim that you then suffer from a phobia?

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 02:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you proved this by linking me to a page that defines it the same way as me?

Nope I provided you with a definition of the word in question; you can interpret it (and teach it) as you wish. As I said I hope your teachings of labeling folks based on your own bias is narrow in scope.

Are you suggesting someone is being discriminated against because someone didn't vote for them based on their beliefs?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-12-2016, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The message was attacked; if I attacked the messenger I would have said "You are a dumbass for teaching kids that folks that follow their belief systems suffer from various irrational fears and apply terms to them that are negative in connotation.

Instead I simply responded to the teachings that he freely admitted providing. I think there should be more love and less hate in the world.

So was the messenger.  It's what you do Mr. Snarkypants .  I don't have a problem with it, sometimes it's even funny.  My parents are Ultra conservative, but I still love them.  However, I'm thankful some of their beliefs will die with them.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 02:57 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: So was the messenger. 

If you say so; however, it was carefully worded as not to.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-12-2016, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: however, it was carefully worded as not to.

Not carefully enough.

[BmorePat87]

(09-12-2016, 02:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope I provided you with a definition of the word in question

You actually provided me a definition of "homophobe" not "homohpobic". The reason why is because Webster's definition of "homophobic", the word you have said I am not defining properly, included "discrimination against" while the definition of "homophobe" only said "treat badly". 

This is called intellectual dishonesty. 

Quote:; you can interpret it (and teach it) as you wish. 

I will continue to interpret and teach "discrimination against" as meaning "discrimination against", but I appreciate your permission.

Quote:Are you suggesting someone is being discriminated against because someone didn't vote for them based on their beliefs?

No, beliefs is too broad of a categorization. If you think someone cannot be President because they are gay or Muslim, that certainly suggests you hold prejudicial views. However, trying to deny gay marriage is discrimination and I am suggesting that. 

[BmorePat87]

What's silly is even "treat badly" covers prejudice/discrimination too.

Oh well

Holic wants us to stop this kind of bullshit. I'm going to honor his wishes and stay on topic. Instead of trying to tell everyone that words do not mean what the dictionary defines them as, just address the actual arguments in the thread. This is the shit that causes threads to get locked. It's juvenile and, honestly, pathetic to act like this.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 03:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 1) You actually provided me a definition of "homophobe" not "homohpobic". The reason why is because Webster's definition of "homophobic", the word you have said I am not defining properly, included "discrimination against" while the definition of "homophobe" only said "treat badly". 

This is called intellectual dishonesty. 




2) I will continue to interpret and teach "discrimination against" as meaning "discrimination against", but I appreciate your permission.




3) No, beliefs is too broad of a categorization. If you think someone cannot be President because they are gay or Muslim, that certainly suggests you hold prejudicial views. However, trying to deny gay marriage is discrimination and I am suggesting that. 

1) We are talking about the person (voter); am I correct. What is it call if you leave out the term irrational in your definition? "Paraphrasing"

2) See above, I do hope you teach the true meaning to our children. BTW, do you teach at a public school?

3) The subject at hand is not discriminating against gay marriage; it is voting for president (Is that part of that dishonesty you mentioned earlier). I have not seen anyone suggest that a gay or muslim cannot be President; I have seen folks say they would not vote for them.

But enough, I will be accused of attacking the messenger.