Learn to argue without all the logical fallacies...
.....
I'm at a sheer quandary as to whether I should be laughing at you or crying for you....
Learn to argue without all the logical fallacies...
.....
I'm at a sheer quandary as to whether I should be laughing at you or crying for you....
*sigh* My work here is done, I'm not going to keep arguing with somebody who really wants to argue or it will never end. Imma leave now before this gets ugly and you actually start becoming rational.
It was quite leisurely while it lasted, I suppose.
Next time, don't help KayNight (who I usually get along with very well, so our posts together was a bit of an abruption, really) or anyone else unless you know what you're doing beyond hindsight.
Kaynight, say something funhearted like you usually do. It will cheer both of us up. ^-^
Remember how you don't give a tutu about Xiangqi being called a variant? Remember that good time? =)
edit - Oh wait. It was monkeys, not tutu.
Then of course, there are those who say that because they've never seen animals do it, it must be an unnatural human invention;
Funny I don't remember saying that or anything like it. Either in 8pt. or any other size type. Is that what you do to try and win a discussion, invent? I repeat ad nauseum. Gay means happy, content, carefree. Queer means strange, odd, out the ordinary (and using your own words unnatural).
Sort it out yourself
Your attempt at pointing the informal fallacy back at me is quite short-lived, unfortunately; because the paranthetical statement wasn't directed towards you as it was merely impersonally pointing out the inconsistency of arguments against homosexuality. First, animals do it, but humans have higher thinking. Next, animals (who don't have higher thinking and act mostly on less-voluntary instinct) don't do it so, therefore, humans shouldn't either. I've heard both used against homosexuality, and it seems to me that people can't seem to come to a consensus to which one they ought to use.
Also, what is left of our discussion on terminology than to go "ad nauseum" on you? Youv'e already made your stubborn point that "gay means happy" and "queer" means odd. When I counter-responded to you with the fact that "queer" can be just as inaccurately (if not insultingly) assigned gay people, your follow-up response is that it's a matter of one's own free opinion. Since you've already ended the conversation with that, what more did you want us to discuss?
GAY/1. |
[homosexual] gay, homosexuel gay rights les droits mpl des homosexuels |
2. | [cheerful, lively - appearance, party, atmosphere] gai, joyeux [ - laughter] enjoué, joyeux [ - music, rhythm] gai, entraînant, allègre with gay abandon avec insouciance |
3. |
[bright - colours, lights] gai, vif, éclatant some are only 1. homo others are 1. some are 1. others are not 1. In chess like in the rest of the world. So we code them for monosexual as : 1 0 0 gay, rigolo, funny 1 1 0 gay, rigolo, pas funny etc ..... 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 What about bi - ? 1,0 1 1 etc .... me, I am 0 1 1, ladies. And u2 ? |
i dont know why but i like to be gay
the moment you realize why you dislike
Happy gay people are those who ignore why.
the point with "gay" is the polysaemia :
Homos choosed this appellation a long time ago in San Francisco to show how heteros were sad, boring, not "grandes folles", etc .... a long time ago, when laws were restrictive, when they were victims of real persecutions i not crimes.
Today homos are exactly the same than heteros, couldbe your neighbour who has children suitcase, wife and other in law.
So the "gay" world for homos is out of sense, they look as unhappy or happy as heteros. Supposing a better life if homos is a big mistake, happiness has nothing to do with sex status.
SEMANIC/semiotic :
Gay / comic yes,
gay / homo : in that sense it is today a non sense. Nobody laughs about them, they are no more gay or sad than heteros.
The point of fact, however, FrenchBasher, is that we have always been happy and unhappy as as we've always been. It was merely how knowledgeable the majority group (heterosexuals) were on the existence of gays amoung them.
Had the big flamboyant show-off displays by gays from San Francisco not taken place, we would not be able to show that we are just as happy or sad as Heterosexuals today, see?
In drumming there are major discussions about double pedals and how fast your feet are for heavy metal. I don't have my feet developed for fast metal so when I'm asked about it, I usually reply; "My left foot is a little gay".
The point of fact, however, FrenchBasher, is that we have always been happy and unhappy as as we've always been. It was merely how knowledgeable the majority group (heterosexuals) were on the existence of gays amoung them.
Had the big flamboyant show-off displays by gays from San Francisco not taken place, we would not be able to show that we are just as happy or sad as Heterosexuals today, see?
yes the point is : will the show must go on ?
will the community sufficient in medias, in habit, customs, etc ... to make more or less shows ??
btw, concerning polsaemia, the OP is just a genius!
Not RoJoCo size,but coming soon!
I understand that English isn't your first language, FrenchBasher. On the other hand, what you're meaning to say, if I'm understanding correctly, is that gay people (especially gay men) are not heavily oppressed as they used to be. So, must they continue to act in (what I'm understanding that you believe is) the obnoxious manner that they usually do and have obnoxious celebrations ("stupid" gay pride parades and what not) about sexuality, shoving weirdness and obscenity 'down everyone's throat'?
Am I correct in this?
Unfortunately, love, I must regretfully inform you that, yes, the 'show' will go on. This is particularly because gay guys were never actually putting on a show to begin with. It is all your observation as a heterosexual who rarely had to deal with the acknowledge presence of homosexuality in the past, as you do now.
In all honesty, heterosexuals put on a show all the time. You guys have public weddings. You ask about boyfriends and girlfriends. You talk about boys and girls who could potentially be suitable boyfriends and girlfriends. When out in public, you heterosexual men move in a physically bold manner to attract females, and hetersexual females likewise move in a more "alluring" manner to "show off" for heterosexual males. You have conversation about hot heterosexual sex with other co-workers at employment back rooms during break (which we gay employees have to listen in on!), and fellow heterosexual employees laugh in support. See? You don't think twice about the "show" that you heterosexuals put on; particularly because you were never actually putting on one; it's simply "part of life".
Likewise, we LGBT folks would love to live our lives without having to think about how we naturally act. Gay guys on average, by biology, are simply more feminine. (Whether or not they are effeminate and flamboyant" depends on personality and personal taste.) We're not putting on a show; that's how we are. People who have known the existence of homosexuals should know this by now.
The one difference between you guys and us is that we have to consistently watch our backs and moderate what we say as to not incite anger from ignorant heterosexuals. Those times that we do bring out our homosexuality, we are automatically accused for "putting on a show" and "shoving" weirdness "down everyone's throat."
Just realize, Frenchbasher, that, as a heterosexual male (or female?), you are blessed with privilege. I don't know if you realize this or not, but seeing how you're allowed to criticze gay people for "putting on a show" when same can't be said about heterosexuals, you in fact are allowed a social right-of-way that we LGBT peoople are not.
We're not going to stop acting how we do just because the hey days of the gay movement in San Francisco is over.
Oogie: That's wonderful!
OP: How does it feel like to be gay? (Anyone may answer)
ty Mackytom.
I like Frisco, as a tourit I founded funny to see gays homos people there, and parade there. In my place that made noise, traffic jams, and I founded they insulted, cautiously, only one religion. Curiously with no beard. Hmmm ? This religion is used too, made no trial neither used stones or knifes, and didn't care, me either. I never insulted any community in my life, often facts are enough to do the job alone. Make facts them laugh.
In my country these parades are out of date, being dressed like a nun, listening techno trance in streets with jet reactorslike HiFi 120 dB makes NO FUN even for gays, they are not crazy anymore. Gays are now regular fun, and as sad as the middle class french "français moyen". In Paris, the gay - like in the 90's dressed code guy is like a naturist in Vatican, ridiculous. In Tours only ONE guy was dressed like Hell Angel last year anddisappears this year.
It is just Fact, no criticize anybody, on threads if you gave FACTS, people feel insulted or criticized.
OK there were no shows, earth is flat, Sea water level decreases, facts are critics, lol.
A nice pic ', gay funny, mix btw Sandra Bollock and another famous actor, who guess:
Can't say I understood most of what you said basher but I think you were critisizing the way homosexuals parade and dress up as women etc.
Personally I find the whole scene grotesque and see no reason for shoving their "sexuality" (some would say perversion) down everyones throat.
Just saying
Hey macky. Come on, gay parades are not a problem, they bring revenue to every town and city that host them. They put on a very colourful show. They don't set fire to cars and smash shop windows. They don't preach hatred. They are not a threat to you or I.
So are you just on this thread to implicitly call people stupid? That's trolling, and you're only defense against what I say is hurling insults. Learn to argue without all the logical fallacies, then maybe we can have a civil debate.