"That's so gay" - enough to get twelve-year-olds suspended - Page 14

Dr Strangelove · April 5, 2003, 00:16

I have no problem with a school punishing bad language, though I think that there must have been a more apropriate punishment available.

I don't think that 10% of the population is gay. I think it's more like 1 to 2%.

Agathon · April 5, 2003, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye

So, I will ask it again: Do you understand that using "gay" as an insult is an insult to gays?

Oh god. I said I was finished but this is too much. Are you stupid or are you just pretending?

If the term "gay" is an insult it doesn't necessarily follow that it's an insult to gays. That is a logical fallacy if you take it as a straight inference. If you'd bothered reading properly instead of trolling you would see why. It only is if you buy into the idea that the term's meaning is such that it's necessarily an insult to gays, which I don't. I've explained why I don't think so and you and the others have done nothing but post irrelevant rubbish which ignores the basic point at issue. I'd be inclined to counter if people attacked my actual argument instead of merely providing some other argument for the opposite conclusion, which of course does not count as a refutation. Unfortunately some people think it does. Poor them.

Nobody here has proved that wrong - and you can't because it would require much more than endlessly repeating the same trash that's beeb posteed on this thread. It's just got boring for me when people think they can repeat the same old stuff and ignore the argument at hand.

This is turning into a pathetic, "I'm so victimised" thread. Grow up.

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I have no problem with a school punishing bad language, though I think that there must have been a more apropriate punishment available.

I don't think that 10% of the population is gay. I think it's more like 1 to 2%.

I very sincerely doubt those numbers.

I think it depends on where you live and how open people would be about it.

I know as many gay people as I do lefties.

Agathon · April 5, 2003, 00:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I'm confused -- what do you mean by "proofs"?

Do you understand what's being debated here?

People are telling you they find it offensive, and you're off in la-la land thinking about proofs?

What would you know about proofs anyway, everyone knows philosophical proofs are bullshit.

You know. Reading this thread I can just about see what your problem is.

Tuberski · April 5, 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I've not come out to my parents yet. It's very scary to do...

Do you think that they have suspicions? I don't mean to sound inconsiderate or anything, but they might actually feel that you are.

BORIS: I finally found the geycat reference on page 7, I believe. I, of course, choose to backtrack instead of starting at the beginning of the thread. It was a very interesting piece of information.

Maybe this will help Agathon:

How would you feel if "Agathon", or whatever your real name is, was used to imply that something is stupid or lame?

No acks from now on in this thread.

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Grow up.

Realize that there are other people in this world, those other people in this world are telling you that they are offended by something, rather than being a man about it and try to avoid behavior that is offensive you went off into a self-righteous rant asking people to "prove" things and explaining why they don't have a right to be offended.

Grow up indeed, Agathon...

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
You know. Reading this thread I can just about see what your problem is.

My problem is you, and people like you, who refuse to actually think about something and are completely incapable of being sensitive to other people's complaints.

It's not enough for you for the gay people to overwhelmingly tell you they find it offensive, but they need to provide proof that it is offensive?

You're a first-rate moron, and an embarassment to UofT as far as I'm concerned.

This is precisely why they need to ditch philosophy in public univerisites, any quack such as yourself can be a professor...

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 00:24

Quote:

Nobody here has proved that wrong - and you can't because it would require much more than endlessly repeating the same trash that's beeb posteed on this thread. It's just got boring for me when people think they can repeat the same old stuff and ignore the argument at hand.

You may be an expert on Wittgenstein, but I was smart enough to get out of this worthless thread hours ago. Who's smarter?

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Who's smarter?

That would be the people who're trying to explain to you that you don't need to provide "proof" when a large segment of the population is offended by something.

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

This is precisely why they need to ditch philosophy in public univerisites, any quack such as yourself can be a professor...

Be careful what you wish for, Glonkie. This thread has made it obvious that a few more logic classes wouldn't hurt you...

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
Do you think that they have suspicions? I don't mean to sound inconsiderate or anything, but they might actually feel that you are.

It's possible, but I doubt it.
I don't act "gay" in any stereotypical way, I don't bring boys home with me, I don't go on dates with boys, I have more male friends than female, I hate shopping, I like hockey, and I banter with my brother about hot women all the time...

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Be careful what you wish for, Glonkie. This thread has made it obvious that a few more logic classes wouldn't hurt you...

I've taken philosophy of logic courses, and they are perhaps the most trivial and useless courses I've ever had to spend money on.

And for what it's worth, the philosophy of logic courses here don't apply. Why? Because we're talking about people's emotions.

Logic doesn't apply to emotions.

The people being illogical here are the fools who are trying to apply logic to determine if someone can be offended or not.

And THOSE people need to get some common sense -- somethign philosophy courses in university discourages rather than develops.

Tuberski · April 5, 2003, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

It's possible, but I doubt it.
I don't act "gay" in any stereotypical way, I don't bring boys home with me, I don't go on dates with boys, I have more male friends than female, I hate shopping, I like hockey, and I banter with my brother about hot women all the time...

Do they ever "sound off" about homosexuals? I am not trying to offend or anything, but what is there view of homosexuals? Or what do you think is their view?

Jaguar · April 5, 2003, 00:30

Something is offensive if people find it offensive. (Wow, I can't believe that I'm having to resort to such obvious arguments.

) Asher, Boris, MrFun, me, and countless others find it offensive. Therefore it is offensive. Students can be suspended for being offensive. Therefore, this guy can be suspended.

cinch · April 5, 2003, 00:33

to Jag Warrior, Asher, Boris, etc.

Agathon & Drake's argument was defeated on page 6. The rest has just been sad.

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
Do they ever "sound off" about homosexuals? I am not trying to offend or anything, but what is there view of homosexuals? Or what do you think is their view?

I've never heard anything positive or negative about homosexuals from them, if I knew they'd be accepting I'd tell them. (Edit: Now that I think of it, my dad's made fun of people on TV and said they must be gay, like the Swim Team on Boston Public a couple months ago, but I don't know if that's necessarily bad)

My grandfather a couple years ago, while the gay pride parade in London, ON was on TV while I was on vacation there, told me that "them homosexuals serve no purpose" and "deserve to be round up and hauled away", which isn't encouraging.

I think it's their view that I'm an heterosexual computer geek.

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 00:33

Quote:

Something is offensive if people find it offensive. (Wow, I can't believe that I'm having to resort to such obvious arguments. ) Asher, Boris, MrFun, me, and countless others find it offensive. Therefore it is offensive. Students can be suspended for being offensive. Therefore, this guy can be suspended.

So should we suspend kids for using the word "niggardly"? That offends people as well...

Yeah, language police! It doesn't matter if we are misguided or not; it only matters if we are offended!

Dr Strangelove · April 5, 2003, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I very sincerely doubt those numbers.

I think it depends on where you live and how open people would be about it.

I know as many gay people as I do lefties.

My daughter is a leftie. What are you trying to insinuate? She's only 12 for pity's sake! Will you let off with the pressure?

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 00:36

Quote:

I've taken philosophy of logic courses, and they are perhaps the most trivial and useless courses I've ever had to spend money on.

You obviously didn't get your moneys worth.

Quote:

And for what it's worth, the philosophy of logic courses here don't apply. Why? Because we're talking about people's emotions.

Logic doesn't apply to emotions.

Nice way of copping out of any attempt to address Agathon's argument.

Quote:

The people being illogical here are the fools who are trying to apply logic to determine if someone can be offended or not.

We never said you can't be offended; we are trying to determine whether your offense is misguided or not. Logic is definitely necessary for that endeavor, which is probably why you have failed so miserably...

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
My daughter is a leftie. What are you trying to insinuate? She's only 12 for pity's sake! Will you let off with the pressure?

I'm a leftie too.

I just find it weird that 10% of the population is supposedly gay, and 10% is supposedly left-handed, and I know roughly equal numbers of both.

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You obviously didn't get your moneys worth.

I got great marks in them, so did most of the compsci people.

The philosophy students whined about how hard it was.

Quote:

Nice way of copping out of any attempt to address Agathon's argument.

"copping out"?
It renders Agathon's pathethic excuse for an argument completely irrelevant.

Tuberski · April 5, 2003, 00:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I'm a leftie too.

I just find it weird that 10% of the population is supposedly gay, and 10% is supposedly left-handed, and I know roughly equal numbers of both.

So using logic, are you saying that all lefties are gay??????

I'm a straight lefty, damn you!!!!!!

ACK!

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 00:41

Quote:

It renders Agathon's pathethic excuse for an argument completely irrelevant.

Agathon's argument is rather elegant, IMO. It doesn't say much for you if you think it is "pathetic".

Tuberski · April 5, 2003, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

It renders Agathon's pathethic excuse for an argument completely irrelevant.

Agathon's argument is rather elegant, IMO. It doesn't say much for you if you think it is "pathetic".

Elegant and irrelevant are to different things.

The Royal Family of England for instance is Elegant and irrelevant to the rule of Great Britan.

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
So using logic, are you saying that all lefties are gay??????

I'm a straight lefty, damn you!!!!!!

ACK!

Nonono, that's not what I meant to imply (although there have been studies showing you're more likely to be gay if left-handed, IIRC).

My point was if the 10% of people are lefties is true, and I know comparable numbers of lefties and gays, then Kinsey's assertion that 10% of all people are gay is anecdotally true as well.

Drake Tungsten · April 5, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Elegant and irrelevant are to different things.

It's not irrelevant either. Ashie just wants to label it "irrelevant" so that he doesn't have to deal with it...

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Agathon's argument is rather elegant, IMO. It doesn't say much for you if you think it is "pathetic".

It can be elegant, sure.

But since it doesn't address the problem, it's still pathetic. He's creating his own problem rather than dealing with the real world.

The fact is, people are offended. His argument is useless, because it's not relevant.

mindseye · April 5, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

If the term "gay" is an insult it doesn't necessarily follow that it's an insult to gays. That is a logical fallacy if you take it as a straight inference. If you'd bothered reading properly instead of trolling you would see why..

It appears that the problem you are having is that you persist in arguing that when someone uses "gay" to mean "lame' that they are not intending the expression to be an anti-gay epithet, so gay people should not take offense. In many or even most cases, you may well be correct about the speaker's intent. However, this is not at all relevant.

Because "gay" already had another, more commonly accepted meaning (i.e. as the primary identification of a particuliar social group), there is an implied equation - whether intended or not - between "gay/homosexual" and "gay/bad". Note carefully: it is because of the prior, commonly accepted meaning, not the immediate intent of someone who has perhaps not given more thought to the term's origin or useage.

Example to assist you: if someone, in a public forum in which Jews were present innocently used "jewed" to mean "cheated", Jewish people may well take offense, even if the naive speaker had not intended to make a slur. Does the speaker's intent mean that the Jews were unjustified in being offended? Again: It is not the intent, it is the implied equation, whether the speaker is aware of it or not. This is what you apparently are not getting. Advising the Jews to "grow up", calling their objections "rubbish", or accusing them of "trolling" would not appear to be helpful.

Quote:

It only is if you buy into the idea that the term's meaning is such that it's necessarily an insult to gays, which I don't

Question: Would using "jew" to mean "cheat" necessarily be an insult to Jews?

Boris Godunov · April 5, 2003, 00:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Elegant and irrelevant are to different things.

It's not irrelevant either. Ashie just wants to label it "irrelevant" so that he doesn't have to deal with it...

Ashie doesn't have to deal with it, as it was dealt with long ago. You and Agathon are just the only two folks perpetuating a nonsensical claim that using gay as an insult somehow doesn't insult gays.

Well, really Agathon is just perpetuating it, while you play the part of the little imp on his shoulder egging him on while adding nothing of your own.

Asher · April 5, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's not irrelevant either. Ashie just wants to label it "irrelevant" so that he doesn't have to deal with it...

How on Earth do you think it's relevant?

Gay (and most straight people, at least here) people assume that the term "gay" as an insult is derived from the sexuality, and find it offensive that "gay" is starting to be synonymous with "lame" and "bad" because of mainstream homophobic heterosexual usage in jr highs/high schools/immature colleges.

Knowing this, what purpose does Agathon's argument serve?

It doesn't serve any. It's all about technicalities and logic, which doesn't matter. People are offended.

People will continue to be offended.

And don't you dare bring up the "niggardly" example, that's been shot down a half-dozen times by now.