# Don't like the word "gay"?



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Just use auto-replace to correct it to "homosexual" wherever it appears.

That's what the American Family Association does. Like the following story about the Olympic Trials over the weekend:

Tyson Homosexual easily won his semifinal for the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials and seemed to save something for the final later Sunday.

https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2008/07/idiots.html


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

It's better than replacing it with the word 'Republican', now _that_ would be insulting.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Highlights a challenge in our politically correct society. 

These things seem to go in cycles. Gay, lesbian, homosexual? What is correct?
Where do the trasnsexuals fit, and what are they to be called?

Then we get to the African American community. Is it black, person of color, ***** (United ***** College Fund), colored person (ala NAACP), African American?

Further confused by the civil rights organization in Atlanta (can't remember the name) that said last week that the struggle wasn't over, even if Obama was elected. His wife has slave blood, but he doesn't. How are we supposed to determine that? Does that create a subset of a race that has slave blood, and the portion that doesn't? 

Seems like Colin Powell came from Jamacian parents. Slave blood? Is this a separate subset that needs to be identified?

Early in the primary campaign a black writer in San Diego, that got some national recognition, saying that Obama wasn't black enough. He referred to Obama as a "magic *****". Very confusing.

Also at about the same time Al Sharpton said that Obama wasn't black enough, and wasn't "down for the struggle".

In order to be consistent and empathetic, should other members of society insist on being called Italian American, Irish American, Anglo American, etc?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

A rather non-issue. I can remember when AOL tried to filter out words indicative of porn, probably going on ten years ago. Many women were highly indignant as their forum for breast cancer survivors was suddenly shut down. Jack, you do realize that a piece of software is unable to determine context the same way we can? Or do you actually believe this was done maliciously? Or do you believe the American Family Association should not share your right to free speech? 

I am interested in hearing from you Jack.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jack is just attacking intolerance again! https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-just-got-this-from-philip-baruth.html



> *Lieberman Must Go! *
> 
> I just got this from Philip Baruth. Every time you see something from that POS Lieberman he's more insufferable than he was before. For instance, in an interview with ABC News he parroted the Republicans' Willie Horton line against Obama:
> 
> ...


Yeah, we "CANNOT tolerate" that.

I'm actually shocked a 55 year old LOTR fan can be still offended.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Isn't there some kind of site policy about linking to your blog (specifically, that you ain't supposed to do it)?

Just an FYI; I'm not so petty as to click "report" for every minor violation of the rules (written or unwritten, as it were) that I see. But some folks here are.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Thanks for the link.

If you are surprised that I would be offended that someone who calls himself an "independent Democrat", and has been accorded a position of leadership and power by the Democratic Party, is supporting the candidate of the other party, then you must be easily surprised.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> If you are surprised that I would be offended that someone who calls himself an "independent Democrat", and has been accorded a position of leadership and power by the Democratic Party, is supporting the candidate of the other party, then you must be easily surprised.


I can see that you can disagree with his position, but to be offended and call for him to be removed from leadership is ridiculous. I thought Liberals believed in diversity and tolerance. Are all Democrats just supposed to march in "lock-step" to the extreme left? You can't tolerate ONE Democrat that believes John McCain will be better at fighting the War on Terror than a Junior Senator with absolutely zero relevant experience? Really?? Wow!


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Jack

You shouldn't worry too much about Leiberman. Colin Powell is about to endorse Obama. I will take a well-respected republican endorsing Obama over losing sleazy Leiberman to McCain.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

All things considered, I've found90% of the world not worth talking to regardless of race,creed,sexual disorientation or side of eggs cracked.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

In most places a decent editor would catch the blind algorithm's slash-and-replace sort of stuff and fix it. But this organization isn't most places.

Most places would just ask any group what they wish to be called and call them by that unless the reality was too weird to stomach. For instance, the AFC likes to be called a Christian organization promoting all things biblical, especially decency. But it's hard to do that when they are pathologically obsessed with sexual behavior and spend most of their money trying to suppress the activities of those outside their organization, with a sprinkling of anti-Semitism thrown in just for fun. 

So I usually simply refer to them as twaddleheads.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

My favorite story down these lines comes from my days at CNN. There was a story about an African county, I believe either South Africa or Zimbabwe and it was about a political struggle between whites and blacks. The copy in front of her referred to 'black Africans' and 'white Africans'. She had been conditioned so heavily to make everything 'politically correct' that she actually said 'African-American African' which is of course gobbledygook.

Another time a friend of mine who did the international rugby coverage for the website had to argue with an editor because of the New Zealander team the Allblacks. The editor wanted to change it and my friend had to explain that that was the team name and changing it would confuse everyone.

The tangled webs we weave when politics are put ahead of principle and common sense...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Radix023, good stories! :icon_smile:

It's often easy to see these things but hard to understand why some considerations factor. "People of color" and "colored people" are grammatically equivalent but the former is "correct" while the later is at best an anachronism or worse an insult.

I guess it's all a part of language which is a fluid and living thing, constantly evolving and changing.

I'd hoped _The Simpson's_-ism "Homersexual" had gained more widespread usage but apparently it's confined to those without so much spread, so to speak.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> If you are surprised that I would be offended that someone who calls himself an "independent Democrat", and has been accorded a position of leadership and power by the Democratic Party, is supporting the candidate of the other party, then you must be easily surprised.


Well, if the Democrats kicked Lieberman to the curb, wouldn't the Republicans be the majority party. I think the Dark Lord of Wyoming, aka the Vice President, would take an evil glee in spending his days casting tie breaking votes.

I would also like to propose a Constitutional ammendment: Anyone who is now, or has ever been, a member of the Republican or Democratic parties, is now and forvever banned from holding any public office.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

agnash said:


> Well, if the Democrats kicked Lieberman to the curb, wouldn't the Republicans be the majority party. I think the Dark Lord of Wyoming, aka the Vice President, would take an evil glee in spending his days casting tie breaking votes.


There's been a lot of discussion about that point, but my best understanding is that the answer is no. That's because when Congress organized itself at the beginning of the current Congress (January, 2007) the agreement, somehow embodied in law or a binding resolution, was that subsequent changes in the makeup of the Senate would not change the organizational structure. If I'm wrong that would obviously be a major reason not to get rid of Holy Joe. Probably the only one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> If I'm wrong *that would obviously be a major reason not to get rid of Holy Joe.* Probably the only one.


The perfect verbalization of all that is wrong with things. Joe gets called a "sleazeball" but they are perfectly willing to live with him while he is useful. Nice to see how meaningful principle is.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The only use of "gay" I think makes little sense is to describe things that are stupid/senseless/ridiculous by people around my age (or older!).

It gets old pretty quick. What are you trying to do? Equate things that are stupid to happiness or homosexuality? Maybe I'm trying too hard to be PC or something. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was doing what in retrospect was the most wretched excavation of my spotted career. In Downtown L.A. just off the histerical Pueblo De Loose Angeleeez was the now lost N**ger Alley, sort of the San Francisco Tenderloin of it's day. The only problem was somebody decided that was a PC incorrect word in the historical record and transferred a nearby street's name to all city records. So when a cloverleaf was slated for earthquake retrofitting we had an opportunity to go in and excavate. Well, Freeway cloverleafs are home to the homeless and my test units were backfilled with offal every morning requring #5 Marshalltown Trowels to remove the newly deposited stratum of human material, condoms and newspaper,cardboard sleeping beds. We thought we were excavating an early carniceria that was recorded to have stood on the other street. I pulled out an ivory opium bottle, some black glass buttons. And then, with a camelhair pass An old brass bed. After an hour brushing it clear and photographing I reached down and pulled it upright. I heard this ching ching ching.I knocked off the top finial and poured out several silver and gold coins of multi national and gold rush mint. Meanwhile my partner Bob is in a heated debate, claiming rightly we had found a prostitute's crib on the infamous N**ger Alley and the city director and Caltrans official empahtic in saying there was no such place in old L.A. I'm having a serious ethical debate in my head with the valuable coins cluthced in my hand. The City official saw them and they now reside in some drawer at the L.A. Museum, with a tag crediting the industrious and hard working butcher who earned them.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Quay said:


> ^ Radix023, good stories! :icon_smile:
> 
> It's often easy to see these things but hard to understand why some considerations factor. "People of color" and "colored people" are grammatically equivalent but the former is "correct" while the later is at best an anachronism or worse an insult.
> 
> ...


No end to this stuff, Quay. I guess we just have to stay alert.

Dartmouth and Stanford originally had American Indians as their mascots. The feeling being that these were brave warriors that reflected credit to their institutions.

No, No, no! These were deemed to be racially demeaning, for some reason. Hard to understand. You don't pick a mascot with an unfavorable image.

You can see why they might want to change if it was the Dartmouth skunks, or the Stanford donkeys. Very confusing.

Then we get to the area where it becomes politically expedient to change direction. In Obamas speech recently where he was trying to bulild the case for his patriotism he quoted Mark Twain; "You should always be loyal to your country, but loyal to your government, when it deserves it".

In the previous election, the same people wanted to have all of Mark Twain's books removed from every public library, because of the name of one of his characters in Huck Finn.

Stay tuned.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

radix023 said:


> My favorite story down these lines comes from my days at CNN. There was a story about an African county, I believe either South Africa or Zimbabwe and it was about a political struggle between whites and blacks. The copy in front of her referred to 'black Africans' and 'white Africans'. She had been conditioned so heavily to make everything 'politically correct' that she actually said 'African-American African' which is of course gobbledygook.
> 
> Another time a friend of mine who did the international rugby coverage for the website had to argue with an editor because of the New Zealander team the Allblacks. The editor wanted to change it and my friend had to explain that that was the team name and changing it would confuse everyone.
> 
> The tangled webs we weave when politics are put ahead of principle and common sense...


I remember something similar - someone introduced or referred to Nelson Mandela as an African-American.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I forgot to post my favorite line in the whole story:

"'It means a lot to me,' the 25-year-old Homosexual said. 'I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me.'"

I kid you not.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

*And The Beat Goes On...*

It seems some folks in Dallas, Texas, are under the impression that a term long used in science actually a racist slur. The level of ignorance is staggering and while funny on the surface does make one wonder about what people learn or don't learn in schools these days. The comments following the story are even better:

--A.Q.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

VS said:


> I remember something similar - someone introduced or referred to Nelson Mandela as an African-American.


I nearly fell out of my chair reading that just now.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Simply said, Quay, kids learn nothing in schools. I get them on the other end (university), and their level of ignorance is shocking and frankly sad.

In the past, I've had to explain the difference between BC and AD - the whole counting-up, counting-down confused people (in one case, a set of nubile female twins). Students who have a smattering of a language know nothing; usually high school Latin is filled with cultural assignments, and watching "Gladiator" and "Troy" - not learning paradigms etc. High school Greek is enough worse. To say nothing about the awareness of the Byzantine empire in the west! My heart breaks.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I thought Liberals believed in diversity and tolerance.


The first way to know a liberal is by their intolerance.

I learned that back in the sevenities.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> The first way to know a liberal is by their intolerance.
> 
> I learned that back in the sevenities.


I know this is probably above your ability to comprehend, but if you'll review the thread, and the source material, you will find that the subject of this thread is the fact that a conservative group is so intolerant of gays that their web page's auto-replace feature changes the word "gay" to "homosexual" even when it happens to be a person's name. Until they changed it, this caused them to publish absurdities like the story I quoted.

Unless you mean that somehow trying to present reality is intolerance, of course. As Stephen Colbert has observed, reality has a well-known liberal bias.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I know this is probably above your ability to comprehend, but if you'll review the thread, and the source material, you will find that the subject of this thread is the fact that a conservative group is so intolerant of gays that their web page's auto-replace feature changes the word "gay" to "homosexual" even when it happens to be a person's name. Until they changed it, this caused them to publish absurdities like the story I quoted.
> 
> Unless you mean that somehow trying to present reality is intolerance, of course. As Stephen Colbert has observed, reality has a well-known liberal bias.


I think that's one interpretation, but perhaps they are just so square and so sensitive to try to be PC that they are making the wrong correction.

How am I supposed to know whether to say gay or homosexual?

Homosexual sounds more scientific. We also say heterosexual. Most of us that are home by 8 PM think "gay" is a bad/rude/insensitive word to use about someone.

Am I really expected to care so much that I go educate myself on the correct/preferred terminology for gay people? Part of my tolerance for gays is that I simply don't give a you-know-what what people do or what they call themselves. I certainly hope they don't care what I do or what I call myself.

You are IMHO making a presumptive obligation that we have to care. That's not tolerance that's fascism.

I don't care what you prefer to call yourself, and I'm under no obligation to use it. Free speech, remember? You are trying to dictate what they call people. That's not tolerance; that's not liberalism. That's progressive socialism.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ No one would expect you to know anything about the American Family Association, but by your argument they are indeed attempting to dictate what terminology is used in this case. They are trying to "reclaim America" in all sorts of ways, including what they see as the original the use of the word "gay." 

They are neither square nor sensitive but rather overwrought in their attempts to tell everyone else what words to use in what cases. The OP cites one of their more amusing examples of how this does not work, but the AFA is very much in earnest about doing what they are doing. They do not believe in political correctness but in biblical correctness, as they see it.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> ^ No one would expect you to know anything about the American Family Association, but by your argument they are indeed attempting to dictate what terminology is used in this case. They are trying to "reclaim America" in all sorts of ways, including what they see as the original the use of the word "gay."
> 
> They are neither square nor sensitive but rather overwrought in their attempts to tell everyone else what words to use in what cases. The OP cites one of their more amusing examples of how this does not work, but the AFA is very much in earnest about doing what they are doing. They do not believe in political correctness but in biblical correctness, as they see it.
> 
> ...


Ok; and that is a major problem because ... we can't let people exercise freedom of religious expression? I'm confused.

"Reclaim America" certainly sounds sinister, but what does it actually do? Are they going to make me eat my veggies?

If you don't like what they have to say, perhaps stay off their web-site and don't read their publications? I dunno. Maybe practice tolerance for them. 

Again; "policing" them is just progressive socialism.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Ok; and that is a major problem because ... we can't let people exercise freedom of religious expression? I'm confused.


Yes, but that is easily fixed. The AFA is not a church but a 501c3 political group that actively promotes the removal of any and all walls separating church and state. Their focus is political although they use religion as their base of operations. They advocate direct interference in free markets if companies in those markets do something they don't like, advocate censoring free speech, consistently use the language of war and battle to describe their work and preffered methods of doing that work, and seek to establish this country in the image they prefer to the exclusion of anything else. They are also famously obsessed with the sexual activity of other people. The fact they are so often ineffective in "waging" their "wars" despite considerable sums spent is amusing.



> "Reclaim America" certainly sounds sinister, but what does it actually do? Are they going to make me eat my veggies?


See above, but no, they've taken no public position on vegetables unless they are used in an art exhibit. :icon_smile: So as long as you don't apply for an NEA grant to use cucumbers in an "obscene" way you're fine.



> If you don't like what they have to say, perhaps stay off their web-site and don't read their publications? I dunno. Maybe practice tolerance for them.


Thank you for the advice but it's not necessary. I don't read their stuff nor do I visit their website. I notice their silliness when it's in the news or someone brings it up in a forum like this. Anyway, tolerance is easily practiced towards those who are so obviously suffering under the weight of a vigorous, perpetually battle-minded view of the world where everything is an epic battle against evil, happening right now, next-door, in their very neighbor's bedrooms. That's a very, very heavy load to haul around that causes great personal unease and distress.



> Again; "policing" them is just progressive socialism.


:biggrin2: I like the isolationist fiber that runs through Americans that call themselves conservatives of one kind or another. There are about six billion people in the world, and for about 4 billion of them "progressive socialism" are not the dirty words you make them out to be.  In this international age of international internet forums one can't simply say "just" that phrase and expect it to be a negative unless you add something supportive to it.

But I think the "policing" thing implies some kind of official government censorship which is not the case here. Currently the AFA is free to say whatever it likes although oddly enough on television one still cannot utter those seven words made known by Mr. Carlin. In fact the list is apparently up to twenty or so now. 

In any case the AFA's auto-replace function will likely continue to amuse some and misinform others. For my part I hope someday soon there will be a Mr. Homer Gay running for Congress someplace--that will make for hilarious reading! :icon_smile:

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Yes, but that is easily fixed. The AFA is not a church but a 501c3 political group that actively promotes the removal of any and all walls separating church and state. Their focus is political although they use religion as their base of operations. They advocate direct interference in free markets if companies in those markets do something they don't like, advocate censoring free speech, consistently use the language of war and battle to describe their work and preffered methods of doing that work, and seek to establish this country in the image they prefer to the exclusion of anything else. They are also famously obsessed with the sexual activity of other people. The fact they are so often ineffective in "waging" their "wars" despite considerable sums spent is amusing.
> 
> See above, but no, they've taken no public position on vegetables unless they are used in an art exhibit. :icon_smile: So as long as you don't apply for an NEA grant to use cucumbers in an "obscene" way you're fine.
> 
> ...


From the bottom.

Policing does not imply government except in some minds. We police ourselves and each other all the time. What Jack did is a form of policing IMHO.

So you don't think "progressive socialism" can stand without facts, but "isolationist fiber" can? Hmmm....

An international age of international internet forums. WOW! So, let's just all resign our citizenships and become citizens of the Internets.

You seem to know a lot about AFA for someone that doesn't need to be told to just ignore them.

Such as; their form of incorporation even. Since when did freedom of religious expression extend or imply only to churches?

They are allowed to promote whatever they want, aren't they? Who cares. The NORML people and the NAMBLA people promote what they want. So too AFA. So what?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> From the bottom....


Alas that seems to be where you're trending with your ever-suspicious-minded spuriousness. I apologize for trying to engage you in this topic. I should have learned better by now and hopefully finally have. I won't address you in the future.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Alas that seems to be where you're trending with your ever-suspicious-minded spuriousness. I apologize for trying to engage you in this topic. I should have learned better by now and hopefully finally have. I won't address you in the future.
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


Fantastico! Another perfect example of a liberal (oops! I mean progressive socialist) intolerance for diversity when you don't like another person's position. Thank you so much!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Speaking of "ever-suspicious-minded spuriousness" ... you call this engaging?



KSINC said:


> How am I supposed to know whether to say gay or homosexual? ... Am I really expected to care so much that I go educate myself on the correct/preferred terminology for gay people? ...





Quay said:


> ^ No one would expect you to know anything about the American Family Association ...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

*Gentlemen...*

There is no need for generalisations about conservatives or liberals like this. I'm quite sure we can discuss the original topic without ad hominem attacks on someone's political beliefs.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Jovan said:


> There is no need for generalisations about conservatives or liberals like this. I'm quite sure we can discuss the original topic without ad hominem attacks on someone's political beliefs.


Quite.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> There is no need for generalisations about conservatives or liberals like this. I'm quite sure we can discuss the original topic without ad hominem attacks on someone's political beliefs.


Really, how can we discuss the OP without ad homs when the OP itself is one?

Except for Quay's backhanded semi-slight towards Conservatives (which is so broad as to not really be an ad hom), I find no real ad homs in the thread.

Quay did try to drag us out in the ditch and then when he was exposed turn over the board and go home, but that's just the norm and not an ad hom either. It's rather hilarious IMHO.

Perhaps you can be more specific in the future when you seek the moral highground for us regarding "generalisations?"

I'd appreciate it. Perhaps some others would as well.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Jovan said:


> There is no need for generalisations about conservatives or liberals like this. I'm quite sure we can discuss the original topic without ad hominem attacks on someone's political beliefs.


Progressives attacking free speech while at the time they say they are protecting free speech- gets tiresome.

They have been doing this since the 60s. And, I have been watching freedom after freedom disappearing. If you want to do some stupid things in your life go ahead, but don't force others to do it too. Pluse, when people have been conned into doing stupid things and they finally find out- their not very happy. It is interesting watching the conned.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ...Except for Quay's backhanded semi-slight towards Conservatives (which is so broad as to not really be an ad hom), I find no real ad homs in the thread.
> 
> Quay did try to drag us out in the ditch and then when he was exposed turn over the board and go home....


 "ksinc" old sport, on this forum you self-exposures and promiscuous assumptions are sometimes so sadly, impenetrably daft it's painful to watch. But the fault must be mine as I can't see your splendor, even though as you say just above I supposedly tried to drag you out of a ditch even though I'm quite indifferent to your continuing to lay yourself down in it and lie there.

To spare my eyes and keep my previous notice I'll now add you to my ignore user list. Be sure to advantage the last word, etc., and best of luck and all that.

Wishing you farewell,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> "ksinc" old sport, on this forum you self-exposures and promiscuous assumptions are sometimes so sadly, impenetrably daft it's painful to watch. But the fault must be mine as I can't see your splendor, even though as you say just above I supposedly tried to drag you out of a ditch even though I'm quite indifferent to your continuing to lay yourself down in it and lie there.
> 
> To spare my eyes and keep my previous notice I'll now add you to my ignore user list. Be sure to advantage the last word, etc., and best of luck and all that.
> 
> ...


Nice misquote. Such impressive character and integrity. I'm obviously humbled in your mere presence. You sure make the AFA look like intolerant "idiots." :icon_smile_wink:

I'm sure the daftness problem is my _meager_ top 1% IQ, _inferior_ professional skills, and _trivial_ academic credentials rather than your own biased and intolerant opinion of those with traditional values and true tolerance for all people.


----------



## RyanPatrick (Jul 3, 2008)

WA said:


> The first way to know a liberal is by their intolerance.
> 
> I learned that back in the sevenities.


I agree. I spent two years in graduate school in the Pacific Northwest. Oh liberals are tolerant.....as long as you hold the same opinion(s) as them. I finally gave up trying to get along and entertained myself by arguing with them until they began yelling. 
Trying to have a debate with a liberal is like arguing with a child. They seem to believe whoever yells the loudest and cuts the other party off the most wins.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

A friend's mother's name is - I kid you not - Gaye Dyck. Gaye had a more common last name before she married into the family of Dycks.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I applaud that organization's auto-replace feature; someone should, however, have read the text after it was used. Probably an undergrad intern. I'm sure that it was an attempt to be PC. They're conservative, but they're trying. Good for them.

I am myself a hetereosexual, but I know many gays, who sometimes call themselves that, though sometimes they refer to each other as homosexuals, and at other times they are queers or ******* (yes, even this last one). I haven't been able to discern which term is appropriate for which context - I'm willing to bet there are no rules which govern proper usage. And these are tenured college professors.

Realize that these words are used to describe quite different catagories: sexual orientation, biological determination, behavior, emotional state, etc. Some are more cruel, silly, or acceptable than others; yet none is without descriptive significance.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Ok, so I see that the site had blocked my use of a word that start with "f" and sounds like "maggot". I did not use this word lightly, but I wanted to describe academic conversations I've sat in on in the past. I meant no offence to anyone, so please don't take it that way.

Labels are hard. Names hurt. Words, in fact, kill.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Liberals are very intolerant of intolerance--and non-minorities who they stereotype as intolerant.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Really, how can we discuss the OP without ad homs when the OP itself is one?


Okay, find the ad hominem attack in the original post.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, find the ad hominem attack in the original post.


ad hom; attacking the person rather than the argument

The name of your link is "idiots."

https://rationalresistance.blogspot.com/2008/07/idiots.html

As is the headline of your blog posting.



> *Tuesday, July 01, 2008*
> 
> *Idiots! *


Clearly, they are part of the OP.

Jack, when we only have to look to the first word of your blog you've really got your head in the proverbial sand of hypocrisy.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> ad hom; attacking the person rather than the argument
> 
> The name of your link is "idiots."
> 
> ...


Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

_Argumentum ad hominem_ is a logical falllacy in which a proposition is attacked not based on the merits of the proposition, but on the identity of the speaker. For example, asking how a 55-year-old LOTR fan can be shocked by anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

In this case, the word "Idiots", the title of my original post, is a characterization of the people at AFA, based on the fact that they adopted a policy (automatically replacing the word "gay" with "homosexual") that led to the absurd result of replacing Tyson Gay's name with "Tyson Homosexual".

So feel free to wander in the thickets of ignorance, and "thanks for playing".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Thanks for demonstrating *my [sic]* ignorance.
> 
> _Argumentum ad hominem_ is a logical falllacy in which a proposition is attacked not based on the merits of the proposition, but on* the identity of the speaker*. For example, asking how a 55-year-old LOTR fan can be shocked by anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
> 
> ...


My ignorance?

Jack,

Basing your outrage on the fact that it is the AFA is an attrack on the identity of the speaker.

Calling them "idiots" is an attack on a characteristic of the speaker.

Just as you attack mine. You're doing it now in attempt to defend that you did it in your blog.

If you can't see that; you're a hypocritical fool and not just a hypocrite.

You should have just gone ahead with your argument, but you couldn't; you had to attack *THEM* first as the basis for your argument. A typical ad hom.

Otherwise all you have is an example of technology run amok. One could probably find similar examples, but then it would defeat the true purpose of your attack.

+ It's telling that when confronted with the job of creating a headline for the story and a name for your html the best you could come up with was to attack their intellect and call them names.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Buy a clue, or better yet, a short course in logic, or go home.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Buy a clue, or better yet, a short course in logic, or go home.


More of the same. You're caught; and you know it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I feel sorry for Tyson. What a rotten way to get your name in the news. It's a shame the media makes such a big deal out of things like this, and it's a shame that the AFA doesn't have a good editor. The focus should be on his races, not on something like this.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I feel sorry for Tyson. What a rotten way to get your name in the news. It's a shame the media makes such a big deal out of things like this, and it's a shame that the AFA doesn't have a good editor. The focus should be on his races, not on something like this.


They might or might not actually have a good editor. What they probably have is a bad work process where they do not proof the rendered version of the page, but only the source version; unless we believe that AFA saw and left the error uncorrected on purpose.

It depends on the way their Content Management System works. Most systems are designed so that the filter is applied when the post/page is rendered on the server-side and sent to the browser, but the original content is stored un-altered (a few do mass replacements prior to storage, but that is typically considered bad design.) For most system people, to store only the altered version would be like breaking a chain of custody/evidence. Some systems might store both versions.

The Editor probably has a user account with 'moderator' or 'admin' permissions/settings that shows him the unrendered version of the post. He would need this level of permission to edit the submissions of others to which he is not the original owner.

It's then 'best practice' to have a 2nd login with a standard user's permissions and settings to see what the 'customer' sees.

Of course, rather than writing a thoughtful piece on the obvious dangers of depending on technology or to police peoples' thoughts and language, it's much easier to launch a personal attack on the organization based on their beliefs and identity.

Certainly, no one believes that a person smart enough to program a web-server has the functional mental capacity of a three year old and could therefore be correctly classified as an "idiot." Therefore Jack must simply be using the word in its offensive capacity; as he basically admitted, but from the moral and intellectual high ground, of course! 

+ I do agree it's a shame someone would focus on this, but what can you do except point out the hypocrisy of it? :devil:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, find the ad hominem attack in the original post.


Yeah. He's right; there's two different kinds of ad hominems--

1) you're wrong because you're stupid - the fallacious argument you're thinking of;

2) you're stupid - still an ad hominem


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah. He's right; there's two different kinds of ad hominems--
> 
> 1) you're wrong because you're stupid - the fallacious argument you're thinking of;
> 
> 2) you're stupid - still an ad hominem


Yes, I figured sooner or later someone else would figure out that Jack asked me to find the "ad hominem attack" and then provided the definition of "ad hominem argument" while proclaiming my error and ignorance, but I thought we should let him 'run' a little ... :devil:

"Those who know also know who else knows." Thanks, PT


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> More of the same. You're caught; and you know it.


Sorry for confusing you with facts and logic. I'll see what I can do to avoid that in the future.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Sorry for confusing you with facts and logic. I'll see what I can do to avoid that in the future.


You mean like provide some facts and logic?

All you offer is hate and hypocrisy.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

RyanPatrick said:


> I agree. I spent two years in graduate school in the Pacific Northwest. Oh liberals are tolerant.....as long as you hold the same opinion(s) as them. I finally gave up trying to get along and entertained myself by arguing with them until they began yelling.
> Trying to have a debate with a liberal is like arguing with a child. They seem to believe whoever yells the loudest and cuts the other party off the most wins.


Ted Kennedy said the word fair a lot, or he used to, but watching him years ago on C-SPAN when the senators were given 3 or 5 minutes, or whatever lenght of time, he would interupt whoever was speaking if he didn't like what they were saying and run their time out and the Democrat party who had the majority never stopped him. People from many states were not being represented, because some people steal power and are the opposite of what they say they are for. 

Nobody is perfect, but I think liberals or the progressives, as they call themselfs anymore, are some of the worst. They can't run their own lives and they are foolishly trying to run, "railroad", others.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

While on the subject of intolerance, your posts have a signal lack of christian charity to 'liberals.' I worry when somebody defines oneself by one's perceived enemies.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> Ted Kennedy said the word fair a lot, or he used to, but watching him years ago on C-SPAN when the senators were given 3 or 5 minutes, or whatever lenght of time, he would interupt whoever was speaking if he didn't like what they were saying and run their time out and the Democrat party who had the majority never stopped him. People from many states were not being represented, because some people steal power and are the opposite of what they say they are for.
> 
> Nobody is perfect, but I think liberals or the progressives, as they call themselfs anymore, are some of the worst. They can't run their own lives and they are foolishly trying to run, "railroad", others.


Just out of curiosity, how are Kennedy's actions any different than what you see with the "conservative" people/commentators on Fox? People from both sides act this way.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Just out of curiosity, how are Kennedy's actions any different than what you see with the "conservative" people/commentators on Fox? People from both sides act this way.


Well,

#1 When Fox does something they always have both a Republican/Conservative and a Democrat/Liberal on side-by-side to discuss it.

#2 Fox is a business owned by a private person.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Just out of curiosity, how are Kennedy's actions any different than what you see with the "conservative" people/commentators on Fox? People from both sides act this way.


Kennedy has written damaging laws. Commentators do damage of hot air. One you have to obey. The other you can laugh at. One if you do not obey you get thrown in jail and fined. The other, they don't even know you exist. And, lastly, the Founders of this country were willing to die for the freedoms Kennedy has been destroying.

Consider this, Kennedy would, when the Democrats ruled the Senate, before C-SPAN and into the first part of C-SPAN, interrupt another Senators time zone to speak until the time was run out so those people who voted for that senator were not being represented in government. The Democrats never stopped him and the liberal news media never reported this anit-American behavior. It is well know among the conservatives that many people who vote for the Democrats don't even know what conservative is. What they learned were lies from the Democrats and the liberal media. A huge scam that C-SPAN help destroy some of it. Anyway, I don't watch Fox to know what is said on it. Hot air doesn't matter much, but what the laws are do matter. Commentators really don't interest me. They on either side are tempted to lie, though I think the conservatives lie much less. My conservative views can be very different than the Commentators. C-SPAN and talk radio has changed politics very much because people finally get to hear the conservatives side instead of almost completely liberals lieing about conservatives. The end result is not all the hot air but, instead, what the laws are and what the laws should be.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> While on the subject of intolerance, your posts have a signal lack of christian charity to 'liberals.' I worry when somebody defines oneself by one's perceived enemies.


A war is a war. Liberity is by blood because of thieves. Do you mind explaining how to be nice to a liberal when they cheat so much? As a boy I got plenty of spankings (more than I should have). I think spankings are much better than jail time and a criminal record. I've been around so many jail birds that never learn, whereas most kids learn from spankings. Since when did Christian charity exclude spankings? Ever have a nice spanking? I also don't believe in honoring lieing. Look at what Jesus said to some of the leaders of the day- pretty unkind, if you ask me. If Jesus is the Christ then what is Christian charity? Grace is opportunity to change. You really think somebody who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes doesn't know he is doing it? If they can't run their own life then why are they trying to run mine. I notice when people stomp on my toes. So I am not defineing myself by my perceived enemies. They are defining who they are.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Nobody is perfect, but I think liberals or the progressives, as they call themselfs anymore, are some of the worst. They can't run their own lives and they are foolishly trying to run, "railroad", others.


I know a lot of good liberals. I find them distinct from progressives.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WA said:


> A war is a war. Liberity is by blood because of thieves. Do you mind explaining how to be nice to a liberal when they cheat so much? As a boy I got plenty of spankings (more than I should have). I think spankings are much better than jail time and a criminal record. I've been around so many jail birds that never learn, whereas most kids learn from spankings. Since when did Christian charity exclude spankings? Ever have a nice spanking? I also don't believe in honoring lieing. Look at what Jesus said to some of the leaders of the day- pretty unkind, if you ask me. If Jesus is the Christ then what is Christian charity? Grace is opportunity to change. You really think somebody who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes doesn't know he is doing it? If they can't run their own life then why are they trying to run mine. I notice when people stomp on my toes. So I am not defineing myself by my perceived enemies. They are defining who they are.


you know, to those who dont believe Jesus is the christ, your reply makes little sense


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

young guy said:


> you know, to those who dont believe Jesus is the christ, your reply makes little sense


I wasn't writing to them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> you know, to those who dont believe Jesus is the christ, your reply makes little sense





WA said:


> I wasn't writing to them.


Luke 15:4
"Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? "


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Nobody is perfect, but I think liberals or the progressives, as they call themselfs anymore, are some of the worst. They can't run their own lives and they are foolishly trying to run, "railroad", others.


Someone said that it has to do with their arrogance. They think they can run their lives but "we" need their help.

Jack has this problem. He thinks others are ignorant, intolerant, blind to their ideological biases, and resort to attacks on people instead of ideas when it is actually him and his cohorts.

I'm officially dedicating this thread as a memorial to Jack.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Someone said that it has to do with their arrogance. They think they can run their lives but "we" need their help.
> 
> Jack has this problem. He thinks others are ignorant, intolerant, blind to their ideological biases, and resort to attacks on people instead of ideas when it is actually him and his cohorts.
> 
> I'm officially dedicating this thread as a memorial to Jack.


Interesting that you say this in a post in which you are blind to your own predilection for making ad hominem attacks instead of challenging the ideas you don't lik.

No worries. I'm tired enough of your ad hominem attacks that I'm putting you on ignore.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Interesting that you say this in a post in which you are blind to your own predilection for making ad hominem attacks instead of challenging the ideas you don't lik.
> 
> No worries. I'm tired enough of your ad hominem attacks that I'm putting you on ignore.


You proved you don't even know what an ad hominem attack is; and that it is distinct from an ad hominem argument.

You attacked me with more when I pointed out your first one.

You persist instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing for attacking them and me.

The childish public announcement that you are putting me on ignore only proves that you are unable to co-exist with ideas and people that are different from yourself without getting angry or succumbing to other personal character weaknesses; and that you feel the need to be embraced by others for doing so.

By your own standard that makes you the "IDIOT!"

Have a nice day! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Someone said that it has to do with their arrogance. They think they can run their lives but "we" need their help.
> 
> Jack has this problem. He thinks others are ignorant, intolerant, blind to their ideological biases, and resort to attacks on people instead of ideas when it is actually him and his cohorts.
> 
> I'm officially dedicating this thread as a memorial to Jack.


Well said.

I have few rules in life, like no lieing and no stealing. Isn't it amazing how some people lie to steal from others by saying they need to make up foolish rules for others? They'er all hypocrites because they don't seem to be able to follow their own rules for long, because their rules are dumb and wrong, they lead to problems. Freedom is nice because you see many different and intelligent methods that work (every mind is different and has to do many methods its way and not somebody elses method). Everybodies mind is wired different, so methods have to work with the wirering and not some other wired method. The over-rulely are blind.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Well said.
> 
> The over-rulely are blind.


Indeed. I'm sort of getting a kick out of Jesse using the *N-word* now and all the hypocrisy from people like the two black women on _The View_.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Indeed. I'm sort of getting a kick out of Jesse using the *N-word* now and all the hypocrisy from people like the two black women on _The View_.


I heard he used the *N-word* twice in that interview and it might have been two different *N-words*.

Don't know nothing about the two black women on _The View_. Or which _The View _it is. googled and came up with an abc.com _The View. _Didn't look at the other googled _The View._


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> I heard he used the *N-word* twice in that interview and it might have been two different *N-words*.
> 
> Don't know nothing about the two black women on _The View_. Or which _The View _it is. googled and came up with an abc.com _The View. _Didn't look at the other googled _The View._


It's Whoopie Goldberg and someone. It's Barbara Walters' show. They showed clips on O'Reilly of the circus.


----------

