16 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloit seems that you missed out the fundamental point of it being designated a gay bar, by the very fact that the persons attending are gay, thus my dear lemony yellow, is their sexual orientation not a definitive reason of why they are there, why the bar happens to be there, and why it is termed a gay bar, thus it appears to me, that sexuality has indeed defined not only the bar and its status, the motivation for going there and ultimately the clientèle who shall frequent it.
I'm confused here: how are you not just making my exact point for me? Yes, I'm sure if you saw a bunch of gay persons together at a bar, you would designate it a "gay bar" and see nothing more than the fact that all these persons happen to be gay.
otherwise are you prepared to ignore this sexuality and think, oh that's not a gay bar, its just a persons bar, OK, the people who frequent it are gay, but hey they are gay persons who coincidently just happen to be congregating at this particular spot at this particular moment, and the bar has the designation gay bar, but its not really a gay bar, its just a bar with persons who happen to be gay, really Lemony, is this the way we should be thinking???
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnewhen you post something with content rather than the usual, 'your a bigot! your a bigot!', type of nonsense, then we shall have something to discuss, as it stands, its just another hollow assertion.
You really seem to like the "slander" defense regardless of its relevance.
Only a bigot would use the terms you used earlier as well as have such an obviously prejudiced position.
It's a valid question:
Is your bigotry a result of your Jehovah's Witness training or did you pick it up on your own?
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEvidently you missed the following:
when you post something with content rather than the usual, 'your a bigot! your a bigot!', type of nonsense, then we shall have something to discuss, as it stands, its just another hollow assertion.
Only a bigot would use the terms you used earlier as well as have such an obviously prejudiced position.
It's a valid question:
Is your bigotry a result of your Jehovah's Witness training or did you pick it up on your own?
Do you see the irony in the fact that so many "Christians" are the least tolerant of their neighbors? That these "Christians" love their neighbors the least?
16 Oct 09
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnei have provided reasoning, either refute the reasoning or withdraw the assertion and issue an apology. nope i dont see it, all i see is the wicked and sluggish slave beating and accusing his brothers day and night.
Evidently you missed the following:
[b]Only a bigot would use the terms you used earlier as well as have such an obviously prejudiced position.
It's a valid question:
Is your bigotry a result of your Jehovah's Witness training or did you pick it up on your own?
Do you see the irony in the fact that so many "Christians" are the least tolerant of their neighbors? That these "Christians" love their neighbors the least?[/b]
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can find one of the terms you used earlier on this list of CULTURAL SLURS:
i have provided reasoning, either refute the reasoning or withdraw the assertion and issue an apology. nope i dont see it, all i see is the wicked and sluggish slave beating and accusing his brothers day and night.
http://www.slangsearch.com/culture.html
From what I can tell, you made up the other disparaging term so they could rhyme.
Go ahead, try to defend it.
Little wonder that you "don't see it". Bigots usually don't.
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnenope im not buying it, Gaydo is a colloquial term for homosexual, and as far as i am concerned carries none of the sinister connotations of other terms, lesbo is also the same, therefore if all you have is that they are colloquial terms, then i think my conscience can rest easy, for its my opinion against yours or the author of the article that you have produced as 'damning evidence', it was a feeble try but you had to clutch at something.
You can find one of the terms you used earlier on this list of CULTURAL SLURS:
http://www.slangsearch.com/culture.html
From what I can tell, you made up the other disparaging term so they could rhyme.
Go ahead, try to defend it.
16 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can call it "colloquial" all you want, but it's a "colloquial" term that's considered DISPARAGING and OFFENSIVE.
nope im not buying it, Gaydo is a colloquial term for homosexual, and as far as i am concerned carries none of the sinister connotations of other terms, lesbo is also the same, therefore if all you have is that they are colloquial terms, then i think my conscience can rest easy, for its my opinion against yours or the author of the article that you have produced as 'damning evidence', it was a feeble try but you had to clutch at something.
Here's another source:
http://dictionary.infoplease.com/lesbo
—n.,
—pl. -bos. Slang (disparaging and offensive).
a lesbian.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
You're a real piece of work.
Like I said earlier, "Little wonder that you 'don't see it'. Bigots usually don't."
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnenope, when someone calls me Jock, its a colloquial term and a little derogatory, same as Paddy, but do we cry bigotry every time we hear it, do we what? its not our fault you overly sensitive about these things, sorry , call me what you like, im not buying it ?
You can call it "colloquial" all you want, but it's a "colloquial" term that's considered DISPARAGING and OFFENSIVE.
Here's another source:
—n.,
—pl. -bos. Slang ([b]disparaging and offensive).
a lesbian.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
You're a real piece of work.[/b]
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay, I'll just keep calling you what you are: A bigot.
nope, when someone calls me Jock, its a colloquial term and a little derogatory, same as Paddy, but do we cry bigotry every time we hear it, do we what? its not our fault you overly sensitive about these things, sorry , call me what you like, im not buying it ?
Is your bigotry a result of your Jehovah's Witness training or did you pick it up on your own?
16 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneok, then i shall continue to refer to you as the homosexual, how about that? was your homosexuality the result of a predisposition of your genetic makeup or through a preferential choice?
Okay, I'll just keep calling you what you are: A bigot.
Is your bigotry a result of your Jehovah's Witness training or did you pick it up on your own?
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess I'll just have to believe that your behavior is typical of Jehovah's Witness'.
ok, then i shall continue to refer to you as the homosexual, how about that? was your homosexuality the result of a predisposition of your genetic makeup or through a preferential choice?
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnenope its not typical, what do you think we are mindless drones assimilated into some type of borgian subconscious? you have been assimilated? i notice that you are not denying the assertions that i made. will you also admit to being a tax collector and a sinner?
I guess I'll just have to believe that your behavior is typical of Jehovah's Witness'.
16 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobielol. You're about as irrational as they get.
nope its not typical, what do you think we are mindless drones assimilated into some type of borgian subconscious? you have been assimilated? i notice that you are not denying the assertions that i made. will you also admit to being a tax collector and a sinner?
But it's good to know that JW's aren't taught to be bigots and that you picked it up on your own.
16 Oct 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry, but that just seems like a ridiculously stupid argument. If you actually believe this line of reasoning is sound, then explain to me why straight persons are also not "defined by their sexuality":
it seems that you missed out the fundamental point of it being designated a gay bar, by the very fact that the persons attending are gay, thus my dear lemony yellow, is their sexual orientation not a definitive reason of why they are there, why the bar happens to be there, and why it is termed a gay bar, thus it appears to me, that sexuality has inde ...[text shortened]... bar with persons who happen to be gay, really Lemony, is this the way we should be thinking???
it seems that you missed out the fundamental point of it being designated a straight bar, by the very fact that the persons attending are straight, thus my dear lemony yellow, is their sexual orientation not a definitive reason of why they are there, why the bar happens to be there, and why it is termed a straight bar, thus it appears to me, that sexuality has indeed defined not only the bar and its status, the motivation for going there and ultimately the clientèle who shall frequent it.