|
Lizard Combatant posted:
There was no point
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 07:27 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:12 |
|
chyaroh posted:I also take exception to the blanket idea that "against marriage equality = hatred/homophobia etc etc". Just because we may not agree with the change for reasons of our firmly held religious belief does not mean that we want to burn everyone else at the stake. So anything short of supporting actual public execution of gay people means that you don't qualify as a homophobe.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 07:27 |
|
Lizard Combatant posted:You're a hard person to share a position with sometimes BB, this and the last thing you wrote were total nonsense. He's just flat out wrong about the word and instead you're making weird excuses to justify using an offensive term (which it isn't). I'm sorry LC, my standard method of rebuttal is to expose the internal inconsistencies of such "logic" by consistent application. I know it's rubbish in this case, because it's Negligent, and engaging with Negligent is a guaranteed losing proposition, cheapening both him and the people engaging with him.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 07:34 |
|
That whole fop debate was pretty horrible to read. "Hey everyone I read that human being means bundle of sticks, not gay!" Pretty clear that fop (while it obviously has many meanings) is often associated with effeminate behaviour which is often seen as a homosexual thing. I dislike MT but it really is the last word I'd use to describe him and falling in to the same patterns as people who'd write 'ditch the witch' signs about Julia isn't something to aspire to.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:18 |
|
Neither fop nor dandy are the right words for Malcolm Turnbull by any definition, he's just a rich rear end in a top hat. I have never seen them used to describe someone as effeminate or gay, either.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:25 |
|
I've never seen a scallop referred to as a potato cake
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:27 |
|
Malcolm Turnbullshit.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:27 |
|
MonoAus posted:That whole fop debate was pretty horrible to read. Language evolves, I get it, but I have never heard fop being used as anything but a synonym for self absorbed twit. quote:Pretty clear that fop (while it obviously has many meanings) is often associated with effeminate behaviour which is often seen as a homosexual thing. I dislike MT but it really is the last word I'd use to describe him and falling in to the same patterns as people who'd write 'ditch the witch' signs about Julia isn't something to aspire to Just the one meaning, I thought. Do you have any examples? I'll even accept blog posts at this point. Really it seems like people's defences are on auto pilot because it has connotations to do with personal appearance. Guess what, men are obsessed with appearances and fashion too, always have been. e: I don't give a poo poo about a catchy anti-Turnball slogan either Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Feb 15, 2016 |
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:29 |
|
Guillotine the LNP Team!
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:41 |
|
hooman posted:"He told 2GB radio this morning that two–thirds of people are taking advantage of negative gearing have a taxable income less than $80,000," Thats a pretty low income to be paying two mortgages out of otherwise.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:43 |
|
hooman posted:What do you call someone who is against granting certain categories of people rights then? It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know. I'd also like to think that in the end we would accept the ultimate will of the populace in this. I think that the plebiscite will get up. My view is that we must accept this, realising that we are to abide by the rulers put over us. What I doubt would be acceptable would be an effort to force churches to perform ceremonies that were fundamentally against the tenants of the religion. That wouldn't be acceptable. Regardless of the change to the Marriage Act our marriages will be just as valid as ever in the eyes of the church. Idiots who seem to think that a change would invalidate their unions or sexuality really need to get a grip.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:48 |
|
Solemn Sloth posted:So anything short of supporting actual public execution of gay people means that you don't qualify as a homophobe. If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-) I am not afraid of LGBTI people, nor do I hate them. Evidence of that I would define as homophobic.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:50 |
|
chyaroh posted:If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-) I probably misread your other post, never mind Knorth fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Feb 15, 2016 |
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:54 |
|
MonoAus posted:That whole fop debate was pretty horrible to read. human being has a long and storied history of being used as a derogatory term for gay men. Centuries long. The bundle of sticks argument falls apart because nobody can produce anything written after the 1600s where it's used as anything other than as a slur. The connotation became the new denotation and its original denotation fell by the wayside a long time ago. Fop has been used to denote a self-absorbed fool who's preoccupied with airs and graces so much so that it's actually a recognised character archetype. It has centuries of use denoting someone as thoroughly vapid, and as best I can tell from a quick search from my phone on a bus, almost no record of being used to derogatorily describe homosexuality. How you read it as meaning effeminate or gay, I have no idea. I really wish people with no idea how communication works would stop tumblring all over the English language. Seriously. Stop saying everything is a slur against somebody. A handful of words very clearly and inarguably are, regardless of context or etymology; most aren't. Blitzkrieg's idea was extremely stupid for many reasons but semantics isn't one of them. Grow up and engage with ideas like an adult instead of dismissing everything and running to the teacher because someone said what you think is a naughty word.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:09 |
|
chyaroh posted:If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-) It's your goals that are hosed up, not wether or not you'd say you're scared or angry. No body really cares how emotionally neutral you can act about homosexuals. You can feel however gentle you like, but you want fundamentally identical outcomes to that dude who wants to cover himself in poo poo because gay marriage carves a smiley face into a pussy sore
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:09 |
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Language evolves, I get it, but I have never heard fop being used as anything but a synonym for self absorbed twit. I don't really give a poo poo about it one way or another either. And I'm not prepared to start googling "homosexual fop offensive slur" or whatever, over this since I don't think anybody is saying it's an up-to-date and common insult to gay people. A lot of people seem to draw the association, even in this very thread, so its kind of dumb to argue that nobody would make that connection. It's really got nothing to do with if I think men obsessed with appearances are gay (I don't think that), more so that is what mainstream society thinks. Anyway, I think I've said all I came to say on that, it's not worth discussing further.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:11 |
|
chyaroh posted:If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-) So if you don't fear or hate them why would you give a single gently caress if gay people get married or not.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:11 |
|
chyaroh posted:If I've told you once I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate :-) Then you should give exactly no shits about whether or not they get married.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:13 |
|
Smegmatron posted:human being has a long and storied history of being used as a derogatory term for gay men. Centuries long. The bundle of sticks argument falls apart because nobody can produce anything written after the 1600s where it's used as anything other than as a slur. Dickens and most others were still using it as a purely functional term in the 19th Century. But apart from being wrong (on the dating) I agree with you. This has been Cartoon's contribution to the stupidest discussion in Aus Pol ever. See off the well off!
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:19 |
|
chyaroh posted:I would't agree that it's an insane response. In fact, it's a distillation of exactly why most religious organisations are against changing the Marriage Act. Biblically, it says a man and a woman shall join together and become one flesh - ie, marriage is to be solely between a man and a woman. Now, of course, there wasn't supposed to be divorce either, but that came in with Moses and has flowed through ever since. why are you excluding people on the basis of their sexuality like why are you discriminating against them?
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:24 |
|
Smegmatron posted:human being has a long and storied history of being used as a derogatory term for gay men. Centuries long. The bundle of sticks argument falls apart because nobody can produce anything written after the 1600s where it's used as anything other than as a slur. The connotation became the new denotation and its original denotation fell by the wayside a long time ago. Fop has been used to denote a self-absorbed fool who's preoccupied with airs and graces so much so that it's actually a recognised character archetype. It has centuries of use denoting someone as thoroughly vapid, and as best I can tell from a quick search from my phone on a bus, almost no record of being used to derogatorily describe homosexuality. How you read it as meaning effeminate or gay, I have no idea. Don't get too excited. Not sure why some of this is directed at me. Call people fops all you like, I won't run to the teacher. For me, to call MT a fop, a caricature of a somebody who is "a foolish person who is excessively concerned about his clothing, luxuries, minor details, refined language and leisurely hobbies. He is generally incapable of engaging in conversations, activities or thoughts without the idealism of aesthetics or pleasures." (from that Wikipedia link someone posted before) would appear to be a call on his lack of masculinity which I didn't think was appropriate.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:25 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/02/morrison-negative-gearing-your-once-chance-to-build-wealth/ quote:Tax breaks on investment properties and superannuation are costing the budget nearly $40 billion a year with almost none of the benefits going to the under 30s, who remain locked out of the game, according to new research. lol
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:28 |
|
Oh and the ACL guy is calling for the suspension of anti-discrimination laws because otherwise the NO campaign will violate them in their campaign against the gay marriage vote. Yes this is literally an argument being made, our campaign is illegally homophobic please cease the laws in the meantime.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:29 |
|
Well I mean if they violate existing laws I mean I guess the argument is homophobic?
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:30 |
|
Hey I got robopolled by Reachtel. No idea who for but I suspected Labor early on and haven't seen much to change my mind. A) Who would get your first preference at the moment: 1 liberal 2 national 3 labor 4 green 5 pup 6 other 7 und (chose this one) B. Who did you vote during the last election (as above chose 6) C. rate your local member 1 Very Good 2 Good 3 Average 4 Poor - I chose this one, for lying her arse off about the NBN. 5 Very Poor 6 Never heard D. What Issue is most important to you 1. Local jobs 2. economic management 3. protecting penalty rate 4. education (chose this one) 5. protecting Medicare 6. Stopping a GST increase 7. Strong Leadership E. If you had to have a local candidate, who would you chose: 1. Experienced candidate with good economic management, and influence in Canberra (ie Belinda Neale, get hosed) 2. A person who will fight for local Medicare , penalty rates, and prevent a higher GST (chose this one) 3. not sure F. The Libs say they wont raise the GST, if they get back in how do you rate the chances of it happening now 1. Very Likely 2. Likely (Chose this one as the Business Community demands their pound of flesh and if they don't deliver straight after the election then Turnbull is hosed) 3. Not Likely 4. Very Unlikely 5. not sure G. Mal is popular as, but the shine is going off him. What is your biggest worry about Our Mal/ 1. not in touch with the common man 2. no control of his party (chose this one) 3. says one thing does another 4. wont change his mind on stuff 5. has some interesting business friends and influence 6. no worries H. How would you scribe Scott Mo 1. competent 2. arrogant 3. intelligent 4. ruthless (chose this one due to child abuse) 5. No idea I. What should be the focus federal election 1. security 2. Jobs (chose this one) 3. strong economy 4. limiting the influence of the wealthy J. What is your age and gender and income bracket. Older, Porpoise,
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:31 |
|
chyaroh posted:It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know. Hatred and discrimination isn't all fire and brimstone and burn them at the stake. If you put forward the opinion that one group of people deserves less rights than another group of people that makes you a discriminator. It's sadly as simple as that. You can be as nice, and pleasant and kind as you like to people but as soon as you start saying "no, no, x group doesn't deserve human rights because y", with due respect, you are a bag of poo poo who deserves to be called out on their lovely hateful views. Anyone who doesn't want gays to be able to get married, fine, they're entitled to have that lovely view, but they're not entitled whine when their view is correctly described as homophobic. "I don't hate black people I just don't want them to vote" is a synonymous view to "I don't hate gay people I just don't want them to get married". Both views are terrible and both are rightly called out as such. You don't need to be lynching blacks to be racist, you don't need to be burning gays to be homophobic. I don't know how else I can explain to you that saying "I don't think you deserve human rights because of your sexuality" is one of the most hateful things you can do to a gay person no matter how kindly you phrase it. Cartoon posted:I've met the dude in a professional capacity and I don't hate him quite that vehemently*. Is there a personal incident behind the invective? Every time I've watched Parliament or senate estimates and have had the misfortune to hear him speak I've found him totally offensive. It's probably just a personal thing, but he's exactly the kind of person who grates me something loving cruel. Stupid while overly enamored with his own intelligence, arrogant and opinionated without taking the first attempts at educating himself on anything. This is the man who didn't like being kicked out of the cabinet so tried to change parties to claw his way back in. He's everything that's wrong with career politicians and I'm glad he's been forced out. hooman fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Feb 15, 2016 |
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:33 |
|
Lid posted:Oh and the ACL guy is calling for the suspension of anti-discrimination laws because otherwise the NO campaign will violate them in their campaign against the gay marriage vote. Yes this is literally an argument being made, our campaign is illegally homophobic please cease the laws in the meantime. "People have the right to be a bigot"
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:36 |
|
The "don't expect churches to agree or enact same sex weddings" bit is something you might be disappointed with, too. Most of them're coming along pretty okay with inter-faith and interratial marriage, and progressive denominations "enact" gay weddimgs all over the place. It'll be grossly retarded compared to every other sector of society, but they'll wise up some day
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:37 |
|
The Peccadillo posted:Even in that case, a referendum could only give states and territories the power to pass legislation concerning local definitions of marriage, it couldn't ammend the Federal Marriage Act, because that ain't a part of the constitution. So there'd still be no gay marriage in Queensland 'til 2116 You don't need a referendum for that. The constitution gives the Commonwealth the power to legislate as to marriage, they can say we'll leave it to the states as to how they want to recognise gay marriage if they wished. It's not a matter for a referendum anyway. The Commonwealth already has the power to legislate and removing their power would go against the reason it was included in the first place: so you don't have different versions depending on what state you are in. chyaroh posted:It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know. The assumption is that anyone against gay marriage doesn't respect the rights of others. If your opinion is bigoted you can't act too shocked if you are called out on it. I don't really want the will of the populace dictating minority rights either.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:39 |
|
Smegmatron posted:"People have the right to be a bigot" quote:Christian lobby seeks anti-discrimination 'override' for plebiscite campaign Federal funding for bigotry! Supending bigotry laws! We are not bigots~!
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:44 |
|
chyaroh posted:It's more that there seems to be the assumption that anyone who may have a different opinion is automatically a scream fire and brimstone burn them at the stake hater. That's the attitude I take exception to. My theory, for want of a better term, is that like everyone else we have the right to put forward our opinion, one that hopefully makes our point without seeming hateful. Very difficult I know. guess which one you are in this comic
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:54 |
|
quote:Mr Shelton stressed that those in the "no" camp were not seeking to say anything bigoted, but to put forward the "millenia-old" argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. This is a good point I forgot how there was no bigotry thousands of years ago.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:59 |
|
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...%20-for&f=false https://books.google.com.au/books?i...cPADB8Q6AEIHzAC
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:06 |
|
Negligent posted:https://books.google.com.au/books?i...%20-for&f=false I'm sorry for those in this thread who thought they were well-read, but are in fact as ignorant as the general populace they so often criticise.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:13 |
quote:“If we’ve evolved from monkeys, then why haven’t those ones evolved?” Warne asked reality show contestant Bonnie Lythgoe during Monday's episode of "I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here. on ya warnie!!
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:14 |
|
Negligent posted:https://books.google.com.au/books?i...%20-for&f=false Unironically thanks for these. Though the 1st one is unconvincing, the 2nd from 2004 does establish a connection that was previously completely unknown to me. I'd maintain as Smegmatron, rather bluntly put it, that it's common meaning has in no way been supplanted, but I am a man of my word so enjoy your plats certificate. e: or at least, you will once the SA gift cert page stops timing out. Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Feb 15, 2016 |
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:23 |
quote:“Look at those pyramids, Bonnie,” Warne continued. “You couldn’t do them. You couldn’t pull those ropes, huge bits of brick and make it perfectly symmetrical. Couldn’t do it. So who did it?”
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:27 |
quote:RIMMER: No, Lister, I mean like the pyramids. How did they move such
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:28 |
|
They did it with massive social welfare programs
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:46 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 13:12 |
Skellybones posted:They did it with massive social welfare programs Paid the workers in beer. Tell that to a big enough group of aussies, and we would have our own set of pyramids faster than you can say "Krakatinni"
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 11:03 |