Australian Politics Forum - SOBs unjustified prejudice

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice Reply #15 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:20pm Quote: They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart. SOB Ahh. Well that clears it all up then doesn't it?
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 40764 Gender:	Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice Reply #16 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:32pm Quote: They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart. SOB If my uncle was an aunt he wouldn't be. But he is so he isn't. SOBlogic, now everyone cry for my uncle.
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #17 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:40pm

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:34pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

Quote:

......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works.
However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims...........

What rot

Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat.

SOB

And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice" etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else?

Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country?

You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up.

Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else. "gay is normal" doesnt effect anyone but gays. On the other hand stopping them from being equal does effect them.

SOB

It also affects normal people.

Yes gays are normal ppl. It doesnt effect ppl who are not gay though.

SOB

Gays are not 'normals'. They are gays. They wouldn't call themselves gays if they were 'normals'.

'Normal' is a misnomer.....there is NO normal in the human classification...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #18 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm

Having 2 eyes is "normal". The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that.

Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that.

And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that.

Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #19 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:13pm

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Having 2 eyes is "normal". The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that.

Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that.

And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that.

Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.

Yes it does....people are tall, short, fat, thin, pale, dark, blue eyed, brown eyed, green eyed, right handed, left handed, ambidexterous, heterosexual, homosexual.....it's ALL 'normal' within the range of human existence...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #20 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:23pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:13pm:

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Having 2 eyes is "normal". The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that.

Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that.

And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that.

Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.

Yes it does....people are tall, short, fat, thin, pale, dark, blue eyed, brown eyed, green eyed, right handed, left handed, ambidexterous, heterosexual, homosexual.....it's ALL 'normal' within the range of human existence...

The problem with this little slice of intellectual dishonesty is that everything becomes "normal". But "normal" already has a meaning, quite at odds with your redefintion of the term.

Quote:

nor·mal /ˈnɔrməl/ Show Spelled[nawr-muhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Just chooose another angle to argue from - nobody likes being lied to. If you can't argue your stance without resorting to falsehoods, perhaps you should rethink whether it's worth arguing?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #21 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:32pm

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:13pm:

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Having 2 eyes is "normal". The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that.

Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that.

And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that.

Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.

Yes it does....people are tall, short, fat, thin, pale, dark, blue eyed, brown eyed, green eyed, right handed, left handed, ambidexterous, heterosexual, homosexual.....it's ALL 'normal' within the range of human existence...

The problem with this little slice of intellectual dishonesty is that everything becomes "normal". But "normal" already has a meaning, quite at odds with your redefintion of the term.

Quote:

nor·mal /ˈnɔrməl/ Show Spelled[nawr-muhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Just chooose another angle to argue from - nobody likes being lied to. If you can't argue your stance without resorting to falsehoods, perhaps you should rethink whether it's worth arguing?

AND?? there is no 'normal', in the concept of human....humans cover a whole range of things...the idea of 'the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.' is covered by human...there's no specific 'natural' thing with people...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #22 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:39pm

I get the impression you know what youre arguing is wrong. I think that stems from the fact that I am objectively correct. But you're sticking firm. I don't understand why, but it's not that unusual these days.

Obviously you're too far immersed in doublethink to see reason, so I don't really know why I'm bothering, but I'll just leave you to ponder this:

If heteroseuxality isn't "normal" why is it a necessity for the survival of the species?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #23 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:00pm

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

I get the impression you know what youre arguing is wrong. I think that stems from the fact that I am objectively correct. But you're sticking firm. I don't understand why, but it's not that unusual these days.

Obviously you're too far immersed in doublethink to see reason, so I don't really know why I'm bothering, but I'll just leave you to ponder this:

If heteroseuxality isn't "normal" why is it a necessity for the survival of the species?

No, what I'm arguing isn't 'wrong'...and I didn't say that heterosexuality isn't 'normal'....

It's all part of the marvelous cycle of 'life'...
In the scheme of things....females being attracted to 'traditional' male triggers or males being attracted to 'traditional' female triggers (big boobs for females or muscles for males) is such a small 'deviation' that it's not worth worrying about...

If 5% or 10% of guys are attracted to guys, or 5% or 10% of girls are attracted to girls, it's really not going to affect the survival of the species....frogs and some fish spontaneously change sex in an environment with too much of one sex....mammals can't quite manage the physical shift...but what of it??.....

It won't affect YOU or ME.....except under religion...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #24 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:21pm

Quote:

If 5% or 10% of guys are attracted to guys, or 5% or 10% of girls are attracted to girls, it's really not going to affect the survival of the species....

Nope, but that's not the issue. The issue is you claiming that something practised by "5 or 10%" is "normal."

Quote:

frogs and some fish spontaneously change sex in an environment with too much of one sex....

Good for them. But we're not frogs or fish, we are humans.

Quote:

mammals can't quite manage the physical shift...but what of it??.....

I dunno - what of it? You're the one who feels the need to redefine the wordl around you so that homos can be "normal". What's so fantatstic about being "normal" anyway?

Quote:

It won't affect YOU or ME.....except under religion...

It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying.
For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes. Why do you bother?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #25 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:31pm

Eye Color

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061027122029AA71bCC

Quote:

32% blue/grey irises
15% blue/grey/green irises with brown/yellow specks
12% green/light brown irises with minimal specks
16% brown irises with specks
25% dark brown irises
Source(s):
American Academy of Opthamology

So lets see only 12% in the world have green eyes. They must not be normal. Better stop them from marrying because it will effect everyone else if they do.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #26 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:33pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

Eye Color

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061027122029AA71bCC

Quote:

32% blue/grey irises
15% blue/grey/green irises with brown/yellow specks
12% green/light brown irises with minimal specks
16% brown irises with specks
25% dark brown irises
Source(s):
American Academy of Opthamology

So lets see only 12% in the world have green eyes. They must not be normal. Better stop them from marrying because it will effect everyone else if they do.

SOB

Eyes still perform the same function no matter what colour they are. A better analogy would be blindness.

Is blindness "normal"?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #27 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:54pm

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

[quote]

It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying.
For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes. Why do you bother?

Simply to irritate YOU....Gay marriage won't affect anyone other than gay people...so it's really not worth worrying about.....whhen it becomes compulsory, THEN I'll bother to get upset and start spitting vitrol...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #28 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:58pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

[quote]

It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying.
For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes. Why do you bother?

Simply to irritate YOU....Gay marriage won't affect anyone other than gay people...so it's really not worth worrying about.....whhen it becomes compulsory, THEN I'll bother to get upset and start spitting vitrol...

That's a bit of a jump there - I thought you were arguing that homosexuality is "normal". When did the argument shift from that to whether or not homorriage should be allowed?

For the record, IF the government must have a say in what unions it formally recognises, then it should draw distinctions between different ypes of unions. Just as we don't say that your relationship with your best friend is "just the same" as that with your wife, so we shouldn't say that a relationship between 2 people of the same sex (ie with no higher utility or function than each parties gratification) is "just the same" as one with 2 people of the opposite sex.

What's the bet I have some rube asking "whats the difference" Before you type out such inanity, just follow this link and all will be explained.

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come-From/dp/0818402539

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:08pm by ... »

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice Reply #29 - Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:01pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:18pm: They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart. SOB So they are 'gay' because they are unequal? Doesn't make sense. They should call themselves 'stodgy'.
Back to top	IP Logged