THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (11888)	5/3/2002 3:17:25 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 21057

"Unless you are using the term homophobe very narrowly I disagree with your psychoanalysis or the group that you are calling homophobes" If you wish to disagree with the group I am calling homophobes (homophobes)...that is ok with me. I disagree with them all the time, and I am happy that you are at least taking a position against such irrational hatred...FINALLY!. You may also disagree with my psycoanalysis, but if I have done such,you would not be privy to the knowledge...so your remark is from another room you have scurried into. "I am not posting in support of hate, discrimination or violence but rather just about the use of a particular word" Pardon me; but the bulk of your energy seems to be going to express your "concern" for the word, not your "concern" for the "hate, discrimination or violence". ____________________________________ "Thats (I do think that calling them homophobes without evidence of irrational fear is a good use of the language") been the issue the whole time. I started by saying I don't like the word (or really how it is sometimes used) because it is used to imply irrational fear where there may be no such fear." And the reason why you agree that it accurately describes the aversion and discrimination, but it does not have an unconscious element of anxiety or threat?? Are you a theorist on causes for social aggression that you have authority to qustion the validity of medical definitions?? Your only problem with the word was that you resent that irrational hatred should be thought to be somewhat based on fear? You want the world to take the word "fear" out of one of the angles of meaning just to satisfy some bloody quirk that you have which makes you belive that fear is NEVER an element of the aversion and discrimination? Whew, Tim? You really are something else. "I didn't say I was against such a word existing or even that it wasn't needed, just that I wasn't sure it was needed." Oh well...follow Tim into the next room... "I'm not sure a specific word for people who hate homosexuals is needed", seemed to express your intent rather clearly to me--when taken in the overall context of your desire to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex without being described as possibly having any unconscious motives of fear as to your own sexuality.. "I see you think I have walked somewhere that I have not." I did not say you had walked anywhere. Just as you did not say that you were against the word "homophobia". You just weren't "sure it was needed" You were not sure a word was needed for people who had an irrational hatred of homosexuals, but you do not complain about all the words which describe people who hate other people. I only asked if you saw where you had walked with that statement. Does that indicate that homosexuals are a legitimate target of hatred, and that therefore you are not sure whether a word is needed to describe the hate? Is that why you are not sure whether such a word is needed? I did not say where you had walked. I merely posed a curious query. Your comment that I thought you walked somewhere that you hadn't is entirely false. I know exactly where you walked.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next