Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (22665)	8/17/2001 1:16:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Poet, even if we take your word for it that any one who ever insults homosexuals is a homophobe and/or a hater of homosexuals its an enormous stretch to claim that anyone who doesn't challenge the poster of the insult is a homophobe or a hater of homosexuals. Tim

To: Poet who wrote (22665)	8/17/2001 1:21:31 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't read all the posts, especially when I am catching up. Plus, there are people whom I have chastised from time to time, like haqihana, who are not going to change, and as long as they don't get into a rant, I don't pay attention to it (it gets boring to take issue over and over with the same people). But the main thing is, you are really overstepping yourself here.......

To: Poet who wrote (22665)	8/17/2001 1:27:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'll also expect to see you stepping up to the plate the next time somebody hits a foul one in that regard. I'd be happy to have the company, believe me. Poet, there are a lot of discussions going on concurrently on all these threads. It's really hard to keep focused if you're trying get an understanding of something. People are commenting on other subjects. People are commenting on one's own subject but different tangents. To stay focused, you have to just skip over a lot of extraneous stuff. I don't think any conclusions about anyone's views can be drawn from that person's failure to engage the extraneous stuff. Nor do I think one has to step up to the plate every time one sees something disagreeable. When the offense reaches critical mass, there is an obligation, but not before. Otherwise we'd all be squabbling all the time. Or maybe I should say that's why so many of us are squabbling all the time. Karen

To: Poet who wrote (22665)	8/17/2001 1:50:24 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

The very term "homophobe" is an interesting word. Coined by the homosexual interests movement to brand those who don't agree with their viewpoint as having a mental illness. Sort of tit-for-tat since it's only been a relatively brief time since homosexuality was included by DSM as a mental illness. But one abuse can't be excused by looking at another. But a poet, who cares about language, should IMO be careful about using the term. First of all, what does it actually mean? Should it be limited to someone who has an irrational fear? And fear of what -- the homosexual act itself, or the people who practice the homosexual act? There is a difference. The problem is that the movement has distorted the language around this issue so that it is virtually impossible to hold any nuanced positions. Either you totally accept, even if you don't practice, homosexuality and see it as a completely normal lifestyle to be taught as an equally valid lifestyle to the heterosexual lifestyle, or you are sick and evil. They have managed to completely cut out any middle ground. Which I think is a mistake, because what it has done is put people in the middle into the position of "hating sick evil opponent," polarized the issue, and eliminated much of the hope for rational discussion. We don't call people who look down on beastiality "beastophobes." We don't look on people who disapprove of pedophilia as "pedophobes." We don't lable people who argue that there is something unnatural about a religious lifestyle "religophobes." We don't label homosexuals who hate heterosexuals as "heterophobes." I think there is room for people who consider the exercise of homosexuality to be something they don't want to engage in and disapprove of, but accept the right of other people to do it if they must. Sort of like people who hunt. For me, that's an inappropriate lifestyles, not deviant exactly but not totally good, either. I don't much like associating with people for whom hunting is a passion. But I accept that it's their passion and if they want to do it, okay. Just don't ask me to approve of it or say "hunting is a fine, healthy, normal lifestyle and those who don't approve of it are sickos."