Lots of drops outside the bucket
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
They you dont know many gays,
Not really.
Alex hogarth wrote:
the gay comunity is a diverse as the non gay - this includes there fair share of ignorant bigots.
I know, but to actually use the term derogatorily requires at least rudimentary intellect, and such I thing I do not envision them having.
Alex hogarth wrote:
certainly the term "breader" iscertainly used derogortory
Really? Why would anyone be insulted by such a thing?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would anyone be insulted by such a thing?
It is used in a derogatory way,[^] You don't think it's possible to intend to insult someone without it being seen as an insult?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
Do gay people use "That's so straight" as a derogatory term?
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Trollslayer wrote:
Do gay people use "That's so straight" as a derogatory term?
In effect. "Gay" men tend to (at minimum) look down on women, even if (especially if and as) they individually emulate the traits and/or weaknesses more commonly associated with feminine nature. "Gay" women, of course, are notorious for hating men. "Gay" men and women frequently use the word "breeder" (i.e. a "straight" person, and thus psychologically capable of breeding) as a term of contempt. And, in any event, the word 'gay' didn't have any meaning relating to homosexuality until the anti-straights hijacked it for that purpose. Where do such persons have standing to bitch because other people are hijacking their meaning?
-
Wouldn't you know it? One of my sisters came over for a couple of days to help me build a roof over the patio, and it's looking like it may rain all day today. Maybe I'll luck out and she'll decide to stay until Sunday, rather than leaving tomorrow.
Ilíon wrote:
Wouldn't you know it? One of my sisters came over for a couple of days to help me build a roof over the patio, and it's looking like it may rain all day today. Maybe I'll luck out and she'll decide to stay until Sunday, rather than leaving tomorrow.
It rained into the afternoon, then cleared off, after which we got quite a bit done on the project. While it was raining, we went shopping (at stores for her and the lumber yard for me). So, before she left yesterday, we completed the walls and built the load-bearing header above the walls, and got a couple of the ceiling joists in place. I could have done all this myself (you should have seen me building the sun-room 20 feet off the ground), but it's much easier and faster when you have help. It started raining again yesterday, it's still raining.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
Do gay people use "That's so straight" as a derogatory term?
In effect. "Gay" men tend to (at minimum) look down on women, even if (especially if and as) they individually emulate the traits and/or weaknesses more commonly associated with feminine nature. "Gay" women, of course, are notorious for hating men. "Gay" men and women frequently use the word "breeder" (i.e. a "straight" person, and thus psychologically capable of breeding) as a term of contempt. And, in any event, the word 'gay' didn't have any meaning relating to homosexuality until the anti-straights hijacked it for that purpose. Where do such persons have standing to bitch because other people are hijacking their meaning?
Ilíon wrote:
"Gay" men tend to (at minimum) look down on women, even if (especially if and as) they individually emulate the traits and/or weaknesses more commonly associated with feminine nature. "Gay" women, of course, are notorious for hating men.
Hardly ever.
Ilíon wrote:
"Gay" men and women frequently use the word "breeder" (i.e. a "straight" person, and thus psychologically capable of breeding) as a term of contempt.
Hardly ever.
-
Ilíon wrote:
"Gay" men tend to (at minimum) look down on women, even if (especially if and as) they individually emulate the traits and/or weaknesses more commonly associated with feminine nature. "Gay" women, of course, are notorious for hating men.
Hardly ever.
Ilíon wrote:
"Gay" men and women frequently use the word "breeder" (i.e. a "straight" person, and thus psychologically capable of breeding) as a term of contempt.
Hardly ever.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ilíon wrote: "Gay" men tend to (at minimum) look down on women, even if (especially if and as) they individually emulate the traits and/or weaknesses more commonly associated with feminine nature. "Gay" women, of course, are notorious for hating men. Hardly ever.
I aggree with you here, if anything gay men tend to get on very well with women
Ilíon wrote: "Gay" men and women frequently use the word "breeder" (i.e. a "straight" person, and thus psychologically capable of breeding) as a term of contempt. Hardly ever
but disagree here, having worked with gay men in my last three jobs I find that they all were very friendly with the women. but out of those i knew one was a self opinionated bigot and often used to call fellow workings "BREADERS" when he felt he had been slighted (and before anyone says anything the reason for his slights were always his lack of hygine and exceptionally bad coding not his orinatation - in fact I still think his being gay was the ONLY reason he kept that job)
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ilíon wrote: "Gay" men tend to (at minimum) look down on women, even if (especially if and as) they individually emulate the traits and/or weaknesses more commonly associated with feminine nature. "Gay" women, of course, are notorious for hating men. Hardly ever.
I aggree with you here, if anything gay men tend to get on very well with women
Ilíon wrote: "Gay" men and women frequently use the word "breeder" (i.e. a "straight" person, and thus psychologically capable of breeding) as a term of contempt. Hardly ever
but disagree here, having worked with gay men in my last three jobs I find that they all were very friendly with the women. but out of those i knew one was a self opinionated bigot and often used to call fellow workings "BREADERS" when he felt he had been slighted (and before anyone says anything the reason for his slights were always his lack of hygine and exceptionally bad coding not his orinatation - in fact I still think his being gay was the ONLY reason he kept that job)
Alex hogarth wrote:
but disagree here, having worked with gay men in my last three jobs I find that they all were very friendly with the women. but out of those i knew one was a self opinionated bigot and often used to call fellow workings "BREADERS" when he felt he had been slighted (and before anyone says anything the reason for his slights were always his lack of hygine and exceptionally bad coding not his orinatation - in fact I still think his being gay was the ONLY reason he kept that job)
I just can't see many gay people using it. Most people wouldn't, so I assume most gay people wouldn't. It's a ridiculous insult, especially considering how many gay people father children.
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
but disagree here, having worked with gay men in my last three jobs I find that they all were very friendly with the women. but out of those i knew one was a self opinionated bigot and often used to call fellow workings "BREADERS" when he felt he had been slighted (and before anyone says anything the reason for his slights were always his lack of hygine and exceptionally bad coding not his orinatation - in fact I still think his being gay was the ONLY reason he kept that job)
I just can't see many gay people using it. Most people wouldn't, so I assume most gay people wouldn't. It's a ridiculous insult, especially considering how many gay people father children.
arnt most insults rediculous when you get down to it?
-
arnt most insults rediculous when you get down to it?
Not if they're used properly. Otherwise they're just meaningless words.
-
Not if they're used properly. Otherwise they're just meaningless words.
but a large proportion of insults are meaningfull words used improperly!
-
but a large proportion of insults are meaningfull words used improperly!
Then they're not insults, not really. You wouldn't be insulted by someone calling you a space alien, because it isn't true. You also wouldn't be insulted by someone calling you a human, because why would you be ashamed of that?
-
Then they're not insults, not really. You wouldn't be insulted by someone calling you a space alien, because it isn't true. You also wouldn't be insulted by someone calling you a human, because why would you be ashamed of that?
I have heard both your examples(or close appromimation thereof) being used as insults, most insults are insults in context or by convention, ie a pervert 1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt. 2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase. 3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt. 4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort: an analysis that perverts the meaning of the poem. so using the meaning of the word may not be insulting and can be acurate in its use but is that to say its not insulting? if a word is used as insult and is reconignised by a social group as such, then it is valid to call it an insult even if a larger group sees no insult despite being its target. just because you dont relise your being insulted doesnt mean your aint being it is true however the more commonly accepted the insult the usually the more weight it carries
-
Ilíon wrote:
"Gay" men tend to (at minimum) look down on women, even if (especially if and as) they individually emulate the traits and/or weaknesses more commonly associated with feminine nature. "Gay" women, of course, are notorious for hating men.
Hardly ever.
Ilíon wrote:
"Gay" men and women frequently use the word "breeder" (i.e. a "straight" person, and thus psychologically capable of breeding) as a term of contempt.
Hardly ever.
-
me or him? if its me, then explain why you think so come to think of it explaining why hes being ignorant or dishonest too for as far as I can see he has 1, stated an observation based on a limited knowedgebase(self admitted) 2, an opinion the first is not ignorance but a valid thought process, you make an observation based on what you know then reasses when furthe information becomes available - an intelligent process rather than the line of certain others which seems to be "make your mind up about something the look for anything that may support that view, disregarding any alternatives or counter claims and resorting to insulting behavour when confronted". the second is a valid point, we all have opinions and theres nothing wrong in that as long as you dont try and force them on others, by all means provide arguments to the contri of the stated opinions but do not seak to force others to believe your opinions or claim that they are ignorant or dishonest without providing suffcient evidence to back your claim and to then DEFEND that claim having read his posts and yours I know who I think of as ignorant and dishonest
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you're ignorant (and liking it that way) ... or dishonest.
Wow. That was really interesting and informative, thank you.
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you're ignorant (and liking it that way) ... or dishonest.
Wow. That was really interesting and informative, thank you.
-
It's only shallow thinkers, you know, persons such as yourself, who imagine that novelty is an absolute virtue.
Shut up mum!
-
Shut up mum!
-
I'm not maternal. Paternal, even Patriarchal, perhaps, but not maternal. Your very thought processes have been warped by the feminist ascendancy and mismanagement of western societies, haven't they?
I actually wrote that at the very moment Bart said it (it's on TV).
-
I actually wrote that at the very moment Bart said it (it's on TV).
-
In an event/effect somewhat like déjà Vu? How can there *be* such a phenomenon in a materialistic world?
Ilíon wrote:
In an event/effect somewhat like déjà Vu?
No, it was intentional.
Ilíon wrote:
How can there *be* such a phenomenon in a materialistic world?
The real question is, does the Hawaii chair actually work?