Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A recent study investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Thoughts?

I have never liked the term homophobia because nobody is afraid of gays. Nobody experiences fear upon the sight of a gay person. Do some people disagree with the lifestyle? Yes, do some even hate it? Yes, but they aren't exactly afraid of it.

As for this study, if it's trying to say that anyone who has a problem with gays must be secretly gay themselves..that is certainly a point of view to take. Personally I think most of the time it's just ignorance rather than latent homosexuality.

Originally posted by Surtur
I have never liked the term homophobia because nobody is afraid of gays. Nobody experiences fear upon the sight of a gay person. Do some people disagree with the lifestyle? Yes, do some even hate it? Yes, but they aren't exactly afraid of it. Socialsciences often use the term phobia as a synonym for aversion.

I know, it's just when I hear the term phobia I actually think of something like arachnophobia.

Social sciences uses a lot of ists, isms, and phobias that don't necessarily equate.

wzmujQ1yb1k

I think this was a pretty limited sample size and doesn't really prove much. Maybe back in the day when gays were hated, there were"homophobic" men who were closet gays.

Now, though? When the majority of people are for gay rights and gays are widely accepted?

No, I think "homophobic" men today really do hate gays and are not closet homosexuals themselves.

At least some of them are. The Orlando shooter definitely was.

Yes he probably was a closeted homosexual and his religion told him this was evil and wrong.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/prime-minister-netanyahu-says-what-were-all-thinking-about-orlando-terrorist-attack/

Very interesting especially this line, for people who want to fight over whether Orlando was terrorism or homophobia.

Originally posted by Surtur
I have never liked the term homophobia because nobody is afraid of gays. Nobody experiences fear upon the sight of a gay person. Do some people disagree with the lifestyle? Yes, do some even hate it? Yes, but they aren't exactly afraid of it.

As for this study, if it's trying to say that anyone who has a problem with gays must be secretly gay themselves..that is certainly a point of view to take. Personally I think most of the time it's just ignorance rather than latent homosexuality.

You kind of took the phobia thing to an extreme, as parmaniac stated it's more aversion than fear. But what i think it's trying to say is not necessarily that people are gay. It's more akin to sexual arousal. I can be turned own by two women having sex but myself personally am heterosexual. The issue with the homophobes come when the DENY the arousal. When the change in their penis girth shows otherwise.

Well. Tried to post a clip of Costanza saying "it moved."

Thought it was applicable, but: "Sorry but you are only allowed to post links once you are more well known. This is to deter spammers. Thank you for understanding"

Could a hetero "homophobic" male's arousal by male/male scenes suggest a certain (unintentional) attraction toward things he considers taboo?

Originally posted by blair85
Well. Tried to post a clip of Costanza saying "it moved."

Thought it was applicable, but: "Sorry but you are only allowed to post links once you are more well known. This is to deter spammers. Thank you for understanding"

Could a hetero "homophobic" male's arousal by male/male scenes suggest a certain (unintentional) attraction toward things he considers taboo?

It depends. I dunno. Im not a male. Or homophobic. But i have been aroused at same sex scenes. Does that make me gay? No. Sometimes sexual arousal is just sexual arousal.

Originally posted by Trocity
I think this was a pretty limited sample size and doesn't really prove much. Maybe back in the day when gays were hated, there were"homophobic" men who were closet gays.

Now, though? When the majority of people are for gay rights and gays are widely accepted?

No, I think "homophobic" men today really do hate gays and are not closet homosexuals themselves.


Pretty much this!

Originally posted by Sin I AM
It depends. I dunno. Im not a male. Or homophobic. But i have been aroused at same sex scenes. Does that make me gay? No. Sometimes sexual arousal is just sexual arousal.

If you're getting aroused by women perhaps you have some latent bi-sexual tendencies? It's probably best for you to experiment with some other females to find out.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/prime-minister-netanyahu-says-what-were-all-thinking-about-orlando-terrorist-attack/

Very interesting especially this line, for people who want to fight over whether Orlando was terrorism or homophobia.

It's just deeply depressing when the leaders of others countries react better than our own leader.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/prime-minister-netanyahu-says-what-were-all-thinking-about-orlando-terrorist-attack/

Very interesting especially this line, for people who want to fight over whether Orlando was terrorism or homophobia.

The shooter targeted a gay nightclub during gay Pride month. It is both homophobia and terrorism.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The shooter targeted a gay nightclub during gay Pride month. It is both homophobia and terrorism.
Radical Muslims are homophobic and tend to be terrorists at the same time. It is indeed not mutually exclusive

* (see CNN poll on British Muslims and Pew Research poll on Muslims worldwide)

Originally posted by Surtur
If you're getting aroused by women perhaps you have some latent bi-sexual tendencies? It's probably best for you to experiment with some other females to find out.

So when you watch porn is it solo and strictly lesbian? No males?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The shooter targeted a gay nightclub during gay Pride month. It is both homophobia and terrorism.

Yes, and what taught this man to hate gays?

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, and what taught this man to hate gays?

Religion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Religion.

Lol..The more logical answer is radical Islam or a complete misinterpretation of religion.. But you can go ahead and play that secularist card. I'll just attribute every non islam massacre or death to political ideology or secularism and it would make about as much sense.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Religion.
No need to be disingenuous, Adam. And if you are not, than your answer is worthy of something that 5 year old would say.

It was radical Islam.

And as we know from CNN poll and Pew Reseach study, most Muslism are violently homophobic so no surprise there.

I noticed the left like to scream "religion" when something like this happens. When it's not related to religion, the killer MUST have been insane!

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I noticed the left like to scream "religion" when something like this happens. When it's not related to religion, the killer MUST have been insane!
Indeed. Their ideology blinds them from accepting reality as it is.

It's not that, it's the retarded double standards.

Perhaps both?

How did a sexuality thread devolve into a religious discussion

Originally posted by Sin I AM
How did a sexuality thread devolve into a religious discussion
Because sexual practices are also talked about within vaarious religions? And people subscribing to some kind of organized religion constitute a vast majority of the world.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
So when you watch porn is it solo and strictly lesbian? No males?

That's not the same thing. You said you can be turned on by two women having sex. The equivalent would be Surtur being turned on by two men having sex.

Originally posted by Stigma
Because sexual practices are also talked about within vaarious religions? And people subscribing to some kind of organized religion constitute a vast majority of the world.

Nice dodge but no. Religion has no basis in this discussion. Its irrelevant and off topic.

Originally posted by Trocity
That's not the same thing. You said you can be turned on by two women having sex. The equivalent would be Surtur being turned on by two men having sex.

Hmmmm.. Maybe. Maybe not. When i watch hetero porn im aroused by the guy and the girl. Both sexes turn me on. If i watch two men have sex im aroused as well. My question to surtur is sound but im not sure if he watches gay porn so i had to use the next best thing

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Nice dodge but no. Religion has no basis in this discussion. Its irrelevant and off topic.
Um...it's not a dodge. You asked why people keep bringing that up and I merely pointed out that they are correlated, you like it or not. All major religions have something to say about sex. Actually, it's a big part of their teachings. And most people worldwide subscribe to an organized religion

It would be interesting to see a discussion turned to the side of the Gays and Others of certain persuasions and their Heterophobic tendencies.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Lol..The more logical answer is radical Islam or a complete misinterpretation of religion.. But you can go ahead and play that secularist card. I'll just attribute every non islam massacre or death to political ideology or secularism and it would make about as much sense.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

Originally posted by Stigma
No need to be disingenuous, Adam. And if you are not, than your answer is worthy of something that 5 year old would say.

It was radical Islam.

And as we know from CNN poll and Pew Reseach study, most Muslism are violently homophobic so no surprise there.

As are most Christians worldwide. Secular values may have tamed Christianity in the West, but throughout Africa, Christians rape homosexuals to "cure" them, they imprison them and their supporters for life, and murder them with impunity. I don't need you to tell me who is homophobic.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
How did a sexuality thread devolve into a religious discussion

Because religion drives homophobia. See this thread for examples.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

That's a cute quote. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to guys like Stalin and Mao, who murdered more people with their secularist political ideologies, than the entirety of the Crusades. But I'm glad how quoting someone makes it true

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Religion.

So one final question, if I told you someone murdered gays due to religion and then I asked you which religion you felt this person had the highest chance of belonging to..what would your answer be?

He doesn't think for himself. It's so easier for a liberal to blaim religion rather than personally hold an individual responsible. Many things drive homophobia, but religion isn't one of them. I suspect Adam doesn't know what homophobia means, he just uses it against anyone who isn't 100% gun ho about homosexuals.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Many things drive homophobia, but religion isn't one of them. - Reza Aslan

Adam is straight up braindead when discussing religion. It's unbelievable the amount of misinformation involved. If I wanted abject stupidity, I'd wait for TI to be unbanned.

You guys notice in this country people toss around terms like "racist" all the time even when it doesn't apply, but our own leader is terrified to label this as radical Islam?

Why can he openly discuss racism, sexism, gun violence, etc. but he draws the line at Radical Islam? I mean did someone hex the phrase? Is this a Voldemort thing?

Originally posted by Surtur
You guys notice in this country people toss around terms like "racist" all the time even when it doesn't apply, but our own leader is terrified to label this as radical Islam?

Why can he openly discuss racism, sexism, gun violence, etc. but he draws the line at Radical Islam? I mean did someone hex the phrase? Is this a Voldemort thing?

http://meme-erstellen.de/inc/media/memes/one-does-not-simply.jpg

One does not simply criticize the religion of peace.

Like I said. It's often the emotional and braindead left that use any version of ist/ism/phobia to describe anything they personally are offended by.

What gets me is the people who are saying this is our fault, it's our culture that did this.

It's the "American" values that did this. Not only do they avoid calling it radical islam, but the message seems to be "f*cking Americans, change your ways or this will happen again".

This isn't even like lunatics on the fringes of society saying these things though. It should be the people who wear hats made of tinfoil that spew this nonsense and yet it's not.

Originally posted by Surtur
What gets me is the people who are saying this is our fault, it's our culture that did this.

It's the "American" values that did this. Not only do they avoid calling it radical islam, but the message seems to be "f*cking Americans, change your ways or this will happen again".

This isn't even like lunatics on the fringes of society saying these things though. It should be the people who wear hats made of tinfoil that spew this nonsense and yet it's not. Of course ISIS has to throw gays off roofs, US imperialism leaves them no choice.

8R_3IXzM_WI

He says "calling a threat by another name does not get rid of the threat".

So then why even call it by the wrong name? He doesn't even follow his own logic anymore.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Of course ISIS has to throw gays off roofs, US imperialism leaves them no choice.

http://memecrunch.com/meme/C9E4/quota-of-dumbass/image.jpg

You guys aren't being fair. I mean women like tough guys right? If you survived being thrown off a building you must be REALLY tough and then all the ladies would be all over you and then you would realize you just love those ladies.

You guys need to learn a few things about romance. But keep in mind the 3 date rule. No genital mutilation until the 3rd date.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Welcome back Starsi

Who is starsi?

Maybe he means Star?

How exactly is calling it radical islam going to change anything?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
How exactly is calling it radical islam going to change anything?

What kind of question is this? How does not calling it Radical Islam change anything?

Do you not think this was radical Islam?

This is bizarre. Why are we acting like radical islam and religion are two entirely unrelated entities?

I mean if someone doesn't think this is radical Islam then I could understand why they would not want to call it that. But if someone does think this is radical Islam and they do not feel we should use the correct term that just baffles me. Do you not call a dog..a dog?

People can't play these little games where they can talk about police brutality and racism and gun control but we have to tippy toe around the Islam issue.

No, I don't buy into the "we are doing just what ISIS wants by calling it that" bullshit.

Why are we acting like religion and a perversion of religion are two separate things? Is that a serious question?

Well are you saying it was a perverted form of Islam that taught this guy gays were evil?

Originally posted by Surtur
Well are you saying it was a perverted form of Islam that taught this guy gays were evil?

Considering this guy was a bonified homo, I don't know who taught him what.

Originally posted by Surtur
What kind of question is this? How does not calling it Radical Islam change anything?

Do you not think this was radical Islam?

You always answer questions with questions

Nobody brings up Jamaica, christian west African countries etc when it comes to ant-lgbt rhetoric

I don't it's case of sublimation, i.e. people trying to cover up their own homosexual desires with a hatred for people who are openly homosexual.

It would make more sense if people with very strong feelings against homosexuality displaced their emotions sexual arousal.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
That's a cute quote. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to guys like Stalin and Mao, who murdered more people with their secularist political ideologies, than the entirety of the Crusades. But I'm glad how quoting someone makes it true

You mean Joseph Stalin who was venerated by a cult and Mao Zedong who was worshipped as a god?

Originally posted by Surtur
So one final question, if I told you someone murdered gays due to religion and then I asked you which religion you felt this person had the highest chance of belonging to..what would your answer be?

That depends entirely on the context. Where did this murder take place, for example?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
He doesn't think for himself. It's so easier for a liberal to blaim religion rather than personally hold an individual responsible. Many things drive homophobia, but religion isn't one of them. I suspect Adam doesn't know what homophobia means, he just uses it against anyone who isn't 100% gun ho about homosexuals.

To the contrary, religion is the main driver of homophobia in this country and abroad. Who is responsible for the 200 anti-LGBT bills introduced in the last year? Here is a hint: it is not secularists, it is Christians.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You mean Joseph Stalin who was venerated by a cult and Mao Zedong who was worshipped as a god?

Yea, the Joseph Stalin who killed every denomination regardless of religion because he was a Communist/Secularist, and the same goes with Mao. No amount of idiot revisionist history according to you is going to change that. Nice try though


Who's responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than in the past 5-10,000 years? Hint: It's secularists/policies based on political ideologies, not religions

Originally posted by Sin I AM
You always answer questions with questions

Because if you believe this was radical Islam then do you not feel your question was utterly silly? Why wouldn't we give something the appropriate label? The only reason not to do so is if the label doesn't apply.

So again I ask: do you feel this wasn't radical Islam? If it wasn't, okay, if it was then please explain why it's wrong to call it that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That depends entirely on the context. Where did this murder take place, for example?

We don't have Christians really going on murder spree's here like this, so if I said "it happened in the USA" and you answered anything but an Islamist I'm afraid I wouldn't even believe you truly think that. So I suppose your manner of response already answered my question.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Who's responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than in the past 5-10,000 years? Hint: It's secularists/policies based on political ideologies, not religions


ayyyy big dodge lmao.

Originally posted by Trocity
ayyyy big dodge lmao.

A dodge to a completely ridiculous point? Yea that makes sense LOL

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To the contrary, religion is the main driver of homophobia in this country and abroad. Who is responsible for the 200 anti-LGBT bills introduced in the last year? Here is a hint: it is not secularists, it is Christians.

Psmith doesn't want to address your post.

Not all homophobia is the same, just like not all racism is the same. There is a difference between calling a black guy the N word and hanging him from a tree with a lynch mob.

It's the same here, Christians can be homophobic and intolerant, but they aren't showing up with bullets and bombs due to their intolerance. The main religion in the world right now that is causing the most violence and turmoil isn't Christianity.

I mean if you watched the one clip I posted, some countries with heavy muslim populations actually celebrated the attacks in Orlando. Well not the entire country, but they had newspapers and shit with stories about how this was more or less a good thing.

Originally posted by Trocity
Psmith doesn't want to address your post. Stalin killed lots of people tho. Originally posted by Surtur
Not all homophobia is the same, just like not all racism is the same. There is a difference between calling a black guy the N word and hanging him from a tree with a lynch mob.

It's the same here, Christians can be homophobic and intolerant, but they aren't showing up with bullets and bombs due to their intolerance. The main religion in the world right now that is causing the most violence and turmoil isn't Christianity.

I mean if you watched the one clip I posted, some countries with heavy muslim populations actually celebrated the attacks in Orlando. Well not the entire country, but they had newspapers and shit with stories about how this was more or less a good thing. Islam is a religion tho.

Stalin did kill lots of people. He didn't do it for religion, but it wasn't due to lacking religion either. He didn't do it in the name of atheism.

Or we can look at this another way: religion isn't the only thing that can cause people to be nasty, but it can cause a scary amount of religious zeal and when people are fighting for a cause they think is essentially blessed by magic beings...it gets really dangerous. It's the utterly fanatics who think religion is more important than even their lives.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Islam is a religion tho.

Wait, what do you feel it is then?

Ignore Trocity, everyone usually does. And I'm not arguing in the name of religion vs. in the name of secularism. But if you're going to scream "religion" at mass deaths, you can substitute political ideology for religion and get even more.

I still don't get how Islam isn't a religion, unless that was a joke.

Read what I said again friend.

Okay but then..who said it wasn't a religion?

My point was that the guy wasn't necessarily wrong in saying it was caused by religion, because Islam is a religion. Though I get why people take issue with lumping all religions together.

Saying it was "religion" is too broad a term. Not all religion is this extreme or holds the same beliefs.

This was straight up radical Islam. I'm sorry if people aren't comfortable with this truth being pointed out, but are we humans or are we ostriches? If we're ostriches then okay burying our heads in the sand over this is totally cool.

But then I don't expect it to end here, I want our heads buried for : racism, sexism, and political correctness too. It's an all or nothing thing.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Stalin killed lots of people tho.


Ummm... yes, he did.

And psmith still dodged the point.

I know, I was being sarcastic Originally posted by Surtur
Saying it was "religion" is too broad a term. Not all religion is this extreme or holds the same beliefs.

This was straight up radical Islam. I'm sorry if people aren't comfortable with this truth being pointed out, but are we humans or are we ostriches? If we're ostriches then okay burying our heads in the sand over this is totally cool.

But then I don't expect it to end here, I want our heads buried for : racism, sexism, and political correctness too. It's an all or nothing thing. Fair.

Ostriches seems to be doing alright tho.

I like it.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Yea, the Joseph Stalin who killed every denomination regardless of religion because he was a Communist/Secularist, and the same goes with Mao. No amount of idiot revisionist history according to you is going to change that. Nice try though


Who's responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than in the past 5-10,000 years? Hint: It's secularists/policies based on political ideologies, not religions

It is not atheism or secularism when you install yourself as a supreme ruler and suppress all religions; it is eliminating the competition.

Originally posted by Surtur
We don't have Christians really going on murder spree's here like this, so if I said "it happened in the USA" and you answered anything but an Islamist I'm afraid I wouldn't even believe you truly think that. So I suppose your manner of response already answered my question.

Matthew Shepard was not murdered by Muslims, nor are the vast majority of LGBT people who are the victims of bias-motivated crimes in America. I do not need you to tell me who the biggest perpetrators of violence against my own community are in America, thank you very much.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Matthew Shepard was not murdered by Muslims, nor are the vast majority of LGBT people who are the victims of bias-motivated crimes in America. I do not need you to tell me who the biggest perpetrators of violence against my own community are in America, thank you very much.

Yep Matthew Shepard wasn't killed by Muslims. Nobody said that every single crime committed against gays is muslims.

A majority of the time when someone is murdering homosexuals in this country? It's not Christians. Also I tell you that it's really just muslims going on murder spree's over this and your response is "Matthew Shepard wasn't murdered by muslims". Well okay. Matthew Shepard wasn't part of a mass murder plot.. So while we're stating facts about Matt we should include that as well.

So radical Islam is responsible for Orlando, right?

Originally posted by Surtur
Because if you believe this was radical Islam then do you not feel your question was utterly silly? Why wouldn't we give something the appropriate label? The only reason not to do so is if the label doesn't apply.

So again I ask: do you feel this wasn't radical Islam? If it wasn't, okay, if it was then please explain why it's wrong to call it that.



You really should be a politician the way you dodge questions with another series of questions. Yea sure it's radical islam, its a homophobic terrorist, its an extremist attack, a home grown mass murderer. Semantics really. Now what? You still didnt answer my question.



How exactly is calling it radical islam going to change anything?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
You really should be a politician the way you dodge questions with another series of questions. Yea sure it's radical islam, its a homophobic terrorist, its an extremist attack, a home grown mass murderer. Semantics really. Now what? You still didnt answer my question.



How exactly is calling it radical islam going to change anything?

But you see your answer to my question could have an effect on how I answer you. Since you've yet to list any good reason why we shouldn't label it radical Islam. You just said it was radical Islam.

So I'm baffled you just asked me why would should correctly label things? Isn't that obvious? Why shouldn't we call it radical Islam if it's radical Islam? You never actually explained why. If calling it radical Islam changes nothing..then..call it radical Islam lol.

Or here I can sum this up: we should call it radical Islam because it is radical Islam. We are not meant to get anything out of this, we are not meant to change anything by applying appropriate labels to things. We don't hesitate to label something as racist or police brutality, so we shouldn't hesitate to call radical Islam..radical Islam.

If someone is not into radical Islam, but follows the religion, and then they suddenly sympathize with ISIS because we labeled this radical Islam...that person is a piece of utter horse shit, right? I mean you agree with that, right? That anyone so easily swayed to sympathize with ISIS is just a pathetic excuse for a person?

Nobody said they can't be hateful, they just aren't the people blowing up themselves and committing MASS MURDER.

I mean seriously, nobody said Christians are just chalk full of hugs and rainbows. Their bark tends to be bigger than their bite though. It doesn't make it right, it just means they aren't out going on murder spree's because their sky god told them a certain group of people are bad.

We have more Christians here, so if you're gay yep you are more likely to experience intolerance from a Christian than a Muslim. But they usually won't be trying to gun you down.

Originally posted by Surtur
A majority of the time when someone is murdering homosexuals in this country? It's not Christians.

Yes, it is. You are completely, demonstrably wrong. This is a majority Christian country. And the vast majority of violence perpetrated against LGBT people in America is by people who identify as Christians.




Originally posted by Surtur
Also I tell you that it's really just muslims going on murder spree's over this and your response is "Matthew Shepard wasn't murdered by muslims". Well okay. Matthew Shepard wasn't part of a mass murder plot.. So while we're stating facts about Matt we should include that as well.

This is not the first LGBT night club attack in American history. There have been many instances, including arsons and bombings, that resulted in mass casualties, and those were not caused by Muslims either, those were also Christians. Sorry your knowledge of violence against this community only goes back to last week.




Originally posted by Surtur
So radical Islam is responsible for Orlando, right?

Fundamentalist Islam.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody said they can't be hateful, they just aren't the people blowing up themselves and committing MASS MURDER.

I mean seriously, nobody said Christians are just chalk full of hugs and rainbows. Their bark tends to be bigger than their bite though. It doesn't make it right, it just means they aren't out going on murder spree's because their sky god told them a certain group of people are bad.

We have more Christians here, so if you're gay yep you are more likely to experience intolerance from a Christian than a Muslim. But they usually won't be trying to gun you down.

If you think that, try being gay in America.

I'm not talking about just violence, but outright murder. Christians are not blowing themselves up in the name of their God, they are not going on murder spree's in the name of their God.

This is one of the largest mass shootings and history and you want to say Christians do shit like this all the time? What the f*ck?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you think that, try being gay in America.

Lol, try being gay in a country with a large muslim population. You like bungee jumping off buildings without the bungee cord, right man? Drink some red bull before hand, it'll give you wings.

On the matter of secularism as a driving force behind Communism:

" in its very essence is the mortal enemy of Communism." -- Leon Trocky

(note: a Marxist revolutionary and theorist, Soviet politician, and the founding leader of the Red Army)

"Atheism is the core of the whole Soviet system." -- Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

(note: a Russian novelist, historian, and short story writer. He was an outspoken critic of the Soviet Union and its totalitarianism and helped to raise global awareness of its Gulag forced labor camp system)

* Both quotes taken from introduction to a historical study Stalin's Holy War by Steven Merritt Miner, The University of North Carolina Press, 2003.


On Communists drive towards secularism:

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

Stalin was also reported to write in his private diary that he believes that God does not exist. But I forgot where I have the book so I won't give the exact details.


Regardless, to anyone who lived under the Communist system (like my parents and grand-parents generation, as well as many of my friends), or lives in post-communist counrty (like me) atheistic motivations of Communist regimes are a historical fact.

Attempts at revisionist history will not remove that stain




Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, try being gay in a country with a large muslim population. You like bungee jumping off buildings without the bungee cord, right man? Drink some red bull before hand, it'll give you wings.



BTW @ Adam, I'll remember to absolutely decimate you while I address your posts, but Poland plays Ukraine at Euro in 40 min so I need to get going. Wait your turn

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not atheism or secularism when you install yourself as a supreme ruler and suppress all religions; it is eliminating the competition. my lord, your desperate rationalizations are incompatible with reality, it's embarrassing. You haven't said anything remotely accurate in this thread.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm not talking about just violence, but outright murder. Christians are not blowing themselves up in the name of their God, they are not going on murder spree's in the name of their God.

This is one of the largest mass shootings and history and you want to say Christians do shit like this all the time? What the f*ck?

No, Christians just blow up abortion clinics and gay bars. There is an entire laundry list of such incidents prior to this. But hey, a Muslim did this one, so those others never happened.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
my lord, your desperate rationalizations are incompatible with reality, it's embarrassing. You haven't said anything remotely accurate in this thread.

Then it should not be so difficult for you to refute.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you think that, try being gay in America.

I wouldn't say that being gay is all rainbows and unicorns in the USA. That said express your homosexuality in a country where islam is the dominant religion and check back in with me.


Besides who tries to be gay, you either are gay or not.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then it should not be so difficult for you to refute.

I've already refuted it twice. Each time I refute it, you bring up some nonexistent point like people worshiping Mao or some other nonsense having nothing to do with anything. Keep trying to blame religion for everything and then rationalizing when political ideology is responsible for more deaths. It's amusing to watch.


This shouldn't be too hard for you to prove

Originally posted by Stigma
BTW @ Adam, I'll remember to absolutely decimate you while I address your posts, but Poland plays Ukraine at Euro in 40 min so I need to get going. Wait your turn

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/petrified.gif

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I've already refuted it twice. Each time I refute it, you bring up some nonexistent point like people worshiping Mao or some other nonsense having nothing to do with anything. Keep trying to blame religion for everything and then rationalizing when political ideology is responsible for more deaths. It's amusing to watch.


This shouldn't be too hard for you to prove

Eric Robert Rudolph, also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American convicted for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.

Rudolph has made it clear in his written statement and elsewhere that the purpose of the bombings was to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." He considered abortion to be murder, the product of a "rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence"; accordingly, he believed that its perpetrators deserved death, and that the United States government had lost its legitimacy by sanctioning it. He also considered it essential to resist by force "the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality" in order to protect "the integrity of American society" and "the very existence of our culture", whose foundation is the "family hearth."

And he is not the most recent or the most egregious example.

Originally posted by Surtur
But you see your answer to my question could have an effect on how I answer you. Since you've yet to list any good reason why we shouldn't label it radical Islam. You just said it was radical Islam.

So I'm baffled you just asked me why would should correctly label things? Isn't that obvious? Why shouldn't we call it radical Islam if it's radical Islam? You never actually explained why. If calling it radical Islam changes nothing..then..call it radical Islam lol.

Or here I can sum this up: we should call it radical Islam because it is radical Islam. We are not meant to get anything out of this, we are not meant to change anything by applying appropriate labels to things. We don't hesitate to label something as racist or police brutality, so we shouldn't hesitate to call radical Islam..radical Islam.

If someone is not into radical Islam, but follows the religion, and then they suddenly sympathize with ISIS because we labeled this radical Islam...that person is a piece of utter horse shit, right? I mean you agree with that, right? That anyone so easily swayed to sympathize with ISIS is just a pathetic excuse for a person?

Lol so you cant forn an intelligent answer unless someone leads you? Haha i stopped reading after that. Hilarious surtur

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Lol so you cant forn an intelligent answer unless someone leads you? Haha i stopped reading after that. Hilarious surtur

That isn't what I just said though. I never said calling it radical Islam would change anything.

I'm essentially asking you for the reason why we shouldn't label radical Islam as radical Islam? This is not complicated.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, Christians just blow up abortion clinics and gay bars. There is an entire laundry list of such incidents prior to this. But hey, a Muslim did this one, so those others never happened.

I would figure if Christians were blowing up gay bars it would be just as big a deal though? Or at least be a major news story if Christians were actually walking into gay bars with bombs and killing loads of people.

Originally posted by Surtur
That isn't what I just said though. I never said calling it radical Islam would change anything.

I'm essentially asking you for the reason why we shouldn't label radical Islam as radical Islam? This is not complicated.

If i facepalm any harder i will knock myself out.

I asked you a question. You never responded. Or rather you responded with a question in order to find out my beliefs prior to a response. I really dont care what u call it. A terrorist is a terrorist. Whether hes shooting up a movie theater or burning down a church. I just dont get why everyone is si hard pressed to label it radical islam as if thats the key to defeating it. Backwards thinking at its finest

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Eric Robert Rudolph, also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American convicted for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.

Rudolph has made it clear in his written statement and elsewhere that the purpose of the bombings was to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." He considered abortion to be murder, the product of a "rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence"; accordingly, he believed that its perpetrators deserved death, and that the United States government had lost its legitimacy by sanctioning it. He also considered it essential to resist by force "the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality" in order to protect "the integrity of American society" and "the very existence of our culture", whose foundation is the "family hearth."

And he is not the most recent or the most egregious example. Uhuh. You listed 1 example from 16 years ago that had 2 deaths. Right before that, you posted this:


So once again, you have severe mental issues when it comes to religion given by how much stuff you had to exaggerate and flat out make up.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
If i facepalm any harder i will knock myself out.

I asked you a question. You never responded. Or rather you responded with a question in order to find out my beliefs prior to a response. I really dont care what u call it. A terrorist is a terrorist. Whether hes shooting up a movie theater or burning down a church. I just dont get why everyone is si hard pressed to label it radical islam as if thats the key to defeating it. Backwards thinking at its finest

But nobody said it was the key to defeating it, so it doesn't surprise me about your face palming because you are having comprehension issues.

Calling it radical Islam won't defeat it, nobody said it would. But if we are going to not label something what it truly is we need a valid reason and we do not have one.

I mean quite literally nobody said calling them a certain name would defeat them and yet here you are saying it as if people did say that. Then you tell others they are the ones thinking backwards.

This isn't rocket science. If it's radical Islam call it radical Islam. No, it won't change anything if you call it something else, but we have no actual need to call it something else, we already know what to call it: radical Islam.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Eric Robert Rudolph, also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American convicted for a series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured over 120 others.

Rudolph has made it clear in his written statement and elsewhere that the purpose of the bombings was to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." He considered abortion to be murder, the product of a "rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence"; accordingly, he believed that its perpetrators deserved death, and that the United States government had lost its legitimacy by sanctioning it. He also considered it essential to resist by force "the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality" in order to protect "the integrity of American society" and "the very existence of our culture", whose foundation is the "family hearth."

And he is not the most recent or the most egregious example.

Don't call that "radical Christianity", it makes some people upset, even though he's technically following biblical scripture

Originally posted by Sin I AM
A terrorist is a terrorist. Whether hes shooting up a movie theater or burning down a church. I just dont get why everyone is si hard pressed to label it radical islam as if thats the key to defeating it. Backwards thinking at its finest


Knowing why someone does something is critical in how to help prevent it in the future.

Simpleton logic would dictate we wouldn't ask any questions to the 5 w's and how then use words to label said behavior.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't call that "radical Christianity", it makes some people upset,
I think you got easily confused Rob, but that comes as no surprise...

No-one in their sound mind is upset when you call radicalized Christians, radical...

You must be thinking about radical Islam, that is, the most homophobic religion in the modern world according to Pew Research study, while this is also collaborated by CNN poll on British Muslims and an article posted a few posts above.

Yet, some people refuse to call radical Islam for what it is. Example is Sin and Surtur's exchange in this very thread.

You possibly have missed all of that while you were browsing this thread. I am glad to help.

Originally posted by Robtard
even though he's technically following biblical scripture
Given your reputation as an intellectual maverick of unblemished integrity, I am sure you will prove this assertion.

Originally posted by Surtur
But nobody said it was the key to defeating it, so it doesn't surprise me about your face palming because you are having comprehension issues.

Calling it radical Islam won't defeat it, nobody said it would. But if we are going to not label something what it truly is we need a valid reason and we do not have one.

I mean quite literally nobody said calling them a certain name would defeat them and yet here you are saying it as if people did say that. Then you tell others they are the ones thinking backwards.

This isn't rocket science. If it's radical Islam call it radical Islam. No, it won't change anything if you call it something else, but we have no actual need to call it something else, we already know what to call it: radical Islam.

You couldnt answer a simple question and I lack comprehension skills lol try harder. Anywho labeling it would alienate muslims who aren't radical. You're attaching a negative to a religion that views the west with caution. It may not matter to you but some find it offensive. We aren't going to win this war with that mindset. I for one don't care what it's called, it's a trivial talking point when action is what's required.



Originally posted by snowdragon
Knowing why someone does something is critical in how to help prevent it in the future.

Simpleton logic would dictate we wouldn't ask any questions to the 5 w's and how then use words to label said behavior. Originally posted by snowdragon
Knowing why someone does something is critical in how to help prevent it in the future.

Simpleton logic would dictate we wouldn't ask any questions to the 5 w's and how then use words to label said behavior.

Simpleton logic would be to assume that you could prevent crime by profiling.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
You're attaching a negative to a religion that views the west with caution.
Yet, the west that views Islam with caution is unacceptable, yes or no?

EDIT:

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Simpleton logic would be to assume that you could prevent crime by profiling.

Its a good thing then the profiling is used to help prevent crime but its not the only tool. Which is why labels help to identify things, people, behaviors, food etc to deny that is sophmoric.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201402/does-criminal-profiling-work

Islam isn't a very forgiving or progressive religion in regards to womens rights or the lbgt community. I'd say the act of killing in the name of said beliefs is radical unless you believe thats a normal behavior for islams to begin with.

Originally posted by Stigma
Yet, the west that views Islam with caution is unacceptable, yes or no?

Yes. Only because the US wants the world to perceive it as a bastion of democracy. Can't have your cake and eat it too

Originally posted by snowdragon
Its a good thing then the profiling is used to help prevent crime but its not the only tool. Which is why labels help to identify things, people, behaviors, food etc to deny that is sophmoric.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201402/does-criminal-profiling-work

Islam isn't a very forgiving or progressive religion in regards to womens rights or the lbgt community. I'd say the act of killing in the name of said beliefs is radical unless you believe thats a normal behavior for islams to begin with.

Interesting article. Would've been good if they put that profiling to use on all these mass shootings we seem to have.

Have you ever practiced the Islamic faith?

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Have you ever practiced the Islamic faith?

Nope and I don't shoot people either

Originally posted by Sin I AM
You couldnt answer a simple question and I lack comprehension skills lol try harder. Anywho labeling it would alienate muslims who aren't radical. You're attaching a negative to a religion that views the west with caution. It may not matter to you but some find it offensive. We aren't going to win this war with that mindset. I for one don't care what it's called, it's a trivial talking point when action is what's required.

If you aren't a radical Islamist there is no reason to find it offensive. Your answer makes no sense at all.

One example does not equate to this:


Man you're dumb.


So should we start calling it "radical political ideology" each time there's mass murder from a dictator?

Originally posted by Stigma
I think you got easily confused Rob, but that comes as no surprise...

No-one in their sound mind is upset when you call radicalized Christians, radical...

You must be thinking about radical Islam, that is, the most homophobic religion in the modern world according to Pew Research study, while this is also collaborated by CNN poll on British Muslims and an article posted a few posts above.

Yet, some people refuse to call radical Islam for what it is. Example is Sin and Surtur's exchange in this very thread.

You possibly have missed all of that while you were browsing this thread. I am glad to help.


Given your reputation as an intellectual maverick of unblemished integrity, I am sure you will prove this assertion.

Seems Poland eeking out a win today made you uppity.

To your snooty question: Ever heard of Leviticus?

Edit:

You're also supposed to know what to take literally not. It's not all black and white Rob. I mean I realize it makes it easier for atheists/secularists to argue but...

So what's the not literal interpretation?

Originally posted by Surtur
If you aren't a radical Islamist there is no reason to find it offensive. Your answer makes no sense at all.

How would you know what a moderate Islamist feels?

Originally posted by Robtard
So what's the not literal interpretation? of what exactly? Be specific.

BTW sorry for some spelling mistakes but my edit button is apparently malfunctioning.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
How would you know what a moderate Islamist feels?

I don't, but do you not feel it is common sense? Can you explain to me why someone whose beliefs aren't radical would care that we label terrorists as radical? I just don't get it. The only way that could happen is if the person wasn't really "moderate" after all.

This is like saying we shouldn't call police brutality..police brutality, because not all police are brutal and it might make the good cops feel bad. Yet Obama has no qualms about discussing police brutality and giving it the proper term. May I ask your opinion on why you feel that is?

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't, but do you not feel it is common sense? Can you explain to me why someone whose beliefs aren't radical would care that we label terrorists as radical? I just don't get it. The only way that could happen is if the person wasn't really "moderate" after all.

This is like saying we shouldn't call police brutality..police brutality, because not all police are brutal and it might make the good cops feel bad. Yet Obama has no qualms about discussing police brutality and giving it the proper term. May I ask your opinion on why you feel that is?

Of course you wouldn't youre not the one being arbitrarily grouped in. The keyword islam make it all encompassing and it all goes back to ignorance, racism and basic lack of understanding of other cultures.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Of course you wouldn't youre not the one being arbitrarily grouped in. The keyword islam make it all encompassing and it all goes back to ignorance, racism and basic lack of understanding of other cultures.

If it were meant to represent all of Islam then there would be no need to call it "radical Islam". The ignorance comes when someone can't differentiate between the two...is what I would think.

You're not a moderate Islamist if you get pissed off that a radical Islamist was called a radical Islamist. Not only that, but the person would also have to lack a basic understanding of what words mean.

Some food for thought:

PYMIj5ZuT-k

I especially like it because it shows how moronic the other side can act when people talk about radical Islam. The bald headed dipshit actually compares this to priests molesting kids and saying should we condemn all Christians for the acts of pedophile priests and then at the end says "so what you want to declare war on Islam?" when nobody even said that.


This is the kind of f*cktarded logic some people use.

Originally posted by Stigma
How do you support this claim?

Literally already answered that on this very page, so if you're going to ignore answers only to ask the same question again, in the very least stop implying other people are stupid and that you're a smart person.

Cos all you're doing is feeding the stereotype that Pollocks are imbeciles.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's white privilege shining through? No, you see you don't get to hand wave this with "it's a different culture". Bottom line, if calling it radical Islam bothers someone so much, they aren't a moderate.

Well I'll just chop it up to your lack of knowledge on the subject. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Agree to disagree.

Actually, I said "Ever heard of Leviticus?". If you're going to quote someone, at least quote them correctly, smart-guy.

That should have answered your question, unless you really don't have a single clue what Leviticus/Bible means regarding homosexuality, which in that case, why are you arguing here when you don't know the basics?

But here you go, since you insist on reinforcing the Pollock stereotype:

Agreed, Abrahamic religious views on homosexuality are barbaric

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, Abrahamic religious views on homosexuality are barbaric

The difficulty with these questions is that contrasting values which have emerged in modernity, with all its different presuppositions about Personhood, Nature, Individualism etc., etc., with those arrived at in a very different context is actually a very laborious task. If one isn't willing to do the work to unpick and understand intellectual history then fine but their views are, as a consequence, probably no more than ill thought out opinion.

I think what modern people don't like to admit is that the philosophical and cultural understanding which produced an aversion to sodomy in the ancient and medieval worlds (Ancient Greece and Rome also held to this aversion, though to differing degrees) is actually quite robust and not simplistic bigotry inspired by arbitrary religious judgments.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, Abrahamic religious views on homosexuality are barbaric just because you don't agree with the logic or have a belief in god makes it about as barbaric as you ignorant.

Good thing the old testament isnt used anymore

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Good thing the old testament isnt used anymore
Ha, actually I am writing my response to Rob and it includes this point. Thanks Sin

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Good thing the old testament isnt used anymore Yea, modern laws are killing it with the death toll and poverty