I did tell you how I believed it. I gave a few examples. For instance, if a guy with gay feeling principally and voluntarily decides not to give in (actionwise) to his gay feelings, how gay is he? To me... he's not gay. He's a guy struggling with his sexual feelings, to me it's no different from anyone else struggling with his sexual feellings. Compare it someone who doesn't get satisfaction with his partner and likes to have various sexual relations. Now, having more than one sexual partner is accepted these days, but if this person values the relationship with his partner so much and does decide NOT to go into it, he wouldn't be called a guy who sleeps around, even though he has the desire to do so.
What does your dictionary say about such cases?
It's not so much that I diagree with you. It does depend from what side of the coin you look at it. In case of my 'gay' example above, such a person may not even like to be called gay, he might find it offensive. So what do you do? Throw a dictionary at him?
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I know. That's exactly what I said.
It says that sleeping around is defined by the act of sleeping with multiple partners. So that person obviously is not a guy that sleeps around. You seem to have a slight problem grasping the difference in definitions here.
Sleeping around = having sex with lots of people
Being gay = Being primarily attracted to persons of the same sex
No. It obviously depends on the person, but if I like them I would obviously not call them homosexual and endlessly argue endlessly with them. I would of course know that they are actually gay, but since it doesn't matter to me anyways, why needlessly harm them.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Well, in english that is true. Though the view by authorities in that field aswell as most people that know of that word happens to be that homosexuality is what the dictionary said there. I know that in German and I'd bet that in French, where there are authorities on words (or in case of German at least a generally accepted standard) the word is defined by attraction.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
We should accept the definition. You may very well argue that this definition could or should be changed. But you should acknowledge it. And you should realize that it is that definition people use when they talk about homosexuality.
Now, to my understanding, a simpleton isn't someone who's flat out wrong, it's someone who's simple minded and essentially, not a hundred percent correct. So for you to call him one and argue with him, you're being pedantic.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Yes. As usual. He asked whether he was a simpleton for believing in this uncommon and unfounded definition of homosexuality. I said he is, partly due to his apparent inability to realize the fundamental difference there is between the definitions of a serial killer and a homosexual (not morally, just the actual definitions).
Now, I would be pedantic if a minor detail of his conclusion had been wrong, but his whole point was contrary to actual definitions of words he used. His point as right as it might have seen to him, was not in accordance with reality. To point that out and argue is hardly pedantic. Is it possible that you do not understand what pedantic means?
Oh yeah, you are a victim to common sense and accepted standards of language. Society hates you.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 24th, 2008 12:05 PM
