from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Come on PVS, we're not talking about where words came from. We're talking today. I appreciate your insight, but I'm confused as to why you think calling someone a "rectal ranger" is any less offensive than calling them a f@ggot?
offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.
why?
because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that homosexuality is as terrible an affront to the human condition as the holocaust, and your opinion of what purpose abortion serves?
I certainly do not see homosexuality in this way, what gays do is up to them, all I am doing is trying to give it a reason to exist.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that homosexuality is as terrible an affront to the human condition as the holocaust, and your opinion of what purpose abortion serves?
Now, now......just by what he is saying he is actually right...all three keep the world population fro rising faster...but he didn't say they were the same generally.....
Originally posted by PVS
from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.why?
because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.
agreed
Individual children who die before they reach sexual maturity serve no "biological purpose". Fertile straight individuals who consciously decide not to have children serve no "biological purpose". A woman past menopause serve no "biological purpose". A gay individual who has a child is serving a "biological purpose". Does it really matter whether or not a person serves a "biological purpose". No.
If we take it to logical conclusions the only part of a human that serves a biological purpose is his or her gametes. We should deposit them in a big machine and it can gestate a new generation and extract the gametes from the future generation in an endless futile cycle. What a perfect world.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Now, now......just by what he is saying he is actually right...all three keep the world population fro rising faster...but he didn't say they were the same generally.....
no, its a parallel between the holocaust and simply not having children.
should i have put the contrary in a disclaimer under my post to avoid such
an ignorant comment?
Originally posted by PVS
from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.why?
because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.
But ****** nowadays is not the same as back then anymore......so I think it*s on Cap and all other Homosexuials to decide which theyx find ore insulting....
Originally posted by PVS
no, its a parallel between the holocaust and simply not having children.
should i have put the contrary in a disclaimer under my post to avoid such
an ignorant comment?
Of course not....and I agree there is no need to say it ....but just going by facts there are parallels which do exist..........
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Individual children who die before they reach sexual maturity serve no "biological purpose". Fertile straight individuals who consciously decide not to have children serve no "biological purpose". A woman past menopause serve no "biological purpose". A gay individual who has a child is serving a "biological purpose". Does it really matter whether or not a person serves a "biological purpose". No.If we take it to logical conclusions the only part of a human that serves a biological purpose is his or her gametes. We should deposit them in a big machine and it can gestate a new generation and extract the gametes from the future generation to continue the cycle.
Very politically correct X - but you are purposely missing the point now - do gays serve a socially biological role making the trait desirable enough that it must be a dominant trait, for it to get passed on at all looking at ratios as it is not a reproductive role first and foremost by definition.
Originally posted by PVS
from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.why?
because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.
But, you're just as aware as I am, that a vast majority have no idea where the term came from, nor why it was used.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But, you're just as aware as I am, that a vast majority have no idea where the term came from, nor why it was used.
well you have a point in that i find it sickening because i know the definition.
before i knew, it was just another hateful word. i just didnt realise how low it went. but like i said, i find one term more offensive than the other. its all subjective, as you yourself know that many gay men playfully call eachother 'f@g'. maybe because they never learned what it means either...who knows.