Topic: Since the term "homophobia" literally means "fear of sameness"...
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q started this discussion 14 years ago #18,759
...does this mean that any form of Affirmative Action is institutional homophobia?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 54 seconds later[^] [v] #310,240
I'm not laughing.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #310,241
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #310,251
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #310,352
The term "homosexual" is incomplete, also. It should be "homosexualphilia".
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #310,357
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #310,366
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #310,386
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,497
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
That just means attracted to the same. It needs to be "same-sex"
That just means attracted to the same. It needs to be "same-sex"
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,502
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,504
@previous (E)
He's just a butthurt pedo mad because his pedophilia is a mental disorder but homosexuality is a sexuality.
He's just a butthurt pedo mad because his pedophilia is a mental disorder but homosexuality is a sexuality.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,521
@previous (F)
homosexual is an illogical word
homophile is the correct word
also, so much projection
homosexual is an illogical word
homophile is the correct word
also, so much projection
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,534
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Since when is anything connected with the English language Logical?
Since when is anything connected with the English language Logical?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,535
@310,521 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
> homophile is the correct word
That would just be the love of sameness. That could describe people who like a daily routine or like wearing uniforms too, no?
> homophile is the correct word
That would just be the love of sameness. That could describe people who like a daily routine or like wearing uniforms too, no?
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,536
@310,534 (G)
The English language was logical, until the vowel shift happened.
@previous (H)
I guess, but at least it would make sense in terms of loanword combination.
The English language was logical, until the vowel shift happened.
@previous (H)
I guess, but at least it would make sense in terms of loanword combination.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,542
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Shakespeare invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original.
The art of texting today, is modifying English, almost faster then the speed of light.
Shakespeare invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original.
The art of texting today, is modifying English, almost faster then the speed of light.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,550
@310,502 (E)
No, because then communication would be impossible.
@310,504 (F)
Sexuality means a capacity for sexual feelings. You mean a "sexual orientation" which is an orientation toward a particular sex, which, of course, is not inherent in the meaning of the word pedophilia.
No, because then communication would be impossible.
@310,504 (F)
Sexuality means a capacity for sexual feelings. You mean a "sexual orientation" which is an orientation toward a particular sex, which, of course, is not inherent in the meaning of the word pedophilia.
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,558
@310,542 (G)
> is modifying English, almost faster then the speed of light.
It's a good thing the English language is essentially massless, otherwise the energy requirements for that would be prohibitive.
> is modifying English, almost faster then the speed of light.
It's a good thing the English language is essentially massless, otherwise the energy requirements for that would be prohibitive.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,561
@310,550 (D)
> Can't words hold different meanings?
You said:
> No, because then communication would be impossible.
"I Love You" has a world of different meanings.
Homonym: One of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.
bow – a long wooden stick with horse hair that is used to play certain string instruments such as the violin
bow – to bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow – the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow – the weapon which shoots arrows (e.g. "bow and arrow")
bow – a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)
bow – to bend outward at the sides (e.g. a "bow-legged" cowboy)
English is such a fucked up language.
> Can't words hold different meanings?
You said:
> No, because then communication would be impossible.
"I Love You" has a world of different meanings.
Homonym: One of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.
bow – a long wooden stick with horse hair that is used to play certain string instruments such as the violin
bow – to bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow – the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow – the weapon which shoots arrows (e.g. "bow and arrow")
bow – a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)
bow – to bend outward at the sides (e.g. a "bow-legged" cowboy)
English is such a fucked up language.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,569
Anonymous D double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,570
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,572
@310,569 (D)
> Different, not multiple meanings, was the question.
Terrific example of where Different = Multiple = Different
It's spring time
There's a spring in your step
Look at the water coming out of that spring.
The spring on my watch broke.
Let's spring the trap.
@previous (D)
lol ok which is why voice to text and text to voice software is good for the economy. Keeps 10,000 software writers busy trying to make it work for years and years now.
> Different, not multiple meanings, was the question.
Terrific example of where Different = Multiple = Different
It's spring time
There's a spring in your step
Look at the water coming out of that spring.
The spring on my watch broke.
Let's spring the trap.
@previous (D)
lol ok which is why voice to text and text to voice software is good for the economy. Keeps 10,000 software writers busy trying to make it work for years and years now.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,587
@previous (G)
"Good for the economy" is a meaningless statement. Pointless busywork does not benefit humanity.
"Good for the economy" is a meaningless statement. Pointless busywork does not benefit humanity.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,646
@previous (D)
But that's what good for the economy means. Forcing people to buy gas and clothes and lunches just to keep a job. Whether their job is needed or not, productive or not is immaterial, so long as they must spend to maintain it.
But that's what good for the economy means. Forcing people to buy gas and clothes and lunches just to keep a job. Whether their job is needed or not, productive or not is immaterial, so long as they must spend to maintain it.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #310,649
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,123
@previous (D)
The economy is measured in terms of dollars. All spending is good, all non-spending is bad. No adjustments are made for externalities. How is this Marxist exactly?
The economy is measured in terms of dollars. All spending is good, all non-spending is bad. No adjustments are made for externalities. How is this Marxist exactly?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,129
@previous (I)
> All non-spending is bad
I guess you skipped all the economics classes where they talked about savings.
> All non-spending is bad
I guess you skipped all the economics classes where they talked about savings.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,131
@310,646 (I)
> But that's what good for the economy means. Forcing people to buy gas and clothes and lunches just to keep a job. Whether their job is needed or not, productive or not is immaterial, so long as they must spend to maintain it.
That's complete bullshit. What's we're actually trying to measure when we talk about how well the economy is doing is wealth. Dollars are just the units we use. If a job doesn't actually create any value for society and you're just forcing it, then you're just falsely inflating the GDP- moving dollars with not as much wealth behind them.
> But that's what good for the economy means. Forcing people to buy gas and clothes and lunches just to keep a job. Whether their job is needed or not, productive or not is immaterial, so long as they must spend to maintain it.
That's complete bullshit. What's we're actually trying to measure when we talk about how well the economy is doing is wealth. Dollars are just the units we use. If a job doesn't actually create any value for society and you're just forcing it, then you're just falsely inflating the GDP- moving dollars with not as much wealth behind them.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 triple-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,132
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,149
@OP
> ...does this mean that any form of Affirmative Action is institutional homophobia?
http://www.peter-ould.net/2011/06/05/institutional-homophobia/
"The trouble is that, at the moment, a whole world of grammar is being invented with the express purpose of keeping gay people out of senior church positions. From the dreaded Anglican Covenant (whose purpose seems to be much the same) to this new advice, our Church is constructing its ground rules specifically to exclude homosexuals. And there is another phrase for that: institutionalised homophobia."
I leave it to HaikerensGuide to decode "institutionalised homophobia."
> ...does this mean that any form of Affirmative Action is institutional homophobia?
http://www.peter-ould.net/2011/06/05/institutional-homophobia/
"The trouble is that, at the moment, a whole world of grammar is being invented with the express purpose of keeping gay people out of senior church positions. From the dreaded Anglican Covenant (whose purpose seems to be much the same) to this new advice, our Church is constructing its ground rules specifically to exclude homosexuals. And there is another phrase for that: institutionalised homophobia."
I leave it to HaikerensGuide to decode "institutionalised homophobia."
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,513
@311,129 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Google "the paradox of thrift" and get back to me. Also, kindly stop assuming that simply because you were gullible enough to pay money in order to be told something what you were told is in any way correct.
Google "the paradox of thrift" and get back to me. Also, kindly stop assuming that simply because you were gullible enough to pay money in order to be told something what you were told is in any way correct.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,633
@previous (I)
> hurr durr, I dun care what yur fancy shmancy econ profs told you, Id found stuff on google the prooves you wrong
also
> assumes I wasn't taught all about Keynes in college AND criticisms of the "the paradox of thrift"
> hurr durr, I dun care what yur fancy shmancy econ profs told you, Id found stuff on google the prooves you wrong
also
> assumes I wasn't taught all about Keynes in college AND criticisms of the "the paradox of thrift"
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,640
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,641
@previous (G)
I agree with that somewhat, but micro economics and macro economics are taught separately for a reason, and yes there are conflicting theories and conflicting schools of thought in economics.
I agree with that somewhat, but micro economics and macro economics are taught separately for a reason, and yes there are conflicting theories and conflicting schools of thought in economics.