Is it really? It's not like saying something is unnatural is the same as saying it's bad. Cars are unnatural, but I don't have a problem with cars.

 

Have you been living under a rock? It's the language used by bigots when they advocate for making homosexuals second-class citizens.

And people are not fricking cars. Using "unnatural" about a person is extremely loaded with negative connotations.

 

 

Actually no, calling something unnatural or even using a pronoun that you don't agree with is insulting, insensitive, and quite frankly ... just plain rude ... but doesn't rise to the level of bigotry on its face. SJWs tend to forget that the righteous virtue of tolerance that everyone should strive for isn't necessarily the same as acceptance.

 

 

So yeah, to use your metaphor, if GG has gotten the left sole comfortably broken in then the SJWs and you have done an equally fine job with the right. 

Re underlined: Interesting qualifier. So you agree that prior experience could lead one to reasonably assume that people who refer to some particular group of people as unnatural are most likely bigots? You actually comprehend that context is a thing?

Well, that's a pleasant surprise.

 

As for insisting that the two sides must somehow be equal... Whatever. It's so ridiculous that I can't even feel insulted.

 

 

Actually no, even with my "interesting qualifier" I do not find hypersensitivity in general to ever be reasonable. ... As for the rest, well, that's to be expected I suppose.

 

The issue has not only been resolved, it has been resolved with the help of the original backer.

 

This is not a free speech issue. It is not a censorship issue. It never was. 

 

How evil for Obsidian to not magically be able to read his mind and preferences. The devils!

Yet he didn't advocate for making homosexuals be treated as second class citizens. So obviously that's not always the case.

 

What?

Just... what?

Using the rhetoric of bigots is a predictor of being a bigot. Do you actually disagree with this?

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

 

Actually no, even with my "interesting qualifier" I do not find hypersensitivity in general to ever be reasonable. ... As for the rest, well, that's to be expected I suppose.

Ohhh... That's very interesting. Please define this "hypersensitivity" that I am apparently guilty of.

 

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

 

Nope. Saying that *blank* (fill in any noun you like) is unnatural does not automatically have negative connotations as to be natural is not automatically good, and to be unnatural is not automatically bad. The car example was fine as it demonstrated that unnatural doesn't equal bad.

 

 

 

Yet he didn't advocate for making homosexuals be treated as second class citizens. So obviously that's not always the case.

 

What?

Just... what?

Using the rhetoric of bigots is a predictor of being a bigot. Do you actually disagree with this?

 

It's certainly evidence that the user of said statement is a bigot. The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots. This is why I asked what he meant by:

 

It's not a natural activity.

The answer to my question for him could make clear what the intention of this statement was. I don't want to assume he's a bigot if he isn't one.

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by Namutree

I just made a sausage barbecue ,I would love to post the pictures  in a new thread!

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by barakav

 

 

The issue has not only been resolved, it has been resolved with the help of the original backer.

 

This is not a free speech issue. It is not a censorship issue. It never was. 

 

How evil for Obsidian to not magically be able to read his mind and preferences. The devils!

 

 

Volo really highlights the issue, he is making assumptions similar to   " why the limerick was changed " and how " offended Firedorn should be because of pressure from SJW " 

 

Yet Firedorn is actually fine with that, I'll repeat that  "firedorn is fine with that " yet people keep presuming to say " what an outrage it was "

 

 

Also why do some  people keep using comparisons to the animal kingdom when it comes to dismissing homophobia. Humans  are sentient beings who make there own decisions based on numerous factors like intellect  and our conscience , we don't use benchmarks like " so what does my dog think about my investment in this stock market " 

 

Yet when it comes to homosexuality suddenly the animal kingdom becomes our way of gauging if its acceptable ?

 

Weird what some people will do when justifying bigotry ( and Namutree this doesn't apply to you )

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by BruceVC

Just stop posting in the topic if you aren't interested. If people spam new threads or derail topics I'm sure the mods will deal with it.

Censoring things because you feel it isn't interesting or you personally feel it's run its course is rather silly, imho.

 

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

Nope. Saying that *blank* (fill in any noun you like) is unnatural does not automatically have negative connotations as to be natural is not automatically good, and to be unnatural is not automatically bad. The car example was fine as it demonstrated that unnatural doesn't equal bad.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to people as unnatural that was explicitly non-judgemental and the converse is usually true.

I briefly considered asking for clarification, but the prior for Striker genuinely not being aware of the connotations is just so incredibly low.

 

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

 

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural.

 

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

 

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural.

 

 

Namutree I consider you are a rationale person so I'm missing your reasoning on this one 

 

What activity is unnatural? A man having sex with another man ..or a man having sex with a transgender person ?

 

 

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

 

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural.

 

 

Namutree I consider you are a rationale person so I'm missing your reasoning on this one 

 

What activity is unnatural? A man having sex with another man ..or a man having sex with a transgender person ?

 

Neither.

 

It was a different user whom suggested that man/man homosexuality was unnatural.

 

I actually argued that it is natural, but I also argued with Serdan as to whether saying man/man homosexuality was unnatural is bigoted.

 

EDIT: It has been an exceptionally productive use of my time if I say so myself.

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by Namutree

Keep the discussion contained in it's own thread. No need to Streisand-effect the issue by clamping down, let people work it out in a controlled manner.

 

 

 

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

 

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural.

 

 

Namutree I consider you are a rationale person so I'm missing your reasoning on this one 

 

What activity is unnatural? A man having sex with another man ..or a man having sex with a transgender person ?

 

Neither.

 

It was a different user whom suggested that man/man homosexuality was unnatural.

 

I actually argued that it is natural, but I also argued with Serdan as to whether saying man/man homosexuality was unnatural is bigoted.

 

EDIT: It has been an exceptionally productive use of my time if I say so myself.

 

 

 

Okay yes thats what I thought you said. 

 

I do think it is bigotry to say that because if you have a situation when you have a gay man in a relationship with a transgender  ( or another gay man) person and  the relationship is  completely consensual then how can anyone say that relationship is unnatural ? Think about it, two people in love with each other being told " this is wrong ...this is unnatural ". Yet the two people are perfectly fine with it 

 

Bigotry is basically a prejudice and intolerance  towards something so by saying " its unnatural " you are creating a negative view of something perfectly normal...and that normal event is a relationship. It just happens to be two men in that relationship

 

I hope this makes sense

I think it's easy to conflate saying something is unnatural with saying it is bad because it is such a common way of denouncing things as weird or bad. Not always, of course, but like... If someone told me "I think genetic modification of vegetables is unnatural", I would be surprised if they turned out to be a GMO proponent, you know?

I think it's easy to conflate saying something is unnatural with saying it is bad because it is such a common way of denouncing things as weird or bad. Not always, of course, but like... If someone told me "I think genetic modification of vegetables is unnatural", I would be surprised if they turned out to be a GMO proponent, you know?

 

Yeah I know what you mean, the word  " unnatural " is thrown around when convenient to dismiss something 

 Think about it, two people in love with each other being told " this is wrong ...this is unnatural ". Yet the two people are perfectly fine with it 

 

Would it be okay if they weren't in love? The limerick likely refers to such a case.

BDSM is unnatural.

 

Pegging is unnatural.

 

Condoms are unnatural.

 

Vidya romance is unnatural.

BDSM is unnatural.

 

Pegging is unnatural.

 

Condoms are unnatural.

 

Vidya romance is unnatural.

People who say Vidya insead of video should be banned from the internet. Whats next Animu? ...

 

Seriously just saw this neogaf thread I thought its all over and decided the offended people were crazy "idiots". Why not move on and let them live in their ****ty world? Fire was ok with it so we should be ok for it too.  If  he would have been against it I would fight in the frontline but this?

 

 

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

Nope. Saying that *blank* (fill in any noun you like) is unnatural does not automatically have negative connotations as to be natural is not automatically good, and to be unnatural is not automatically bad. The car example was fine as it demonstrated that unnatural doesn't equal bad.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to people as unnatural that was explicitly non-judgemental and the converse is usually true.

I briefly considered asking for clarification, but the prior for Striker genuinely not being aware of the connotations is just so incredibly low.

 

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

 a lot of people on the social justice side do this with fetishes they do not tolerate. Like pedophilia. Something you can not do anything about it as well.  Its your sexual orientation and it should not be a crime unless people get hurt by it.  Thats the biggest example 

 

Yet he didn't advocate for making homosexuals be treated as second class citizens. So obviously that's not always the case.

 

What?

Just... what?

Using the rhetoric of bigots is a predictor of being a bigot. Do you actually disagree with this?

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

 

Actually no, even with my "interesting qualifier" I do not find hypersensitivity in general to ever be reasonable. ... As for the rest, well, that's to be expected I suppose.

Ohhh... That's very interesting. Please define this "hypersensitivity" that I am apparently guilty of.

 

 

 

I read the thread that you linked to earlier and saw your reaction to people referring to Erika with the male pronoun and in this thread you are arguing that it's somehow reasonable to make an assumption that people are bigots if they use insensitive but nonhateful language. At best that is hypersensitivity and at worse it is simply using a label to group people whom you disagree with as "the lesser", which is would be actually rather ironic if you stop and think about it.    

 

 

 

 

And do you acknowledge that the car analogy was terribad?

Nope. Saying that *blank* (fill in any noun you like) is unnatural does not automatically have negative connotations as to be natural is not automatically good, and to be unnatural is not automatically bad. The car example was fine as it demonstrated that unnatural doesn't equal bad.

I don't think I've ever seen a reference to people as unnatural that was explicitly non-judgemental and the converse is usually true.

I briefly considered asking for clarification, but the prior for Striker genuinely not being aware of the connotations is just so incredibly low.

 

 

The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots.

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural?

 

 

 

Yes I can actually, although for the most part their names wouldn't mean anything to you. Hells, until I see actual evidence of bigotry from the people using it here I'd also say that they probably qualify as well. Saying something is "unnatural" is simply an insensitive way of denoting that the speaker is uncomfortable with something and does not raise to the level of bigotry. Remember that tolerance is not the same as acceptance.  

Edited April 11, 201510 yr by MLMII

 

BDSM is unnatural.

Pegging is unnatural.

Condoms are unnatural.

Vidya romance is unnatural.

 

People who say Vidya insead of video should be banned from the internet. Whats next Animu? ...

 

I tell you what you weeaboo, I'll say vidya and animu all I want god damn it. I'm a Texas man and I ain't eatin no 12 oz roll of sausage.

I think it's easy to conflate saying something is unnatural with saying it is bad because it is such a common way of denouncing things as weird or bad. Not always, of course, but like... If someone told me "I think genetic modification of vegetables is unnatural", I would be surprised if they turned out to be a GMO proponent, you know?

 

 

Funny you use that example because I happen to think that genetically modifying food is unnatural and unless the price difference raises above what I consider to be a reasonable threshold I'd much rather buy the unmodified stuff. --- However I still fully support companies' right to experiment and sell GMO product ... I do support mandatory labeling though.

I'm so beyond bored with all this nonsense.

 

I voted for the separate thread, but would rather have it in a separate website.

I'm so beyond bored with all this nonsense.

 

I voted for the separate thread, but would rather have it in an entirely separate website.

I'm so beyond bored with all this nonsense.

 

I voted for the separate thread, but would rather have it in an entirely separate website.

 

I tend to believe you because you made  the point in duplicate