Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Gelatinous Pope

Gay Pride "Don't Shove It In Our Face."

120 posts in this topic
3 hours ago, Monte314 said:

you put "incest" and "bestiality" on a "deviating behaviors" spectrum right along with homosexuality.  

How very enlightened of you.

No need to give me that much credit... I'm told my "S" function makes me a very literal person. And really, in hindsight I should have specified deviating sexual behaviors between consenting adults that has a history of excessive criticism and oppression, but the puritan within me might have led to the oversight.

 
 
...... added to this post 35 minutes later:
 
3 hours ago, Monte314 said:

I am sure the gay community will be pleased to hear that you have positioned them at the headwaters of a slippery slope to complete depravty.

And that's the beauty of science (or in this case, taxonomy); regardless of whether we're pleased or not pleased to hear about it, it still works.

And as far as your "slippery slope to complete depravity" is concerned, rest assured this fear is founded solely upon your "bigotry, ignorance and intolerance that resulted from decades of cultural encouragement."

Edited by Deprecator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

The Netherlands legalized gay marriage in 2001. Back in 2001, homosexuality was a felony in 14 US states.

Please login or register to see this link.

Please login or register to see this link.

Even rich people have to fear attack from poor people robbing them.

No-one gets to feel safe everywhere, not until war, murder, rape, assault and robbery are completely eliminated from humanity.

So if this is a reason to hold gay pride parades for an entire weekend every year, it's just as much a reason to hold Jewish pride parades for an entire weekend every year, Muslim pride parades for an entire weekend every year and rich pride parades for an entire weekend every year.

If you're for those weekends of parades as well, then that's fair.

On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

Which is why I find it hilarious that some heterosexuals have a problem with one weekend for the gays.

If there are 10 kids in a family, and one gets celebrated for one day a year, and the others don't, it's bound to cause enmity. It doesn't matter if the reason is that one of them has brown eyes and the other 9 have blue eyes. It will still cause enmity, until they all get the same level of celebration. So I'm not surprised.

So if you're going to have a weekend for the gays, you have to have a weekend celebrating for the straights as well, with Straight Pride parades.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. After all, if you find it hilarious that some heterosexuals have a problem with one weekend for the gays, then would you not also find it hilarious if some homosexuals have a problem with one weekend for the straights?

On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

Hollywood hates white guys, too. They hate American society in general these days, tbh.

First, you say that Hollywood is against gays. Now you're saying that it's against straight white guys as well. Would you rather that gays are shown on TV as much as straight white guys, but portrayed as buffoons like Homer Simpson?

On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

Most Hollywood-types wish that California could break-off and join the EU.

:laugh: Let them. The UK has been in the EU for over 40 years, and most of the UK voted to leave. Polls in France and The Netherlands showed that they're not the only ones who want out. They'll find out soon enough that the EU is far from perfect.

On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

Not to be rude, but are you an aspie? You're an intelligent dude, yet you oddly focused on what wasn't the issue in question. Missing the context-cues. 

Some people say "yes". Some people say "no" and my issues are caused by other things instead. Debatable. But I definitely have an unusual way of looking at things.

It pays off, though. My teachers used to say that I asked good questions. Previous employers said that I policed them from making stupid mistakes.

On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

300 did very well at the box-office (half a billion in revenue), despite being softcore porn.

Yes, even though the only people undressed were men, and it was little more than thinly-disguised gay porn.

Many shows really bomb, even though they appealed to the straight market. Might be that "Dante's Cove" is just one of the many shows that bombed.

On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

Look to our President: a fucking rich asshole.

I wouldn't count that as a proof. Millions of Brits consider David Cameron to be a very rich a-hole. Millions of Brits consider Nigel Farage to be a very rich a-hole. Being a very rich a-hole seems to be highly correlated with being a successful politician.

On 23/06/2017 at 9:23 PM, eagleseven said:

No, no it's not. We're a violent society obsessed with money, fame, and power, born in a brutal war.

I wouldn't say that the American War of Independence was a particularly brutal war compared to the rest of British history.

But it's rate of death from cars is very telling. Owning a car is not in the Second Amendment like owning a firearm. It has lower speed limits than the UK, and higher speed limits than Germany in general, yet still has higher deaths from cars by every measure. That can't be attributed to being able to drive too fast, or not being able to drive fast enough.

Americans talk about their right to say whatever they feel like, even when it's obvious that they would hurt others deeply by their words. This gives me the impression that Americans see "freedom" as the right to not have to think about the consequences of their actions on others.

If so, then it's not that surprising that their car fatality rate is so high, as the key thing to preventing car fatalities is thinking about potential dangers to others beforehand and taking actions to prevent those potential dangers by limiting your own actions.

Getting bullied in school because of being gay, or being geeky, or anything else, would be another example of doing what you felt like without thinking about the harmful consequences to others.

If you want to live in peace with others, then you've got to expect to compromise, to adjust a little bit to accommodate others, and to have others adjust a little bit to accommodate your needs as well. It's possible to have a Gay Pride parade one weekend every year and have straights be OK with that, if there is also a Straight Pride parade one weekend every year as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Attenuata said:

Society can still continue to operate before, during, and after gay pride parades.

There's no need for a heterosexual pride parade because heterosexuals do not have a history of being shamed based on their sexual orientation.

But in my opinion homosexuality is a shameful thing. Since there is no logical basis for such distinctions, then my subjective opinion is as valid as yours. If you wish to avoid offending me, you must desist from it. If you do not mind offending me, then it is must be fine for me to offend you. You may try the "yea but you're a bigot" line, to which I would respond "yea, but you're a homosexual and that is worse".

The society of which you speak is not one I wish to be part of. I don't wish to commune with homosexuals. So we shame them to make them change or leave so that we can have the sort of society that we want. It is not about the homosexuals, it is about us, the non-homosexuals. We should have the right to kick out any minority that displeases us so that we may live the way that wish. Yet because we right, we are successful and because we build orderly and prosperous communities, the homos want in on it. A parasite needs a host but a host does not want a parasite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Attenuata said:

gay pride parades will serve their purpose of normalizing homosexuality.

So you're saying that homosexuality is the *only* "normal" behavior that requires parading around to help normalize? How odd... homosexuality must be truly unique. 

1 hour ago, Attenuata said:

It's possible that the world will become familiar enough with it to the point that it becomes a non-issue, but I don't believe that the world, especially US Americans in the entirety of the USA (as a geographic country) are familiar enough with it to the point of accepting it as normal any time soon. 

So what specifically needs to happen for gays to believe that their respective communities are "familiar enough with it"? Right to adopt kids, right to get married, legal protection from discrimination in the work force, equal likelihood of being victims of crime... is there anything else that I'm missing? Like maybe we could ensure equal representation in the media by mandating that 2% of all television shows should be based on homosexual relations so as to guarantee that "hyper-heterosexuality" doesn't dominate the entertainment industry?

 
 
...... added to this post 5 minutes later:
 
21 minutes ago, thod said:

You may try the "yea but you're a bigot" line, to which I would respond "yea, but you're a homosexual and that is worse".

LOL omg :laugh: Ugh thod, I really shouldn't be laughing at these things. People are going to accuse me of being.... well... you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Attenuata said:

Gay pride is a method of getting the world to become familiar with it, and that there are heterosexual people who are already accepting of it and have allied themselves with the cause.

3 hours ago, Attenuata said:

There's no need for a heterosexual pride parade because heterosexuals do not have a history of being shamed based on their sexual orientation.

If people aren't familiar with gay-ness, then they won't be familiar enough with it to persecute gays.

The purpose of gay pride is to get the world to become familiar with gay people as equally worthy of respect as heterosexuals. If you want to be treated as an equal, then you have to be treated equally. If you have gay pride, but not straight pride, you're NOT being treated equally. If you're not being treated equally, then the world is familiar with gay people, and so persecution of gays is possible, and the world is NOT familiar with gay people as being treated as equally worthy of respect as heterosexuals, and so persecution of gays in ways that heterosexuals would not be persecuted still makes sense.

So if you want gay people to be as free of persecution as heterosexuals, you have to publicly treat them the SAME, which means that if there's a gay pride parade, there has to be a straight pride parade. If you do one without the other, you can expect gay people to be persecuted much more than heterosexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2017 at 5:18 PM, byhisello99 said:

Gay Pride followed Black Pride.

It all started with lions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, scorpiomover said:

The purpose of gay pride is to get the world to become familiar with gay people as equally worthy of respect as heterosexuals. If you want to be treated as an equal, then you have to be treated equally. If you have gay pride, but not straight pride, you're NOT being treated equally. If you're not being treated equally, then the world is familiar with gay people, and so persecution of gays is possible, and the world is NOT familiar with gay people as being treated as equally worthy of respect as heterosexuals, and so persecution of gays in ways that heterosexuals would not be persecuted still makes sense.

So if you want gay people to be as free of persecution as heterosexuals, you have to publicly treat them the SAME, which means that if there's a gay pride parade, there has to be a straight pride parade. If you do one without the other, you can expect gay people to be persecuted much more than heterosexuals.

Careful there, scorpion. This type of crazy thinking would justify white pride, a mentality which I've been repeatedly informed by my campus police is 100% racist and not allowed. Parading around your pride of inherited traits is *only* okay if it's used to combat oppression, meaning only gays and blacks are allowed to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Deprecator said:

Careful there, scorpion. This type of crazy thinking would justify white pride, a mentality which I've been repeatedly informed by my campus police is 100% racist and not allowed. Parading around your pride of inherited traits is *only* okay if it's used to combat oppression, meaning only gays and blacks are allowed to do it. 

Don't really care.

When I was a kid, I got bullied a LOT.

When I got to university, I noticed that if I was nice to people who had a reputation of being extremely violent towards people like me, and complimented them for their positive qualities, they were very nice to me, even though they were extremely violent to many of my peers. So I started to cultivate what I like to call a mutual admiration society. When people said they wished they had my abilities, I'd respond by pointing out other traits that they had that I wished I had. This seemed to kill any jealousy or enmity on their part completely.

For the last 15 years, I have felt much safer around extremely violent psychos than most people. I know from many years of experience that as long as I treat them with respect, the odds of them doing anything unpleasant to me are almost non-existent. Quite the reverse, actually. They're likely to do me favours, give me really cheap prices, and would even attack anyone who tried to hit me, purely because I treat them as if they are my equal.

I'd still be cautious around people I don't know yet. But it's a rule of thumb that has served me so well, that it's like money in the bank.

Edited by scorpiomover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exclusive identity parades exclude people who do not share the identity. Clearly, there are gay pride events that are "getting all up in straight's face" and others that are just exclusive, and others that are inclusive. Exclusive clubs and events are legal and I certainly don't cry over being excluded,  but they can cross the line from just being exclusive to being bully-ish. 

this is not a phenomenon exclusive to gay pride events. Overtly sexual displays by straights such as mardi gras or what used to be generalized as "spring break" have the same effect. They can be exclusive (what happened here stays here, don't invite the prudes) or they can get in the face of "the prudes" just as "the prudes" can just be exclusive and in retreat, or exclusive in advance with larges numbers marching down Main Street. 

So yes, be exclusive. But if you get in people's face (colloquially), you'll probably get a lot of people to stand down but eventually, someone is going to give you the fight you've been looking for. So when someone says, don't shove it in our face, they are giving a sort of "fair warning"; in effect, saying, right now, I don't care enough to fight about it, but if you are going to force the issue and shove me ...... if you just want people to "be honest" about how they feel .... ok, let's be honest. Egomania meets egomania. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thod said:

The society of which you speak is not one I wish to be part of. I don't wish to commune with homosexuals. So we shame them to make them change or leave so that we can have the sort of society that we want. It is not about the homosexuals, it is about us, the non-homosexuals. We should have the right to kick out any minority that displeases us so that we may live the way that wish. Yet because we right, we are successful and because we build orderly and prosperous communities, the homos want in on it. A parasite needs a host but a host does not want a parasite.

You say you (individually) don't wish to commune with homosexuals, but in the next sentence you change the pronoun to 'we'. Why should there be many people who will help you in your individual desire to not commune with homosexuals? Surely you don't speak for all heterosexuals, because there are heterosexuals who are understanding and sympathetic of homosexual causes. I don't believe there to be any law that prohibits you from starting your commune of like minded anti-homosexuals.

 
 
...... added to this post 13 minutes later:
 
8 hours ago, Deprecator said:

So what specifically needs to happen for gays to believe that their respective communities are "familiar enough with it"? Right to adopt kids, right to get married, legal protection from discrimination in the work force, equal likelihood of being victims of crime... is there anything else that I'm missing? Like maybe we could ensure equal representation in the media by mandating that 2% of all television shows should be based on homosexual relations so as to guarantee that "hyper-heterosexuality" doesn't dominate the entertainment industry?

The solution is to educate the younger, and future generations with the updated data on homosexuality so they grow up believing it to be an uncommon but normal aspect of humanity. At the same time, shaming, shunning, and silencing individuals or groups who grew up having a negative value judgement of it until they either integrate the new data and accept it as the current and commonly held belief, or outwardly accept it as the current and commonly held belief but privately hold on to the old and outdated belief hoping it will become popular again in the future, or until they simply die off.

 

 

 
 
...... added to this post 19 minutes later:
 
8 hours ago, scorpiomover said:

If people aren't familiar with gay-ness, then they won't be familiar enough with it to persecute gays.

The purpose of gay pride is to get the world to become familiar with gay people as equally worthy of respect as heterosexuals. If you want to be treated as an equal, then you have to be treated equally. If you have gay pride, but not straight pride, you're NOT being treated equally. If you're not being treated equally, then the world is familiar with gay people, and so persecution of gays is possible, and the world is NOT familiar with gay people as being treated as equally worthy of respect as heterosexuals, and so persecution of gays in ways that heterosexuals would not be persecuted still makes sense.

So if you want gay people to be as free of persecution as heterosexuals, you have to publicly treat them the SAME, which means that if there's a gay pride parade, there has to be a straight pride parade. If you do one without the other, you can expect gay people to be persecuted much more than heterosexuals.

I didn't mean to imply heterosexuals shouldn't have a heterosexual parade, I just don't think they have a reason that is comparable to gay pride to do so. If there are heterosexuals who wish to have a "heterosexual" pride, then they are and should be free to do so as I don't believe there to be any law that prohibits it. I do wonder what kind of public support that kind of movement will garner, so please go ahead and begin the movement yourself and share your results.

 
 
...... added to this post 26 minutes later:
 
8 hours ago, Deprecator said:

This type of crazy thinking would justify white pride, a mentality which I've been repeatedly informed by my campus police is 100% racist and not allowed. Parading around your pride of inherited traits is *only* okay if it's used to combat oppression, meaning only gays and blacks are allowed to do it. 

The seeming unpopularity of heterosexual pride operates on the same principle as 'white pride'. White people don't have a history of being a popular minority that has been oppressed based on their ethnicity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Attenuata said:

I didn't mean to imply heterosexuals shouldn't have a heterosexual parade, I just don't think they have a reason that is comparable to gay pride to do so. If there are heterosexuals who wish to have a "heterosexual" pride, then they are and should be free to do so as I don't believe there to be any law that prohibits it. I do wonder what kind of public support that kind of movement will garner, so please go ahead and begin the movement yourself and share your results.

I didn't say that heterosexuals have a reason to have a heterosexual parade.

I said that GAY people have a reason for heterosexuals to have a heterosexual parade. When heterosexuals have their sexuality validated as equal to that of gay people's sexuality, they don't have a reason to feel threatened by gay people.

24 minutes ago, Attenuata said:

I do wonder what kind of public support that kind of movement will garner,

Are you heterosexual?

24 minutes ago, Attenuata said:

so please go ahead and begin the movement yourself and share your results.

I'm not the sort of person who starts movements. Also, not usually the person people follow. You want an INFJ starting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why should there be many people who will help you in your individual desire to not commune with homosexuals?

So you refute your own case. If there are so few homophobes out there, then you are arguing that a minority is being oppressed by an even smaller minority.  The homosexuals are a well organized and well funded minority, the homophobes have no such resources. It is they that are oppressed by the homosexuals who tell everyone to hate them. Admit it, every homosexual hates the homophobes and wants others to do so too. Normal people have a range from indifferent to dislike, but the only ones who actually promote homosexuality are the homosexuals themselves.

There are no pressure groups attempting to get homosexuality considered a mental disorder again. None seeking to lock them up. It all comes from the homos trying to close the opposition down and get them jailed for their fake hate speech crimes. It seems to me that getting someone jailed is far more hateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Attenuata said:

The solution is to educate the younger, and future generations with the updated data on homosexuality so they grow up believing it to be an uncommon but normal aspect of humanity. 

Right, right, right, of course. We educate the younger generations with updated data on homosexuality. What is the net effect you're hoping to gain from this? What specifically needs to happen for us to safely conclude that the goal of this effort was achieved? Gays would have the right to adopt kids, right to get married, legal protection from discrimination in the work force, equal likelihood of being victims of crime... is there anything else that I'm missing? Oh right I almost forgot... at long last the shaming, shunning and silencing of homosexuals can finally come to a halt. Ah yes, it's a beautiful world. :cheers:

2 hours ago, Attenuata said:

At the same time, shaming, shunning, and silencing individuals or groups who grew up having a negative value judgement of it

Of course this is brilliant why hasn't this ever been thought of before? The best way to stop the shaming, shunning and silencing of one individual or group is to refocus the shaming, shunning and silencing onto another individual or group. Now are you suggesting shame bells or pillories, or do you think a simple "H" branding on a forehead for "homophobe" would suffice? Or if this would simply be too archaic for your tastes then maybe you think we should just make them wear special hats or arm bands instead? Obviously shaming in general is wrong, so surely after enough shaming and shunning of the homophobes they'll be able to see the errors of their ways and then no more shaming or shunning will be needed after that.

Personally I've a bit of a soft spot for shame bells. So here, let's look at the public polls of the "what do you think of 2 guys kissing" thread to see who we need to start shaming. And would you look at that. Instead of thinking it was the most beautiful thing they've ever seen, 3 people responded "ugh" as a gut response to the image of 2 guys kissing. 50 shame dings for thod (technically he didn't vote I'm just taking a liberty here), 10 shame dings for monte (going light on him for his age) and ah $@%&. I don't know what my name is doing there, must have been an honest mis-click on my part... honestly, these things can happen to anyone guys. But just so we don't give off any wrong impressions I'll be a team player and even take a few shame dings myself. Of course, as a person who has repeatedly advocated that we need more shaming on INTJf, I fear I'm getting a bit ahead of myself.

Attenuata, what do you think is the most effective way to shame other people? 

 

Edited by Deprecator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thod said:

So you refute your own case. If there are so few homophobes out there, then you are arguing that a minority is being oppressed by an even smaller minority.  The homosexuals are a well organized and well funded minority, the homophobes have no such resources. It is they that are oppressed by the homosexuals who tell everyone to hate them. Admit it, every homosexual hates the homophobes and wants others to do so too. Normal people have a range from indifferent to dislike, but the only ones who actually promote homosexuality are the homosexuals themselves.

There are no pressure groups attempting to get homosexuality considered a mental disorder again. None seeking to lock them up. It all comes from the homos trying to close the opposition down and get them jailed for their fake hate speech crimes. It seems to me that getting someone jailed is far more hateful.

The quantitative you stated needs verification. Should the quantitative be removed from your argument, then you have 'homophobes are being oppressed.' In which case I would argue that it's acceptable to oppress an individual or group based on their belief system, because a belief system is entirely within an individual's control.

Since you assert that the desire to get someone jailed is far more hateful, then the preexisting belief that caused it is also hateful. That's the equality you're looking for.

 
 
...... added to this post 17 minutes later:
 
10 minutes ago, Deprecator said:

What specifically needs to happen for us to safely conclude that the goal of this effort was achieved?

The goal of the effort is achieved when there are no more people who hold negative value judgments of homosexuals based solely on their sexual orientation. That is the overarching goal of the effort, and it will be achieved through the set of myopic minutiae you stated over the course of an extended period of time; perhaps a couple of generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Attenuata said:

The goal of the effort is achieved when there are no more people who hold negative value judgments of homosexuals based solely on their sexual orientation.

And how will we know this is the case? If we shame enough people with negative impressions of homosexuality then they won't say that they have them anymore and the goal is achieved? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Attenuata said:

I would argue that it's acceptable to oppress an individual or group based on their belief system, because a belief system is entirely within an individual's control.

So we can oppress social liberals then. We can oppress militant homosexuals, since they could be quite homosexuals or non-practicing homosexuals. They have chosen their militancy. If it is ok to oppress someone based on their religion, their belief system, then surely it is ok to oppress them based on other attributes, such as their homosexuality. You don't get to choose the terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Attenuata said:

In which case I would argue that it's acceptable to oppress an individual or group based on their belief system, because a belief system is entirely within an individual's control.

And we have a winner! Which beliefs are worthy of oppression and which are not? Are islam, judaism and christianity okay or do those beliefs support unjust social causes? I'm not going to presume one way or the other... it seems that only enlightened minds like Attenuata can decide for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thod said:

So we can oppress social liberals then. 

Yes.

3 minutes ago, thod said:

We can oppress militant homosexuals, since they could be quite homosexuals or non-practicing homosexuals. They have chosen their militancy. 

It depends what you choose to oppress them for. If you are oppressing an individual or group for their militancy then that's acceptable in my opinion. If you're oppressing an individual or group based on their sexual orientation (homosexuality), then it's not acceptable.

 

3 minutes ago, Deprecator said:

And how will we know this is the case?

If we shame enough people with negative impressions of homosexuality then they won't say that they have them anymore and the goal is achieved? 

We'll know if we listen. 

If there are no more people who state negative value judgments about homosexuality, then the goal has been achieved.

If there are still people who state negative value judgments about homosexuality, then the goal has not been achieved.

It's a pretty basic concept.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Attenuata said:

If there are no more people who state negative value judgments about homosexuality, then the goal has been achieved.

Okay. So you're saying that it'd be okay to not hire someone for being a homosexual so long as they don't explicitly state a negative value judgement about homosexuality. As soon as this happens, your goal would be achieved and there'd be no more need for parading around all the time. 

Who would have thought that negatively stated opinions could be so hurtful that they'd warrant parading around all the time. Next time someone states a negative value judgement about me being a doofus I'm gona unite with all the other doofus's and parade around in my underwear to show these people that it's okay to be a doofus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deprecator said:

So you're saying that it'd be okay to not hire someone for being a homosexual so long as they don't explicitly state a negative value judgement about homosexuality.

No.

"It'd be ok to not hire someone for being a homosexual so long as they don't explicitly state a negative value judgment about homosexuality." is not the same as "If there are no more people who state negative value judgments about homosexuality, then the goal has been achieved."

I believe you have a point regarding the use of the word 'state' though, so perhaps 'hold' is more accurate.

Being a doofus is not comparable to being a homosexual, so I don't really understand your desperate and constant use of contextually devoid comparisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now