|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Nov 15, 2007 4:04:26 GMT -5
*In gayest voice imaginable* Um, like I find the Snickers commercial incredibly offensive. Like, it is so highly homophobic, it's ridiculous. I am offended on sooo many levels.  EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Look! Look! It's a Natural Reaction the Thought Police have termed [glow=red,2,300]Homophobia.[/glow] But I reckon it's comfy to know you have them on your side.  ...yyyaaaherrr...a...haaaater....  My God! Get him in a sensitivity training course right n...........huh?....what?....oh, he's already in one. Good work. These posts were pretty painful to read, not because I'm appalled by the homophobia (although I am), but because they sound like schoolyard taunts coming out of some fourteen year-old. You're embarrassing yourself. Stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Nov 15, 2007 4:33:02 GMT -5
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Wait a minute, that was my reaction too! Those guys weren't exactly Heath Ledger were they? I'm glad shin cleared up the fact there's a slightly wider story, 'cos the ad itself as I just watched it is pretty harmless. No doubt some people would be offended, but there's always people who gladly get offended given the chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Dwazee on Nov 15, 2007 9:39:27 GMT -5
i think what is the offensive part is the overt reactions--the, OMG EWWWW THE MEN KISSED GROSS!!!! and we have to defend our manhood! homosexuality is sort of the last bastion of acceptable prejudice. if it was a black man and white woman kissing, no one would think anything of it. and if it were two women kissing...well, that's sadly many men's fantasy, so they wouldn't say anything about that. i think the people that got offended are insulted about those specific things rather than the ad itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Nov 15, 2007 11:39:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by KooL on Nov 15, 2007 14:14:56 GMT -5
This thread proves Melon's every bit as nutty as a Snickers bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 15, 2007 14:24:00 GMT -5
ok, I have some extremely troubling, and yes disturbing, news to post here. it's not necessarily the best place for it - - however; due to the recent subject matter, I figured, why not. It's as good a place as any. en.wikinews.org/wiki/FBI_document_exposes_symbols_used_by_pedophilesThe jist of the above article: Pedophiles have their own pins, now. Apparantly, the FBI uncovered this.  Description 'The BoyLover logo' (BLogo) "is a small blue spiral-shaped triangle surrounded by a larger triangle, whereby the small triangle represents a small boy and the larger triangle represents an adult man. Source secure.wikileaks.org/leak/FBI-pedophile-symbols.pdf (Document is clearly labeled and signed as being from the FBI. Photos were taken by the FBI in investigations.) Date November 14, 2007 ----  Description 'The GirlLover logo' (GLogo) is a small heart surrounded by a larger heart, which symbolizes a relationship between an adult male or female and minor girl. Source secure.wikileaks.org/leak/FBI-pedophile-symbols.pdf (Document is clearly labeled and signed as being from the FBI. Photos were taken by the FBI in investigations.) Date November 14, 2007 -----  Description 'The ChildLover logo' (CLogo), "resembles a butterfly and represents non-preferential gender child abusers," Source secure.wikileaks.org/leak/FBI-pedophile-symbols.pdf (Document is clearly labeled and signed as being from the FBI. Photos were taken by the FBI in investigations.) Date November 14, 2007 |
|
|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Nov 15, 2007 19:38:37 GMT -5
???Now all of a sudden I'm for heterosexual males beating gays to death and Iranian gays being hung to death for it just because I pointed out a natural reaction.  According to shin (who posts with such style - everbodee stop and ponder what an art shin's posts display - so heartstopping, convicting, superb), what I termed a "natural reaction" also entailed that killing because of the same disgust is just as natural. I can't think of a better word to describe anyone who would draw that conclusion than just plain idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by upinkzeppelin2 on Nov 15, 2007 19:40:26 GMT -5
shin is all for the mass murder of Christians and Conservative Republicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Nov 15, 2007 20:02:21 GMT -5
???Now all of a sudden I'm for heterosexual males beating gays to death and Iranian gays being hung to death for it just because I pointed out a natural reaction. According to shin (who posts with such style - everbodee stop and ponder what an art shin's posts display - so heartstopping, convicting, superb), what I termed a "natural reaction" also entailed that killing because of the same disgust is just as natural. I can't think of a better word to describe anyone who would draw that conclusion than just plain idiot. Melon, I pointed out the Matthew Shephard thing. It is natural for humans to be violent. It doesn't make it acceptable. I have no hatred for you, as a matter of fact, I enjoy talking to you. For you to sit there and say that some guy's disgust is a natural reaction just makes me wonder if you've thought about why his reaction exists in the first place. Taught behavior. It is not perceived as masculine to make out with another man, and that is the only reason there was the face on that guy. It had nothing to do with a natural reaction. A natural reaction is taking a piss because you have to piss. A natural reaction is eating because you're hungry. Making a face because two guys are kissing is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Nov 15, 2007 20:06:31 GMT -5
I edited that because parts came off as arrogant, and that wasn't what I was going for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Nov 15, 2007 20:19:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Nov 15, 2007 21:08:15 GMT -5
We're taught that all prejudice is taught... but I do wonder how much of it is natural. After all... where did it originally come from? And could all of these people have been simply taught to be hateful (the short of it: no)?
I'm glad shin pointed out that there's more to this than just an ad. If it was just the ad that people were outraged over... well, that's just plain retarded, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Nov 15, 2007 21:36:41 GMT -5
We're taught that all prejudice is taught... but I do wonder how much of it is natural. After all... where did it originally come from? And could all of these people have been simply taught to be hateful (the short of it: no)? I'm glad shin pointed out that there's more to this than just an ad. If it was just the ad that people were outraged over... well, that's just plain retarded, imo. IMO, prejudice comes from the struggle for power and from ignorance. And hey, in order to maintain power you have to have a lot of ignorant people. Look at us Americans. The ad in and of itself wasn't that offensive (except for being stupid and insulting to the intelligence). I'm really not that offended by the reactions of the players, either. I expect it. It's a big whatever to me. I was offended by Melon's comment because the way that he worded it was like saying "it's okay, because it's natural." I might expect it, and I might not get offended, but I don't think it's "okay" to be a homophobe. I think it's downright ignorant. Furthermore, we all have brains, which is natural, so how about people using them. |
|
layla
Streetcorner Musician
Posts: 56
|
Post by layla on Nov 15, 2007 22:08:21 GMT -5
My gut instinct says that the chart is an example of taking two statistics and melding them together to find a correlation when none exists. If the table Sisyphus pasted was published in a peer-reviewed journal article, then there IS a correlation there (and they would've mentioned how string the correlation is), and it would've been determined by various stats tests. Its not as simple as "melding" two sets of data together & then drawing pretty arrows. It's like the claim that crime rates went down when abortion was legalized, therefore it's criminals who are being aborted. The theory goes that because the US crime rate decreased significantly around 18-20 years AFTER the legalisation of abortion, that a generation of juvenile offenders were never born - likely something to this theory as many offenders are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, in which we also see elevated birth rates (esp teen), lower levels of education...so accessible abortion for young women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds DOES equal less babies being born to these women who WOULD have had a higher likelihood of being involved in crime, esp as juveniles and as repeat offenders. Its actually a really straightforward & logical theory. Since there's really not a cause and effect identifed to draw a connection between pornography and rape, I tend to believe the statistic is more coincedence than it is a true reflection on what the effects of making hard core porn widely available really areCorrelation does NOT imply causation. Exposure to sexually explicit materials is not responsible for sexual violence (although there is a lot of evidence for increased physiological reactions to porn from violent criminals & rapists than non-violent & non-offending men, suggesting more response & definite arousal), HOWEVER there are repeated (global) studies relating to the correlation between the availability of pornography & decreased levels of rape & sexual violence. In various Western European nations, as well as several Asian countries, rates of sexual violence decreased significantly following the availability of sexually explicit materials. The rates stayed constant (or continued to decrease), with occasional increases that often occur around times of public awareness campiagns that urge women to report sex crimes. [Its similar to the incidence of marijuana use in the Netherlands following legalisation: at first it increased dramatically, and then decreased significantly, reverting to a similar (if not slightly lower) usage rate than before legalisation.] At the end of the day, rape & sexual violence (& the mental illness that often accompanies these crimes) predate pornography by thousands of years - to suggest pornography has really impacted on it either way might be kind of a non-issue, and the resources we spend trying to combat (non-violent & non-paedophiliac, if thats even a word) porn would be much better spent in other, IGNORED areas, such as mental health, awareness of crimes etc. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Nov 15, 2007 23:01:02 GMT -5
My hero in stilleto boots to the rescue ...  |
|
According to shin (who posts with such style - everbodee stop and ponder what an art shin's posts display - so heartstopping, convicting, superb), what I termed a "natural reaction" also entailed that killing because of the same disgust is just as natural. I can't think of a better word to describe anyone who would draw that conclusion than just plain idiot.
