Announcement

**Drake Tungsten** · April 5, 2003, 01:15

Do you have an alternative explanation for the origin of the word that shows it is not somehow related to gay/homosexual?

Agathon gave one that was pretty believable. "Gay" may have developed as a way of mocking sterotypically gay actions. Just like I make fun of my friends for being "painfully white" when they do something that's stereotypically white, gay people might have started poking fun at the more flamboyant among them by saying that they were "sooo gay". This weak chiding is certainly more in line with the current, weak negative meaning of the word "gay" than the derogatory slur that some here seem convinced gay's new meaning developed from. In the absence of any proof, this theory is just as viable as anyone else's.

Luckily, Agathon and my arguments don't rest on our unproven assertion...

**Asher** · April 5, 2003, 01:17

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Agathon gave one that was pretty believable. "Gay" may have developed as a way of mocking sterotypically gay actions.

In that case, I withdraw my objections! That's a-okay by me!

It's far less likely than making fun of gays themselves, and either way it's unacceptable.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 5, 2003, 01:17

Do you even notice that once again you're arguing that it's not acceptable for gays to be offended by people using their sexuality as an insult?

You have the right to be offended. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to kiss your ass and pretend that your offense is an intelligent opinion...

**Drake Tungsten** · April 5, 2003, 01:19

It's far less likely than making fun of gays themselves

Yet another BAM. Do you have any arguments that don't rest on baseless assertions?

**Asher** · April 5, 2003, 01:20

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yet another BAM. Do you have any arguments that don't rest on baseless assertions?

Look at Boris' post above.

It is so incredibly obvious to anyone with the most basic analytical skills...

I find it tremendously amusing that you and Agathon are absolutely the most inept with logic in this thread, and it's been you two that have been accusing others of not understanding logic.

**Boris Godunov** · April 5, 2003, 01:21

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It's far less likely than making fun of gays themselves

Yet another BAM. Do you have any arguments that don't rest on baseless assertions?

Considering Agathon's ENTIRE rationalization for why gay=stupid/bad isn't insulting was based on a BAM (and you've both admitted as such, while asking for people to prove your own BAM wrong), this is just a load of hot, stinky air.

**Drake Tungsten** · April 5, 2003, 01:26

Your cognitive abilities are amazingly low, considering we've said time and time again that it IS an insult, whether you intend it to be or NOT. That you can't grasp that is baffling.

The listener does not have sole authority over determining whether a word is an insult or not. If they did, "niggardly" would be an insult. So would "chincanery" and "gypped". Whether a word is an insult is not determined by either the speaker or the listener, but by societal norms. Why YOU can't grasp this simple point is what's truly baffling...

Gay is not made an insult just because you say it is. You need to prove that it is, which you have not been able to do.

And I have heard from our youth the phrase , "That's so queer,"

I've never heard "that's so queer" used. Since I'm surrounded by immature twits out here in Nebraska, I probably would've heard it if it actually existed...

**Drake Tungsten** · April 5, 2003, 01:28

Considering Agathon's ENTIRE rationalization for why gay=stupid/bad isn't insulting was based on a BAM (and you've both admitted as such, while asking for people to prove your own BAM wrong), this is just a load of hot, stinky air.

You didn't understand a damn word of Agathon's argument.

**** this ****. I don't have the time to waste on this anymore. Claim victory all you want; it won't make up for the fact that you are both idiots.

**Asher** · April 5, 2003, 01:28

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The listener does not have sole authority over determining whether a word is an insult or not.

So if I used "******" to casually refer to all black people, this is not offensive, provided I do not intend it as an insult to someone in specific?

I've never heard "that's so queer" used. Since I'm surrounded by immature twits out here in Nebraska, I probably would've heard it if it actually existed...

I've heard it in high school.
"********er" is also an incredibly common insult...

Why don't you go ahead and try to rationalize why you believe that one has nothing to do with gay people as well.

**Asher** · April 5, 2003, 01:30

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You didn't understand a damn word of Agathon's argument.

**** this ****. I don't have the time to waste on this anymore. Claim victory all you want; it won't make up for the fact that you are both idiots.

I'm curious -- why can't you put forth your own argument?

This whole thread, you've been Agathon's b1tch, and instead of dealing with everyone shooting down your argument, you:

**Asher** · April 5, 2003, 01:31

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You didn't understand a damn word of Agathon's argument.

**** this ****. I don't have the time to waste on this anymore. Claim victory all you want; it won't make up for the fact that you are both idiots.

Victory was obtained on page 6. This is a bloody massacre, overkill...

**Drake Tungsten** · April 5, 2003, 01:34

I'm curious -- why can't you put forth your own argument?

Why would I put forth an argument when Agathon has already put forth an elegant argument that reflects my point of view? I don't have the ego that you do; I'm comfortable with playing second fiddle to someone if they are representing my view in an intelligent fashion.

Later. Have fun making bull**** claims about how you "destroyed" an argument that you never addressed.

edit: That crosspost made the last line even more appropriate...

**Boris Godunov** · April 5, 2003, 01:35

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The listener does not have sole authority over determining whether a word is an insult or not. If they did, "niggardly" would be an insult. So would "chincanery" and "gypped". Whether a word is an insult is not determined by either the speaker or the listener, but by societal norms. Why YOU can't grasp this simple point is what's truly baffling...

Once again, you're playing a word game, since

1. Niggardly is not now nor has ever been used as a group identifier.
2. Niggardly has no etymological relationship to the word "******," which is an entirely different word.

Gay is gay--the word is the same, for christ's sake. Not only that, the bad/stupid meaning came AFTER it already meant homosexual. You are continually side-stepping the crux of the argument and relying on dumb smoke and mirrors.

I was not around when gyped or chicanery were coined...but had I been, I would have no problems with people voicing objections over such usage. The fact that the unthinking majority was able to slip those into common usage during a time when consideration for minorities wasn't of much concern is IRRELEVANT to this debate.

Once more... is going around using "jew" as a synonym for stingy or cheating acceptable? Should it be tolerated in schools?

Gay is not made an insult just because you say it is. You need to prove that it is, which you have not been able to do.

I rather succinctly did in the last post, you are not responding to it, no doubt because you are unable.

I've never heard "that's so queer" used. Since I'm surrounded by immature twits out here in Nebraska, I probably would've heard it if it actually existed...

So you now accuse me of lying? Last gasp of the cornered debater. Trust me, I have heard it several times. I can remember hearing people use it when I was in high school, which was 10 years ago!

There isn't any logical basis for your claim that it isn't an insult anymore, so we're waiting for what other fantastical claims you can make on how making a group identifier into an synonym for stupid/bad is somehow not an insult to members of that group.

**Boris Godunov** · April 5, 2003, 01:36

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I'm curious -- why can't you put forth your own argument?

Why would I put forth an argument when Agathon has already put forth an elegant argument that reflects my point of view? I don't have the ego that you do; I'm comfortable with playing second fiddle to someone if they are representing my view in an intelligent fashion.

Later. Have fun making bull**** claims about how you "destroyed" an argument that you never addressed.

edit: That crosspost made the last line even more appropriate...

Agathon's argument was dealt with, you've failed to make your own at all. I understand what Agathon is saying more than YOU do, it seems. So now I understand why you don't make your own and cling to his: you can't comprehend it, but know it is in line with your own opinion, so you just cite it.

**Asher** · April 5, 2003, 01:37

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why would I put forth an argument when Agathon has already put forth an elegant argument that reflects my point of view?

If you're not going to actually debate, don't post.

You did nothing but spam and keep pointing at Agathon's post, when it was debunked and destroyed numerous times throughout the thread, which you still ignore...

I don't have the ego that you do; I'm comfortable with playing second fiddle to someone if they are representing my view in an intelligent fashion.

Oh, I had no doubt that you are a follower.

Later. Have fun making bull**** claims about how you "destroyed" an argument that you never addressed.

edit: That crosspost made the last line even more appropriate...

How prophetic of you...you somehow knew that everyone thought you lost the debate.

Announcement

"That's so gay" - enough to get twelve-year-olds suspended

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment