Lesbian lip-lock prompts rights complaint

[Darth Wong]

forcing down their throats would be something like having a big phallic float with sm-clad people acting out in a gay parade. forcing down their throats would also include religious right walking down the streets condemning everyone to hell and preaching the sanctity of marriage.

Circular logic fallacy. Wow, maybe they are right about Berkeley being full of idiots.

circular logic how?

Are you fucking stupid? You were asked to justify your claim that B is an example of A by defining A. You then defined A as B. How much more circular can you get?

[BoyRocketeer]

okay fucker, here's the definition for forcing down the throats: excessive tactic to the point of repelling the general populace or people who aren't that involved at the issues at hand. Get it idiot?

timmy: hey mommy, what are those people in leather?
mom: they are gay activists.
lmao.

[SirNitram]

I would call the biggest building in a residential sector to be 'excessive' and it certainly put me off when I wasn't involved with religion. Thus, churches fit your desperate, flailing attempt to twist words.

[Darth Wong]

okay fucker, here's the definition for forcing down the throats: excessive tactic to the point of repelling the general populace or people who aren't that involved at the issues at hand. Get it idiot?

So you define an act exclusively in terms of the emotional reactions of people who witness it, with no regard whatsoever for the intrinsic nature of the act itself? Nice definition, moron. Too bad you can't define an act by the reactions it elicits in other people.

timmy: hey mommy, what are those people in leather?
mom: they are gay activists.
lmao.

Hey moron, by your definition, blacks who held hands with whites in public in 1955 were "shoving it down peoples' throats".

[BoyRocketeer]

Hey moron, I don't know how the hell you're supposed to define such things without reference to the emotion elicited in people. there isn't a universal consensus regarding complex matters like this (racial, sexual orientation-wise). If it's enough to generate a response in the"general populace," it's good enough for me. Who knows in the future it'll change in the future. Why don't you go check the supreme court cases and see how many cases up to now gets overturned again and again. It's how the world is. Maybe in the future zoophilia and pedophilia will become legal or fuck's sake, not that I'm comparing lgbt community to them.

[DPDarkPrimus]

why is it ass-backwards fucker?

It's ass-backwards because it's such a more satisfying term than simply saying "hypocrisy".

Now, how about refuting points raised? Oh wait, you can't. Because you're just a little fucker who said something stupid, not planning on having to justify it.

[SirNitram]

Hey moron, I don't know how the hell you're supposed to define such things without reference to the emotion elicited in people. there isn't a universal consensus regarding complex matters like this (racial, sexual orientation-wise). If it's enough to generate a response in the"general populace," it's good enough for me. Who knows in the future it'll change in the future. Why don't you go check the supreme court cases and see how many cases up to now gets overturned again and again. It's how the world is. Maybe in the future zoophilia and pedophilia will become legal or fuck's sake, not that I'm comparing lgbt community to them.

Wow, more logical fallacies! Lemme guess, you're an arts student.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Hey moron, I don't know how the hell you're supposed to define such things without reference to the emotion elicited in people.

Ah, so it's majority rule?

there isn't a universal consensus regarding complex matters like this (racial, sexual orientation-wise).

Then STFU.

If it's enough to generate a response in the"general populace," it's good enough for me.

Then you should have no problem with a gay-pride parade. After all, you didn't specify what sort of response it had to elicit.

More to the point, you just proved my point that you're utilizing a fallacy.

Who knows in the future it'll change in the future.

So as long as the majority doesn't like it this instant, it should be banished. Great logic there.

Why don't you go check the supreme court cases and see how many cases up to now gets overturned again and again.

What the hell are you talking about now?

Maybe in the future zoophilia and pedophilia will become legal or fuck's sake, not that I'm comparing lgbt community to them.

If you're not trying to compare them, then don't fucking mention them, dipshit.

[BoyRocketeer]

It's ass-backwards because it's such a more satisfying term than simply saying "hypocrisy".

Now, how about refuting points raised? Oh wait, you can't. Because you're just a little fucker who said something stupid, not planning on having to justify it.

How is respecting other group's ideology and not forcing your own down their throats ass-backwards? Did I ever say that gays shouldn't express their views? It's all about the level with which they bring it to your face, don't you understand?

[DPDarkPrimus]

How is respecting other group's ideology and not forcing your own down their throats ass-backwards?

It isn't. That's not what churches do, though. You lose.

Did I ever say that gays shouldn't express their views?

Not if you have to watch it. That's the impression I've gotten from your postsi in this thread. Don't even bother backpedeling, you've dug a deep enough hole as is.

It's all about the level with which they bring it to your face, don't you understand?

You don't understand the simple concept that a little amount of something over a long period of time is the same as a big amount over a short period of time?

[BoyRocketeer]

It isn't. That's not what churches do, though. You lose.

Maybe your church does that, but mine doesnt and the religious people around me don't, and I'm not even a member of the church. It's more of a problem in the bible south and other places.

Not if you have to watch it. That's the impression I've gotten from your postsi in this thread. Don't even bother backpedeling, you've dug a deep enough hole as is.

You make me sound like I'm some anti-gay fascist.

You don't understand the simple concept that a little amount of something over a long period of time is the same as a big amount over a short period of time?

I understand, but it's not really the case here. If it doesnt hit the threshold then more time probably is not gonna make me take it.

Lemme guess, you're an arts student

And no, I'm 3rd year bioeng student. My parents would kill me if I chose art major.

[SirNitram]

Lemme guess, you're an arts student

And no, I'm 3rd year bioeng student. My parents would kill me if I chose art major.

Then how is it your grasp of logical discussion is so feeble? You cannot even see a textbook circular logic fallacy, or a textbook slippery slope!

[DPDarkPrimus]

Maybe your church does that, but mine doesnt and the religious people around me don't, and I'm not even a member of the church.

There's a difference between tolerating and respecting. Considering they call every other religion "false" or "lies" or even "the Devil's trickery", that's hardly respectful.

I'm quite respectful of religion. I hold them to be all equally valid.

Not if you have to watch it.

You don't have to watch it, moron. You've got eyes, use them. Gay rights parades aren't organized spontaniously. They are scheduled. You can arrage not to be where they are when they occur. Let's say you happen to be there by accident? You've got feet. Walk away. No one forces you to stay there.

You make me sound like I'm some anti-gay fascist.

I never called you a facist.

Why don't we set the record straight, though.

I consider you a homophobic retard who doesn't understand the concept of freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful gathering, etc.

You don't understand the simple concept that a little amount of something over a long period of time is the same as a big amount over a short period of time?

I understand, but it's not really the case here. If it doesnt hit the threshold then more time probably is not gonna make me take it.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

[BoyRocketeer]

Then how is it your grasp of logical discussion is so feeble? You cannot even see a textbook circular logic fallacy, or a textbook slippery slope!

you don't have to be wellversed in logical discussion to do well in the major, debating logic isnt like enginnering logic. Plenty of engineering students in the school absk, the asian-american creationist group as I like to call it

[DPDarkPrimus]

You do, however, have to be at least semi-competent in logical discussion to engage in a serious discussion/debate here.

Which you are not demonstrating to have.

[Darth Wong]

Hey moron, I don't know how the hell you're supposed to define such things without reference to the emotion elicited in people.

It is an action, you idiot. When you define an action, you must define the parameters of that action, not peoples' reactions to it.

And yes, I'm quite aware that not every engineering student is smart enough to realize that the principles of logic can be applied to the world outside the lab. Thank you for reminding me by demonstrating this fact for us.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What a tool.

When the logic you apply, if taken elsewhere, means it wasn't wrong to lynch blacks in the 30's because, well, lots of good ol' God fearin' southern 'folks thought it was right, well, that's the start of fucked up logic.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Why hasn't this been split and HoSed yet, anyways?

[neoolong]

forcing down their throats would be something like having a big phallic float with sm-clad people acting out in a gay parade. forcing down their throats would also include religious right walking down the streets condemning everyone to hell and preaching the sanctity of marriage.

Circular logic fallacy. Wow, maybe they are right about Berkeley being full of idiots.

circular logic how?

You said that it is forcing it down people's throats because having the float is forcing it down people's throat. In other words, you defined the latter as the former.

And as someone that goes to Berkeley and lives in front of a church, I'd say the loud songs they sing in the morning and evening are a lot worse than a float once a year in SF.

[Aaron]

And as someone that goes to Berkeley and lives in front of a church, I'd say the loud songs they sing in the morning and evening are a lot worse than a float once a year in SF.

Don't forget the church bells. The only thing worse than that would be an Iman screaming at the top of his lungs the call to prayer.

[neoolong]

And as someone that goes to Berkeley and lives in front of a church, I'd say the loud songs they sing in the morning and evening are a lot worse than a float once a year in SF.

Don't forget the church bells. The only thing worse than that would be an Iman screaming at the top of his lungs the call to prayer.

Actually, there weren't church bells.

This is from what actually happens to me.

[Johonebesus]

To Mike:

Look twit, you're completely missing the point, or maybe redefining the point to better suit your tastes (in fact, this isn't the first time you've done it).

Look moron, you're trying to evade by getting personal. Don't think I'm not willing to escalate in that direction if you persist.

No sir, you're the one that started with the name calling. I was just replying in kind. If it gets personal, that's your doing. Unless you want to make some great distinction between moron and twit.

And I am not trying to evade anything. I perceived that you were arguing along a rather different line than I was thinking. You were not arguing against my position, but against your misconstrued understanding of my position. In other words, you missed the point.

I'm not talking about moral absolutes.

BullshitI quote from you:

Parading down the street in only a leather thong and humping a total stranger while riding on a float shaped like a phallus is shoving it down people's throats.

And when challenged, you said:

No, by that logic having a float in a parade carrying huge signs saying "non-Christians are going to burn in hell forever" would be shoving religion down our throats.

In other words, you did say that being open with your sexuality is "shoving it down peoples' throats" and is just as aggressive as outright hatemongering.

I said that riding down the street on a giant phallus while stripped almost naked and humping some total stranger is "shoving it down people's throats." I then went on to say that "a little kissing in a bar is not." Maybe I am a repressed freak, but to me the former is a bit more than just "being open."

As for the hatemongering, I concede, that makes a difference. When I chose the wording for the hypothetical sign, I tried to choose something that is non-confrontational, and after listening to fundamentalists for years, the sign I described seemed pretty tame. However, you are right in that it is actively denouncing whole classes of people, and is therefore more objectionable, in an absolute sort of way, then a lewd display. I can only say that, as I was originally writing it, I was not thinking about absolutes, but rather about what offends people. However, I partly concede, the religious float is more aggressive than the gay pride float.

I was never arguing that any sexual displays are intrinsically more pushy than religious displays, because "pushy" is necessarily subjective.

Then it's too bad you didn't say it was merely offensive to certain people. You said it was "shoving it down peoples' throats." That's an absolute statement that it's pushy.

It is absolute only insofar as I did not qualify it with "most." Since we were talking about people being offended by it, I didn't see a need for such a qualification. And I still don't see how pushy can be an absolute thing.

What is pushy to you may not be pushy to me. This discussion is about relative social norms, not intrinsic absolutes. I never made any appeal to popular opinion, because we are talking precisely about popular attitudes.

Can you backpedal any faster?

It's not backpedaling. It is simply true. Maybe my mind's too compartmentalized, I don't know, but I would have thought it would be obvious that a discussion about people being offended by sexuality or religion would necessarily be relative to the people's values and norms.

From an absolute perspective, it's pretty hard to have "pushy" sexuality. Anything short of persistent, unwanted advances isn't quite "pushy", and I don't know if "pushy" adequately describes rape. You are correct that my point boils down to "people find it [highly] offensive, therefore it must be more pushy," because I was talking about subjective values.

Now, perhaps I should have been a bit more clear and precise to begin with, but I wasn't trying to start a detailed philosophic debate. Let me try to be more clear. "Shoving it in their face" is necessarily relative to social norms and values.

Bullshit. It is no more intrinsically "relative" than the term "pushy"; it is, in fact, nothing more than a synonym of the above. You're arguing that "shoving it down peoples' throats" is completely different from "pushy"

I don't think I've ever felt the need to use a smiley before, but good fucking golly, where in the hell did you get that from? When did I say that "shoving down their throats" and "pushy" are two different things? If I wrote that, I really need to go back and review my writing skills, because I never intended to write such a thing, nor do I have any recollection of making any such claim. I didn't make a point of saying that they are the same, but I see nothing in what you quoted that indicates I think otherwise.

None of which in any way supports your asinine claim that public openness about one's personal sexuality is more "shoving it down peoples' throats" than public displays of religion, massive churches, weirdoes carrying "John 3:16" signs to sporting events, etc.

And see, this is what I'm talking about when I say you misrepresent the point. Did I not, in my very first post, make a distinction between "light" and "graphic" displays of sexuality. Based on your sentence, one would think I was claiming that the lesbian kiss was "shoving it down their throats." Being open about one's sexuality is not the same as simulating sexual acts in the middle of the street. "Your asinine claim that public openness about one's personal sexuality is more 'shoving it down peoples' throats' than public displays of religion," – that is simply an inaccurate representation of my position.

Now, there are two significant differences between the lesbians in the bar and sex on parade. First, there is a difference in degree. Our society holds that graphic sexuality is inappropriate for public display. That is called lewd or indecent. "Light" displays of sexuality, holding hands, hugging, a little kissing, even heavy kissing in a semi-private environment like a bar, are generally considered acceptable. Stripping almost naked and simulating sexual acts in public is not. Most people do not like it. The degree of distaste runs from mildly put off to greatly offended and shocked, but the vast majority of folks find it inappropriate at some level. According to the last polls I saw on the matter, the public is about evenly split as to whether little displays of homosexual affection are highly offensive. Many people who would find my float offensive wouldn't be much bothered by just seeing two guys kissing.

The second difference is the level of intrusiveness. A "little" display can be ignored quite easily. If you see two men kissing and don't like it, you can very easily look away. In fact, you might not even notice it if you don't look for it. On the other hand, my float is a very large display, on the public street, not only in clear view of everybody nearby, but designed specifically to grab as much attention as possible. The very point of the display is to call folk's attention and make it difficult for them to ignore the offending behavior. It is much more intrusive than a little kissing. A large building is somewhere in the middle. While it is large and harder to ignore, it is still passive. If you drive down the street and see a large church, then my float turns the corner, which one is going to grab your attention?

The float, since churches are EVERYWHERE. This hardly makes them less pushy, since they were built on land which was granted to them for free by the state, and are supported by tax deductible contributions. Are you arguing that if you become desensitized to something, it must be less pushy? In a world where there were normally no churches, one would be rather taken aback to discover a huge building with a giant cross permanently situated in the middle of a residential neighbourhood.

We are not talking about ideal societies, but this one. It is not a matter of being desensitized. When a congregation builds a church, they are not (usually) trying to grab the attention of people they disagree with and offend them. Further, the church is a passive structure. It isn't moving. It doesn’t have people on it waving and trying to get attention. I know full well that a cross represents a moral system that would make me a damned sodomite, yet I do not find a cross standing in a field nearly as offensive as a person waving a placard saying "God hates fags." Again, maybe I'm a freak, but it seems to me that people actively engaging in an offensive act is more "pushy" than a static building bearing a symbol which represents something that can be hateful. As to the tax exemption and all that, most people don't take the time to ponder such things as they walk down the road. Perhaps upon reflection one might decide the church is more offensive because of the privileged status it enjoys, but that is not going to be the first thing I think of when I come across it.

Now, inherent in this line of reasoning, but unstated previously, is that society has norms and values that are relative and subjective, but real none-the-less, and that it is undesirable to deliberately shock and offend as many people as you can for no good reason. Perhaps I should have stated it in previous posts, but it didn't seem necessary. Obviously, I was wrong. It does seem to me that, whether one agrees with social norms or not, it is at best counter-productive, and at worst morally wrong, to try to offend as many people as possible with no goal other than to make them mad or upset. You started to get the point when you agreed that "it's politically unwise for gays to act like that in public," but then you went back to insisting that I must be talking about moral absolutes, which I was not.

The phrase "shoving it down peoples' throats" is a statement of its intrinsic nature, not peoples' reactions. Your furious backpedaling changes nothing.

Well, I don't see how that phrase communicates an intrinsic rather than relative value. To my mind, "shoving down their throats" just means "pushy to the point of causing great offense or upset," or forcing people to accept or face thing that they find truly repugnant and offensive. At what point that line is crossed is relative to individuals and to society at large. That is always how I have understood the expression, and I have never indicated otherwise. So far as I can tell, you misunderstood, and instead of accepting that I did not mean what you thought I did, you accuse me of backpedaling. I am not backpedaling, I am telling you that you do not seem to understand what I wrote, and frankly, I do not see how your quotations prove that I meant anything other than what I thought I meant.

Anytime we discuss concepts of lewdness or indecency, we can only discuss them in terms of relative social norms.

We're not discussing concepts of lewdness or indecency. We're discussing the question of whether it's "shoving it down peoples' throats" to be open about something in public, even if you don't actually do anything to anyone.

Yes sir we are discussing lewdness, because the point that you seem to take issue with is that lewd public acts, not just being open, engaged in solely for the purpose of causing offense is "shoving it down their throats" as the bartender in the OP put it. Let's say you want to bring your boyfriend over to your parent's home, knowing that they do not approve of homosexuality, but knowing also that they want to remain civil. Being open about your sexuality would be holding hands, maybe exchanging a little kiss. But if you were to shove your boyfriend against a wall and suck on his face while grinding your hips together and giving your parents the eye, would you not agree that "shoving it down their throats" is a serviceable phrase to describe your actions. My float is the same thing, on a larger scale. You may not be touching them, but you are trying to offend them.

If you want to analyze those norms to determine whether they are logical or have any real value in an absolute way, then that's fine, and I would likely agree with many of your conclusions. However, that is not what I was doing. If I was unclear, then I apologize, but your previous post was not arguing with me; it was arguing past me, not against what I was really arguing but against what you thought I was arguing.

I see, so your actual argument is that "shoving it down peoples' throats" is your personal codeword for subjective social values and moral relativism

No, my actual argument is that the float I described would be a deliberate attempt to force people to face and accept a behavior that they find repugnant, not only because of the orientation but also because of its public venue, that such an act fits the definition of "forcing it down their throats," and that comparing it to a float carrying religious signs and messages offensive to non-Christians is a better simile than a static church building. Maybe this time I am being clear enough.

[Darth Wong]

No sir, you're the one that started with the name calling. I was just replying in kind. If it gets personal, that's your doing. Unless you want to make some great distinction between moron and twit.

No, I'm making a distinction between a mere insult and an attempt to prove that I'm engaging in strawman distortions with ad-hominem bullshit like "this isn't the first time you've done this" rather than an explanation of what your logic actually was (not surprising, since you had no actual logic; your argument is nothing more than a long-winded appeal to popular opinion).

And I am not trying to evade anything. I perceived that you were arguing along a rather different line than I was thinking. You were not arguing against my position, but against your misconstrued understanding of my position. In other words, you missed the point.

No, you backpedaled. "Shoving it down someone's throat" is an action. It is not defined by peoples' reactions to it.

I said that riding down the street on a giant phallus while stripped almost naked and humping some total stranger is "shoving it down people's throats." I then went on to say that "a little kissing in a bar is not." Maybe I am a repressed freak, but to me the former is a bit more than just "being open."

Subjective opinion in lieu of answering the point.

As for the hatemongering, I concede, that makes a difference. When I chose the wording for the hypothetical sign, I tried to choose something that is non-confrontational, and after listening to fundamentalists for years, the sign I described seemed pretty tame. However, you are right in that it is actively denouncing whole classes of people, and is therefore more objectionable, in an absolute sort of way, then a lewd display. I can only say that, as I was originally writing it, I was not thinking about absolutes, but rather about what offends people. However, I partly concede, the religious float is more aggressive than the gay pride float.

The gay pride float only comes around once a year, while the religious billboard in front of your neighbourhood church is generally there year-round, and often has something written on it. Never mind the fact that it's zoned into a residential area, while gay pride parades don't generally route themselves that way. And then there's the taxation angle.

It is absolute only insofar as I did not qualify it with "most." Since we were talking about people being offended by it, I didn't see a need for such a qualification. And I still don't see how pushy can be an absolute thing.

"Pushy" is an adjective attached to an action. It describes an attribute of that action relating to its aggressiveness. It does not have anything to do with the way people react to it.

It's not backpedaling. It is simply true. Maybe my mind's too compartmentalized, I don't know, but I would have thought it would be obvious that a discussion about people being offended by sexuality or religion would necessarily be relative to the people's values and norms.

Only when you blame the person for the reaction he elicits in others, which is unfair. As stated before, this precise logic could have been used 40 years ago to claim that a black man holding a white woman's hand was clearly an aggressive asshole shoving his ideology down peoples' throats.

I don't think I've ever felt the need to use a smiley before, but good fucking golly, where in the hell did you get that from? When did I say that "shoving down their throats" and "pushy" are two different things? If I wrote that, I really need to go back and review my writing skills, because I never intended to write such a thing, nor do I have any recollection of making any such claim. I didn't make a point of saying that they are the same, but I see nothing in what you quoted that indicates I think otherwise.

You claimed that public sexuality was "shoving it down peoples' throats". You then abruptly stopped using that phrase and started saying it was "pushy", which you defined as some kind of purely subjective attribute that was solely related to the reactions of other people. There are too many stupidities in that "logic" to count, so it's difficult to tell whether you were actually arguing that A was not equal to B=C or that A=B but neither is equal to C.

None of which in any way supports your asinine claim that public openness about one's personal sexuality is more "shoving it down peoples' throats" than public displays of religion, massive churches, weirdoes carrying "John 3:16" signs to sporting events, etc.

And see, this is what I'm talking about when I say you misrepresent the point. Did I not, in my very first post, make a distinction between "light" and "graphic" displays of sexuality. Based on your sentence, one would think I was claiming that the lesbian kiss was "shoving it down their throats."

What difference does it make whether it's "light" or "graphic"? The underlying logic is the same: you claim that the reaction elicited in other people is some how an intrinsic attribute of the action, and can be blamed on the person who commits it.

Being open about one's sexuality is not the same as simulating sexual acts in the middle of the street. "Your asinine claim that public openness about one's personal sexuality is more 'shoving it down peoples' throats' than public displays of religion," – that is simply an inaccurate representation of my position.

No, you are trying to take varying degrees of an idea and claim that they're totally different ideas.

We are not talking about ideal societies, but this one. It is not a matter of being desensitized. When a congregation builds a church, they are not (usually) trying to grab the attention of people they disagree with and offend them.

Ah, so now you're a mind-reader and you know what the INTENT is of anybody who wants to be a sexual person in public?

Further, the church is a passive structure. It isn't moving. It doesn’t have people on it waving and trying to get attention. I know full well that a cross represents a moral system that would make me a damned sodomite, yet I do not find a cross standing in a field nearly as offensive as a person waving a placard saying "God hates fags."

So the movement of the placard makes all the difference? People telling others to obey Old Testament Law are basically saying "God hates fags". And while the billboard in front of a church does not "wave", I don't see what the fuck difference that makes.

Again, maybe I'm a freak, but it seems to me that people actively engaging in an offensive act is more "pushy" than a static building bearing a symbol which represents something that can be hateful. As to the tax exemption and all that, most people don't take the time to ponder such things as they walk down the road. Perhaps upon reflection one might decide the church is more offensive because of the privileged status it enjoys, but that is not going to be the first thing I think of when I come across it.

So it's "active" to gyrate in public against somebody but not to demand tax deductions and build giant buildings with huge religious symbols on them in the midst of residential neighbourhoods? How does that building get built then? The situations are still the same: in both cases, it is a SIGHT that some people might not want to see. But at least the person gyrating against his partner in public isn't forcing me to subsidize him with tax deductions.

Well, I don't see how that phrase communicates an intrinsic rather than relative value. To my mind, "shoving down their throats" just means "pushy to the point of causing great offense or upset," or forcing people to accept or face thing that they find truly repugnant and offensive.

So by your definition, a black man holding a white woman's hand in 1955 is "shoving it down peoples' throats". Gotcha. And don't give me this "I didn't mean that, it's a strawman" bullshit; that is the DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of your fucked-up definition. If you disagree, then show how it does NOT meet your definition rather than whining that it's a "misinterpretation" as you've been doing all through this thread.

At what point that line is crossed is relative to individuals and to society at large. That is always how I have understood the expression, and I have never indicated otherwise. So far as I can tell, you misunderstood, and instead of accepting that I did not mean what you thought I did, you accuse me of backpedaling. I am not backpedaling, I am telling you that you do not seem to understand what I wrote, and frankly, I do not see how your quotations prove that I meant anything other than what I thought I meant.

My quotations show that your definition of "shoving it down peoples' throats" is totally meaningless. Hence, your use of the phrase as an accusation of wrongdoing against people who behave "lewdly" in public is also meaningless.

Yes sir we are discussing lewdness, because the point that you seem to take issue with is that lewd public acts, not just being open, engaged in solely for the purpose of causing offense is "shoving it down their throats" as the bartender in the OP put it.

So you define the act in terms of the unknowable (the hidden motives of the person doing it) and the irrelevant (the reactions of others), rather than anything intrinsic to the act itself. And you will no doubt be angry at the fact that I pointed out how your definition would apply to blacks in 1955

Let's say you want to bring your boyfriend over to your parent's home, knowing that they do not approve of homosexuality, but knowing also that they want to remain civil. Being open about your sexuality would be holding hands, maybe exchanging a little kiss. But if you were to shove your boyfriend against a wall and suck on his face while grinding your hips together and giving your parents the eye, would you not agree that "shoving it down their throats" is a serviceable phrase to describe your actions. My float is the same thing, on a larger scale. You may not be touching them, but you are trying to offend them.

A float is not in someone else's fucking house, moron. It is something which is part of a parade, which only comes around once a year and for which numerous people may have numerous motives, but your assumption that it was deliberately designed to piss people off is bullshit.

No, my actual argument is that the float I described would be a deliberate attempt to force people to face and accept a behavior that they find repugnant, not only because of the orientation but also because of its public venue, that such an act fits the definition of "forcing it down their throats," and that comparing it to a float carrying religious signs and messages offensive to non-Christians is a better simile than a static church building. Maybe this time I am being clear enough.

Sure, you just basically claimed a form of logic which, when taken to its logical conclusion, would argue that a black man holding a white woman's hand in public is "shoving it down peoples' throats", so it's his fault.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Not to change the subject, but all this talk of shoving it down people's throats reminds me of a Gay Pride parade I visited years ago. One of the floats featured this wiry, hairy guy wearing nothing but a leather condom. He then wrapped a hot dog bun around the weiner, added mustard and kethup and relish and then--you guessed it--shoved it down someone's throat.
I'd say that counts.

Also, wouldn't this count as a lewd act in public or pornography or something? I know that when I got caught lovin' my girlfriend in public back then, I was only saved from being charged with a crime because, you know, Berkeley. I mean, we have naked people on campus 24 hours a day.

[Johonebesus]

No, I'm making a distinction between a mere insult and an attempt to prove that I'm engaging in strawman distortions with ad-hominem bullshit like "this isn't the first time you've done this" rather than an explanation of what your logic actually was (not surprising, since you had no actual logic; your argument is nothing more than a long-winded appeal to popular opinion).

If I brought up your past actions in the context of an actual point, then that would be an ad-hominem attack. Noting it in a little aside before I got to any actual arguing is not.

No, you backpedaled. "Shoving it down someone's throat" is an action. It is not defined by peoples' reactions to it.

Yes it is. The only way it can be defined as an intrinsic action is if I take some object and literally try to stuff it down your esophagus. In this context however it is an idiom referring to an attempt to push your beliefs or values onto someone else. It is, in large part, relative to the people who are receiving it, as well as the person doing it. I know you prefer nice mathematical absolutes, but unfortunately, when dealing with people and society, that is not always possible. If you cannot concede that this phrase, "shoving it down their throats" is relative to the context, then this debate can be nothing other than a fuss, and we might as well call it quits now.

Subjective opinion in lieu of answering the point.

An opinion based upon social norms. You cannot take this out of social context, no matter how much you want to.

Further, your point seemed to be: "according to you, being open about your sexuality is as aggressive as hatemongering." So by making it clear that that I was not talking about "being open," I was answering the point, twit.

The gay pride float only comes around once a year, while the religious billboard in front of your neighbourhood church is generally there year-round, and often has something written on it. Never mind the fact that it's zoned into a residential area, while gay pride parades don't generally route themselves that way. And then there's the taxation angle.

Where did the billboard come from? You only mentioned a big impressive building. Now, if you add in a sign that puts up lots of hateful messages, then you win. A sign spouting hate year-round trumps a float that only comes by once a year. That indeed would be more pushy. If your initial post had mentioned a billboard that puts up hateful messages all the time, I probably would have agreed with you from the start. However, that was not part of the initial comparison.

"Pushy" is an adjective attached to an action. It describes an attribute of that action relating to its aggressiveness. It does not have anything to do with the way people react to it.

Bullshit. Level of aggressiveness has a lot to do with perception, just like all social interactions. That's why, for example, if a woman and a man both do and say the same things, the woman will often be perceived as being more aggressive. Pushy is absolutely relative to social and personal context. Or is there some way to measure it objectively so we can tell the foreign merchant that "this is pushy even if no-one else around here thinks so"?

Only when you blame the person for the reaction he elicits in others, which is unfair. As stated before, this precise logic could have been used 40 years ago to claim that a black man holding a white woman's hand was clearly an aggressive asshole shoving his ideology down peoples' throats.

When did I mention blame or fairness? I never once talked about blaming anybody. Or is it impossible to discuss social behavior without implicitly judging it? The interracial couple we will discuss later, since you bring it up a half dozen times.

You claimed that public sexuality was "shoving it down peoples' throats". You then abruptly stopped using that phrase and started saying it was "pushy", which you defined as some kind of purely subjective attribute that was solely related to the reactions of other people. There are too many stupidities in that "logic" to count, so it's difficult to tell whether you were actually arguing that A was not equal to B=C or that A=B but neither is equal to C.

Oh come on, you're not stupid, despite you behavior here. You were the one who brought up the word "pushy," so I picked it up, dealt with it a bit, and then specifically linked it the phrase that you seem to hate so much. I know I have a tendency to ramble a bit, but I have a hard time believing you were unable to follow that, unless you just didn't want to.

What difference does it make whether it's "light" or "graphic"? The underlying logic is the same: you claim that the reaction elicited in other people is some how an intrinsic attribute of the action, and can be blamed on the person who commits it.

No, I claimed that actions are perceived and defined relative to social context. I have been arguing against intrinsics from the beginning. Why can't you get past this need to divorce the issue from context? And I never introduced any business about blame.

No, you are trying to take varying degrees of an idea and claim that they're totally different ideas.

Red and blue are different degrees of the same thing, yet they are also different. If you are unable to perceive that there is a difference between the two actions, yes in degree but so huge that it makes it a totally different situation, then I don't know how to help you. Maybe you are so very liberal with your sexuality that you do not believe that consensual sex is inappropriate in any circumstance. Perhaps you do not feel that the float I described is the least bit offensive or inappropriate. However, I have a hard time believing that you are so thick that you cannot grasp the fact that you beliefs are not shared by many people. But maybe this is why you are having such a hard time with this issue. When you consider matters of popular mores and attitudes, you must be able to step outside your own box and try to see things from others' perspectives. If you cannot do that, then you cannot adequately deal with anything that doesn't seem to make sense to you. If you cannot see the difference between two people kissing and two almost naked people pretending to have sex in the middle of the street, then you really cannot understand what this is about. No wonder you are so determined to try to define one little phrase in some absolute way so as to divorce it from context.

Ah, so now you're a mind-reader and you know what the INTENT is of anybody who wants to be a sexual person in public?

Maybe you don't know much about the gay community. There are a lot of folks who take delight in shocking others by their sexuality. There is a difference of kind between being open and comfortable about your sexuality in public, and using it to try to shock and offend people. When I see a couple groping and making out, and then looking at idiots who are disgusted by it and giggling, and then stop the groping as soon as there is no-one to watch, I think it is fair to assume that they are not just being "a sexual person in public." Based on what I have observed, many of the people who make a big display of public sexuality do it not because it is comfortable and natural for them, but because they want to shock people, or they just desperately want any kind of attention at all.

So the movement of the placard makes all the difference? People telling others to obey Old Testament Law are basically saying "God hates fags". And while the billboard in front of a church does not "wave", I don't see what the fuck difference that makes.

I guess you spend a lot of time worrying about what people are saying or thinking in private. Yes, an overt and active statement is more aggressive than a passive and covert statement. Just saying that you are a Christian is not in-and-of-itself advocating hate crimes. If people were totally logical, then yes, someone claiming that the Bible is the Word of God would be a hatemonger, but people aren't logical, and, as irrational as it is, there are lots of people who will say, "the Bible is the Word of God, but some parts we don't have to take so very seriously." Most of the Christians I interact with are not hatemongers. They might disagree with me, but their attitude is usually, "live and let live, and let God sort it out in the end." They don't bother me about religion, and some people who raise the cross actually support gay rights, among other progressive causes. So I would contend that, without receiving a specific message, a cross is not inherently offensive. In the absence of a specific statement or sign of hostility, a church or a cross in and of itself is not as pushy as a person actively making hateful statements.

So it's "active" to gyrate in public against somebody but not to demand tax deductions and build giant buildings with huge religious symbols on them in the midst of residential neighbourhoods? How does that building get built then? The situations are still the same: in both cases, it is a SIGHT that some people might not want to see. But at least the person gyrating against his partner in public isn't forcing me to subsidize him with tax deductions.

"Perhaps upon reflection one might decide the church is more offensive because of the privileged status it enjoys, but that is not going to be the first thing I think of when I come across it." Seeing a church building does not have the same impact as seeing a float going down the street with people waving offensive material. As I said, without knowing what branch of Christianity it is and what exactly they preach, you cannot be certain that they are hatemongers. Further, getting upset about something after considering matters like tax deductions is not the same as having an immediate reaction as soon as you lay eyes upon it.

I would be more than happy to see churches taxed like any other private club. I do find it mildly offensive that the ignorant little church down Calhoun Road gets a tax break while they spew all sorts of evil crap. However, it is not shocking, and it is not "shoving it down my throat," because, even though I am forced to subsidize it in part, I am not forced to actually deal with it. That is the difference. Is it offensive? Yes. Is it offensive in the same sort of way as a man waving a placard? No.

So by your definition, a black man holding a white woman's hand in 1955 is "shoving it down peoples' throats". Gotcha. And don't give me this "I didn't mean that, it's a strawman" bullshit; that is the DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of your fucked-up definition. If you disagree, then show how it does NOT meet your definition rather than whining that it's a "misinterpretation" as you've been doing all through this thread.

I hate to disappoint you, but it takes more than that to get me flustered. You are correct that the situation you describe would fit the definition I gave. However, we were not talking about whether it is right or wrong before. That is a whole different matter The interracial couple is forcing the whites to deal with something they find shocking and offensive, and, given the context, that does not make it immoral or wrong. But I thought we were discussing my definition and use of that one phrase, not whether the pushy people deserve any sort of punishment.

My quotations show that your definition of "shoving it down peoples' throats" is totally meaningless. Hence, your use of the phrase as an accusation of wrongdoing against people who behave "lewdly" in public is also meaningless.

Where did I make "an accusation of wrongdoing"? Are you just working as hard as you can to make this into a big moral debate? Your quotations prove that I am not trying to talk about moral absolutes, but about relative attitudes and behaviors. For some reason, you just can't seem to deal with such a discussion, so you won't let this "intrinsic action" business go. And you are now adding this element of blame that was not part of the initial point. What exactly are they being blamed for? For causing offense? If that is blameworthy, then yes, they are to blame for offending people, even if the folks are stupid to be offended in the first place.

So you define the act in terms of the unknowable (the hidden motives of the person doing it) and the irrelevant (the reactions of others), rather than anything intrinsic to the act itself. And you will no doubt be angry at the fact that I pointed out how your definition would apply to blacks in 1955

It is not totally unknowable, and not always hidden. We can make some pretty good guesses as to their motivations, when they don't come right out and admit it. The act is just an act, with no more intrinsic meaning than a raindrop falling from the sky. It is our perceptions and intentions that give these actions meaning.

A float is not in someone else's fucking house, moron. It is something which is part of a parade, which only comes around once a year and for which numerous people may have numerous motives, but your assumption that it was deliberately designed to piss people off is bullshit.

No, twit, it is not bullshit. It is based upon observation and experience. Not all folks who march in gay pride parades act out like that, and it is likely that a few of those who do are not really trying to offend people. However, I have observed that most folks who make a big show of displaying their sexuality do it precisely because they get a thrill out of offending conservative sensibilities. I have also learned, by talking to people, that many who actually give some thought to their actions believe that there is some sort of virtue in offending people, that if people have wrong attitudes, they should be shocked and offended. So it is not bullshit to point out that an awful lot of the folks who make such displays are doing so in order to cause a scene. Often they brag about that very point.

And fine, suppose you meet your parents in a park and substitute a tree for the wall. Is the analogy valid now? Of course, if I were you, I would have pointed out that you evaded the point of the analogy by picking at a detail that was not central to the point.

Also, if "shoving it down their throats" is an action with intrinsic meaning that is not relative to context, then what does it matter where the event takes place? If it does matter (as indeed it does, you are right, the example I gave is not quite perfect), then you admit that an action, or at least this one, does depend in part on context.

Sure, you just basically claimed a form of logic which, when taken to its logical conclusion, would argue that a black man holding a white woman's hand in public is "shoving it down peoples' throats", so it's his fault.

Again, where did I talk about fault? You're the one that is introducing this blame element. That is a different, though admittedly related, discussion. At least you have mostly let go of the "you're comparing being open with your sexuality to hatemongering" distortion. You seem to be really reaching to make this into a huge moral debate, when it really isn't, or at least didn't start out that way.