Thread: Torrii Hunter: Homophobe

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Actually, you'd be able to spot a Mormon in the locker room because of their funny undies...

Only Super-Mormons. You have to be a Super-Mormon to get the undies.

(not bashing Mormons, BTW... I lived in Utah for several years and actually have a fair amount of respect for the religion)

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I'd be completely uncomfortable with a Mormon teammate.

Is that okay?

Maybe this was not clear. I'm attacking the argument some have used, not the conclusion.

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

Because if there's one thing intolerance has always responded well to, it's subtle, nuanced discussion.

It's currently happening in the US. Lawmakers have discussed itheavily actually. There's not much subtlety to the current debate in our country.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Maybe this was not clear. I'm attacking the argument some have used, not the conclusion.

Well, you used the word 'idiot', which seems to attack the person, rather than say using the word 'idiotic' which would attack the idea. But in any case, I'll take you at your word here.

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

So basically, because the option exists that this group of people CAN live a shameful, hidden lifestyle, they deserve scorn and shame if they decide not to. Got it.

Uh, no. Don't read things into what I've said.

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

I think you're too hopeful about actually changing minds. I'm more concerned not with changing minds, but changing a culture that fosters homophobia.

And of course, people who are homophobic aren't necessarily arriving at that conclusion with reason...

You start a dangerous precedent if you allow certain opinions (however wrong they may be) to be stomped out by sheer volume rather than reasoned discussion.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Uh, no. Don't read things into what I've said.

You mean drawing conclusions from the "blame the victim" type of statement you made where you're saying "well, if they're picked on for this, it's because they told the world about it"? I think that wasn't "reading into it" as much as simply "reading".

Fact: hunter is a douche bag and a bigot.
Fact: not one person is talking about taking away his right to free speech.
Sad fact: there are clearly a good number of homophobic people on twins daily. Hopefully these people are over the age of 50 and just don't want to change or whatever at this point. Anyone under the age of 35 or so who is homophobic for ANY reason including religion or "hey those queers can just keep quiet, and dont deserve the same rights a us"is a complete and utter idiot and most likely a bigot as well.

I have very little desire to have any sorta of "discussion" with the latter.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Two wrongs make a right? So we should bully bigots and that will set the world right?

This is precisely my problem in a nut-shell. Well done, intended or not.

Tell me, just who the **** is bullying the bigots? You mean calling their opinions idiotic and immoral? Oh boo ****ing hoo. I feel no sympathy for someone getting their awful opinion called out. There is no violence perpetrated against these bigots that I'm aware of. So go cry your river for the bigots, and beat your strawmen, and keep patting yourself on your spineless back for taking no stand on something you disagree with. If posts like mine are equal to the problem of hateful bigotry in our society in your opinion, your opinion is bull****. And you have the right to your bull****.

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

I have very little desire to have any sorta of "discussion" with the latter.

That's too bad- I feel for you. The use of dialectic is a beautiful thing- you don't need Socrates or an ivy leaguer to tell you that. I guess cooler heads don't always prevail

[QUOTE=FrodaddyG;74182]You mean drawing conclusions from the "blame the victim" type of statement you made where you're saying "well, if they're picked on for this, it's because they told the world about it"? I think that wasn't "reading into it" as much as simply "reading".[/QUOTE

Going a further step in making a value judgment about someone or something someone shares is what you think I've done, but I haven't, so yes, please read carefully.

My point is only to say that it is quite an unrefined premise to equate discrimination based on skin color to sexuality. That. Is. It. I can't be more plain.

Originally Posted by B Richard

You start a dangerous precedent if you allow certain opinions (however wrong they may be) to be stomped out by sheer volume rather than reasoned discussion.

Look, that's a precedent set by history. The notion that homosexual people deserve the same rights as heterosexual people has been stomped out by volume throughout history. You're being overly ideological in your notion of discourse and ignoring the historical weight of this particular debate. To suggest that there is a debate to be had about homophobia is insulting. The debate can be had about how we go about fostering a less homophobic culture, and nuance is important there, but there's nothing nuanced about ethics of homophobia.

Again, the homophobic opinion affects the real life of others. That opinion isn't innocent and without consequence. Sure, there's a slippery slope in terms of the rabble of the majority, but this instance is hardly a case of tyranny of the majority (well it is, but in reverse, ironically).

Originally Posted by B Richard

I guess cooler heads don't always prevail

Sometimes they do, but because they're wet after the "response" to their attempt to "discuss" the issue was having firehoses turned on them. You know, "reasonable".

Originally Posted by B Richard

That's too bad- I feel for you. The use of dialectic is a beautiful thing- you don't need Socrates or an ivy leaguer to tell you that. I guess cooler heads don't always prevail

Its the same reason why I don't care to have a discussion with a west boro church member. I am all about hearing people out on 99% of topics, but something like blatant bigotry etc? Pass. Saw enough of that bull**** when I lived in SC, Texas and Oklahoma.

Okay everybody, take a deep breath and cool down or I'm going to have to lock the thread. It's going a bit over the top.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Okay everybody, take a deep breath and cool down or I'm going to have to lock the thread. It's going a bit over the top.

Do what you gotta do.... Hitler

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

My point is only to say that it is quite an unrefined premise to equate discrimination based on skin color to sexuality. That. Is. It. I can't be more plain.

Unrefined? You can't call some one an idiot, and then ask for them to show some refinement in comparisons. There does not need to be a one-to-one relationship for two social phenomenon to be compared. I'm sure any study would find there's a significant correlation between the kinds of oppression suffered from homosexuals to oppression suffered from a racial minority.

Your point is petty at best and totally side-tracking...

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Okay everybody, take a deep breath and cool down or I'm going to have to lock the thread. It's going a bit over the top.

How about moving it to the Sports Bar? It barely belongs in the Twins forum anyways...

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Unrefined? You can't call some one an idiot, and then ask for them to show some refinement in comparisons. There does not need to be a one-to-one relationship for two social phenomenon to be compared. I'm sure any study would find there's a significant correlation between the kinds of oppression suffered from homosexuals to oppression suffered from a racial minority.

Your point is petty at best and totally side-tracking...

Idiot means unrefined (lacking expertise ect.) in greek (which I made explicit). Can't believe you didn't look that up before posting.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Going a further step in making a value judgment about someone or something someone shares is what you think I've done, but I haven't, so yes, please read carefully.

My point is only to say that it is quite an unrefined premise to equate discrimination based on skin color to sexuality. That. Is. It. I can't be more plain.

So, again, because they don't "automatically" broadcast their sexuality when they walk into the room, it's their fault if it becomes known and they suffer ill will because of it. That is exactly what you are saying.

It's an equivalent thing in the sense that neither is a choice. You're born with your sexuality the same way you're born white, black, Asian, or whatever. Just because one is obvious visually while the other isn't, it doesn't make it any different. No matter what sense you are using to determine a difference, it's still prejudice to discriminate against a person because of it. A "visual" prejudice is no difference than one brought about based on what you hear about someone through whatever outlet. One may be easier to determine at a short glance, but that doesn't make it any more or less idiotic, hateful, or understandable. In any case, it's not the fault of that person that they were born that way, and just because one can hide it, doesn't mean they should ever have to just to avoid baseless, thoughtless hate.