Russian Neo-Nazis Are Torturing Gays On YouTube

[Nerusy]

Now you've highlighted the whole sentence (and are still passing it off as a quote from me when you've modified it), how about reading the whole sentence?

Are you new to this forum? I highlighted part of text to help you realize which part I was talking about.

You've given two examples of your opinion. It is amusing that you refer to my ego when you think that stating your opinion is proof that it is correct.

Those are not my opinions, please read my comment before dismissing it, the word literally can have complete opposite meaning based on context, that is not an opinon. Which means your point is wrong:

Context can change the meaning of a word, but without clear indicators it very rarely reverses the meaning of a word. It never makes a word mean something completely different to the thing that the word is being used to describe.

Clear indication you're referring to here is called context. Context does not just mean other words in sentence. Context came come from situation, so in different situation saying a word can have complete and opposite meaning.

Semantics is rarely irrelevant because words are the way in which we communicate. "It's just semantics" is often simply an excuse to avoid trying to support a position that cannot be supported.

Other people already explained to you why that point is wrong and so did I, but I will give it another go, when people get into semantics, they forget abotu the whole purpose of the descussion and simply stuck and disagreeing whether a certain word should be taken at a face value or at context value. Example being your conversation with hurdurf, where you two got stuck on disagreement of what the word "pride" in gay pride implies. This is not my opinion, it actually happened, both of you didn't get to any conlucsion because yopu terminated any reasonable descussion when you went into semantics.

If you accept that any word means anything that anyone says it means, with total disregard for commonly accepted meanings or how accurately the meaning describes what is being referred to, then elephant crumpet wheelie bin stellar dog biscuit.

I am not advocating this am I though, I am not calling a orange a cucumber here. "Pride" has many different meaning depending on the context, just like "literally" does. Have you heard the young people describing things they enjoy as "sick" seems bizarre doesn't it, something so negative as being sick is being used to describe something good. Well that doesn't fit into dictionary definition, how odd for you isn't it. Are you going to lecture them they they in fact mean that that thing is bad or will you accept that in their context that word means good?

So now I extensively explained to you why you are wrong, with few examples, those examples are not opinions. But more importantly, what I and elmarko tries to explain to you, that perhaps lets not go int semantics and get on the same level. Why should we debate whether pride means superiority or non-inferiority when we can see the objective of gay pride. Which is:

Gay pride or LGBT pride is the positive stance against discrimination and violence toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people to promote their self-affirmation, dignity, equality rights, increase their visibility as a social group, build community, and celebrate sexual diversity and gender variance. Pride, as opposed to shame and social stigma, is the predominant outlook that bolsters most LGBT rights movements throughout the world. Pride has lent its name to LGBT-themed organizations, institutes, foundations, book titles, periodicals and even a cable TV station and the Pride Library.

So since you like definitions and completely miss the point, here it is, I don't see any hint of promoting supposed superiority.

So, will you man up and admit you were wrong or will you go with another strawman?

 

[Gogl]

"Pride" has many different meaning depending on the context

I think the best thing would be to list some examples and link to the source. I'm not aware of pride having such duality but my command of English is lame, with some **** poor GSCE from many years ago to prove it.

*edit*

Well I guess a new slant on a word makes not much difference to ye olde qualifications, what I should say is that I've not seen it being used to describe anything other than pride, wait, I'm not even sure, is pride not necessarily meaning pride in its common usage a new thing or has it always been this way?

 

[stockhausen]

Are you new to this forum?

Anyone who was not new to forums in general would know that the "Joined date" suggests that Angilion has been registered here for about ten years.

As to his most recent post, it seems pretty much to hit the spot although I am a little confused by his final comment that "irrational prejudice is wrong" - I am not entirely convinced about the idea that "rational prejudice" being right - perhaps a separate debate.

 

[Nerusy]

I think the best thing would be to list some examples and link to the source. I'm not aware of pride having such duality but my command of English is lame, with some **** poor GSCE from many years ago to prove it.

*edit*

Well I guess a new slant on a word makes not much difference to ye olde qualifications, what I should say is that I've not seen it being used to describe anything other than pride, wait, I'm not even sure, is pride not necessarily meaning pride in its common usage a new thing or has it always been this way?

noun
[mass noun]
1a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements, the achievements of one’s close associates, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired:
the faces of the children’s parents glowed with pride
he takes great pride in his appearance
a person or thing which arouses a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction:
the pride of the village is the swimming pool
literary the best state of something; the prime:
in the pride of youth
2consciousness of one’s own dignity:
he swallowed his pride and asked for help
the quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one’s importance:
the worst sin in a ruler was pride
3 [count noun] a group of lions forming a social unit:
the males in the pride are very tolerant towards all the cubs

Pride is an inwardly directed emotion that carries two common meanings. With a negative connotation, pride refers to an inflated sense of one's personal status or accomplishments, often used synonymously with hubris. With a positive connotation, pride refers to a satisfied sense of attachment toward one's own or another's choices and actions, or toward a whole group of people, and is a product of praise, independent self-reflection, or a fulfilled feeling of belonging.

A bit odd that people find it so unbelievable that words have different meaning based on context.

By the way there is no authority that says what a word means and how it should be used. Oxford English Dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive as was pointed out by Rich L in another thread. (http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/guide-to-the-third-edition-of-the-oed/).

We use words and then we give them new meaning even though the dictionary does not yet reflect it, people still understand the the meaning we imply due to context. For a while gay was not in a dictionary as homosexual, it was just happy yet people used it to describe homosexuals and everybody knew it was being used to describe them.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
So, will you man up and admit you were wrong or will you go with another strawman?

I could say the same to you, except that I wouldn't drag silly sexist stereotypes into it like you've just done.

I think there's a key point in one of the pieces of text that you quoted:

Pride, as opposed to shame and social stigma, is the predominant outlook that bolsters most LGBT rights movements throughout the world.

Which is true, and very sad. It's also understandable - people, especially in groups, often respond to irrational prejudice with irrational prejudice. So rather than opposing the idea that homosexuality is shameful and should be stigmatised with the idea that homosexuality is neutral and should not be, they oppose it with the idea that homosexuality should be a source of pride. Which, of course, is exactly the same thing as being proud of not being not homosexual. Since the people who follow this ideology also at least pencil in other groups as part of the favoured group, the "gay pride" ideology is about being proud of not being a heterosexual who remains the same sex they were born as. In short, it's about expressing exactly the same prejudices they're objecting to, just with the groups swapped round. Which is unfortunately normal.

You can claim that pride doesn't mean pride when it's about pride in having the "right" kind of biology, but that's at best a very weak argument that has more to do with political usefulness than about truth. It's one that all group pride ideologies have tried to some extent.

Of course, I realise that not all gay pride advocates are particularly bigoted. Many are just gullible. Biological group advocacy movements often try bulking out their numbers with people like that because it creates an impression of much wider support than they actually have.

EDIT:

We use words and then we give them new meaning even though the dictionary does not yet reflect it, people still understand the the meaning we imply due to context.

Yes, people do. But pride in being in the "right" biological group is not a new meaning or a new context.

 

[hurfdurf]

Yes you are, and not you're lying about it. I didn't realise initially because you like to speak in your own special language and you refused to explain what you meant, but it became clear with later posts.

I'm speaking my own language? What does your first sentence even mean? Lol

It's you who grossly misunderstand how the world works, in addition to grossly misunderstanding English and what irrational prejudice is. Group pride is about being proud of being in a particular group, which obviously also means being proud of not being outside of that group.

No, it doesn't. Brown Pride in the USA has nothing to do with racial superiority, unlike for example, White Pride.

Someone who is proud of being gay is proud of not being not gay. Someone who is proud of being "white" is proud of not being not "white". Etc. It's not just obvious. It's not just semantics. It's two ways of expressing exactly the same thing.

Again, you clearly fail at understanding simple social movements and constructs. Beep boop.

You should see my point by now, but I could just cut and paste forever because that's the point - this stream of prejudice and counter-prejudice is never-ending. The only way to stop it is to stop it - if equality is the end, it is also the only means to the end. Not being proud of not being in the "wrong" biological group. Not promoting prejudice against everyone in the "wrong" group.

It doesn't matter what your excuse is - irrational prejudice is wrong and it only leads to more of the same forever.

I do see your points, but your point only works when it starts at a level pegging, which is some libertarian nonsense dream world. Egalitarianism is a noble goal, but it won't come from inaction and pretending the world is already there, when it clearly isn't.

 

[hurfdurf]

I could say the same to you, except that I wouldn't drag silly sexist stereotypes into it like you've just done.

I think there's a key point in one of the pieces of text that you quoted:

Which is true, and very sad. It's also understandable - people, especially in groups, often respond to irrational prejudice with irrational prejudice. So rather than opposing the idea that homosexuality is shameful and should be stigmatised with the idea that homosexuality is neutral and should not be, they oppose it with the idea that homosexuality should be a source of pride. Which, of course, is exactly the same thing as being proud of not being not homosexual. Since the people who follow this ideology also at least pencil in other groups as part of the favoured group, the "gay pride" ideology is about being proud of not being a heterosexual who remains the same sex they were born as. In short, it's about expressing exactly the same prejudices they're objecting to, just with the groups swapped round. Which is unfortunately normal.

You can claim that pride doesn't mean pride when it's about pride in having the "right" kind of biology, but that's at best a very weak argument that has more to do with political usefulness than about truth. It's one that all group pride ideologies have tried to some extent.

Of course, I realise that not all gay pride advocates are particularly bigoted. Many are just gullible. Biological group advocacy movements often try bulking out their numbers with people like that because it creates an impression of much wider support than they actually have.

EDIT:



Yes, people do. But pride in being in the "right" biological group is not a new meaning or a new context.

Hang on, are you under the impression a secret leadership of Gays exist that think that being homosexual is superior to being straight and want to flaunt it as such?!

 

[Nerusy]

I could say the same to you, except that I wouldn't drag silly sexist stereotypes into it like you've just done.

I think there's a key point in one of the pieces of text that you quoted:

Which is true, and very sad. It's also understandable - people, especially in groups, often respond to irrational prejudice with irrational prejudice. So rather than opposing the idea that homosexuality is shameful and should be stigmatised with the idea that homosexuality is neutral and should not be, they oppose it with the idea that homosexuality should be a source of pride. Which, of course, is exactly the same thing as being proud of not being not homosexual. Since the people who follow this ideology also at least pencil in other groups as part of the favoured group, the "gay pride" ideology is about being proud of not being a heterosexual who remains the same sex they were born as. In short, it's about expressing exactly the same prejudices they're objecting to, just with the groups swapped round. Which is unfortunately normal.

You can claim that pride doesn't mean pride when it's about pride in having the "right" kind of biology, but that's at best a very weak argument that has more to do with political usefulness than about truth. It's one that all group pride ideologies have tried to some extent.

Of course, I realise that not all gay pride advocates are particularly bigoted. Many are just gullible. Biological group advocacy movements often try bulking out their numbers with people like that because it creates an impression of much wider support than they actually have.

EDIT:



Yes, people do. But pride in being in the "right" biological group is not a new meaning or a new context.

So you make me reply to each of you sentences because somehow before it was not valid and after I do refute each of you points step by step you only answer reply to my 2 sentences? one of them calling you up on your straman?

I just proved with facts to you that you were wrong, and you reply is my argument is weak? As opposed to what argument? You have not presented any example or facts? All you do is reply to my facts and say they're not good enough while not providing anything to support your wrong view.

Not only are you ignorant on the subject, you arrogance is what really ticks me off.

Until you do link each and every one my points and use logic and facts to refute them I will not indulge in this idiocy anymore. I have tried to teach you but you clearly do not care for the truth, besides your own ignorant view.

 

[Angilion]

I'm speaking my own language? What does your first sentence even mean? Lol

As you well know, you make extensive use of obscure words and acronyms made up by people with similar views to yourself. You use these in key places, which makes it necessary to either keep another window open to look up what your words mean or just ignore you. It was hyperbole to call it your own language, but it's certainly not standard English.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. You cannot rationally argue against the fact that a thing is not not that thing.

Brown Pride in the USA has nothing to do with racial superiority, unlike for example, White Pride.

You're mistaking socially acceptable prejudice for a lack of prejudice. While the white pride ideology is very likely more racist on average, they're both rooted in the same idea - being proud of not being in a "wrong" "race".

I do see your points, but your point only works when it starts at a level pegging, which is some libertarian nonsense dream world.

No, it doesn't. You are unable to properly integrate the concept of an individual or the concept of time into your viewpoint, so you are unable to understand. You can't seperate a person from a group, so all you can do is think in terms of immortal group entities. So you think that prejudice and discrimination against one in the past can be balanced out by prejudice and discrimination against the other in the future and you probably don't realise that you're punishing people for the actions of different people, mostly long dead, because all you can see is timeless group entities.

Irrational prejudice and discrimination does not reduce the amount of irrational prejudice and discrimination. If a person steals from me, that does not make it fair for someone 50 years from now who shares some trivial biological characteristic with me to steal from someone, anyone, who shares some trivial biological characteristic with the person who stole from me. That is not equality, it is not a balance, it is not fair and it is not rational. It relies on an utterly irrational prejudice - the belief that "they are all the same" to the extent that the fact that it's a different person at a different time in a different place is seen as being completely irrelevant.

Egalitarianism is a noble goal, but it won't come from inaction and pretending the world is already there, when it clearly isn't.

I'm not advocating that, but even that would be more likely to succeed than the endless bigotry and hypocrisy that you advocate with such fervour.

 

[Angilion]

Hang on, are you under the impression a secret leadership of Gays exist that think that being homosexual is superior to being straight and want to flaunt it as such?!

No, I'll leave such silliness to people like you.

I suppose it's a vague possibility, but I see no evidence of such a conspiracy and I'd put it on a par with similar ideas about the Illuminati and suchlike, or aliens secretly controlling national governments.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Until you do link each and every one my points and use logic and facts to refute them I will not indulge in this idiocy anymore. I have tried to teach you but you clearly do not care for the truth, besides your own ignorant view.

Since I think the same way about you and your insistence that your unsubstantiated opinion is proof, we may as well end this here.

 

[Nerusy]

Since I think the same way about you and your insistence that your unsubstantiated opinion is proof, we may as well end this here.

Examples and facts are not opinions. I provided examples and facts and sources to each each of my points refuting your logic, you have not. Don't try to make it seem otherwise. Until you do provided sources and facts, I consider your position forfeit.

 

[robgmun]

Hang on, are you under the impression a secret leadership of Gays exist that think that being homosexual is superior to being straight and want to flaunt it as such?!

I've met gays like that when I was younger through a friend who was heavily into the clubbing scene in the late 90s, they also thought every straight man was secretly gay inside. Impossible to talk to sometimes because of how political they made there own sexuality and basically their whole lives was about being gay, very two dimensional people as they didn't have any thoughts or feeling about any other subject apart from Clubs, drugs and being gay.

 

[RoboCod]

I believe that the promotion of homosexuality is part of a "cultural Marxist" programme. This programme seeks to undermine the family unit and alter society to further Marxist aims. This agenda was first promulgated by a group of German intellectuals commonly referred to as the "Frankfurt School". They reached the conclusion that Marxism could not be furthered by economic means but had to be furthered by cultural means.

There is an interesting and relevant blog post HERE worth reading.

I am not asking that you agree with me. You asked WHY I support the legislation - this is why.

You're on crack, or subscribe to the sky pixie book (well come on, what is the difference really?).

I love how some people believe they have a right to decide for others what they can and can't do, when really it isn't their business. Should someone wish to be homosexual and marry another homosexual, it isn't your business or that of the government to decide for them.

"A Marxist movement". The "Gay Agenda"?? Seriously? I'll tell you what has happened through history, dating right back to before dates were set... a man wanted to put his willy in another mans bottom. The end.

 

[RoboCod]

Is the UK free ? i place where you aren't allowed to think being gay is wrong.

Define FREE.

You have the freedom of speech to state that you think it is wrong, despite you risk being labelled an ignorant knob for doing so (also freedom of speech innit!). You don't have the freedom of action to prevent it though, which is what Russia appears to be leaning towards doing. Who are the government to decide for you who you have a relationship with?

Scary

 

[Angilion]

[..]
I love how some people believe they have a right to decide for others what they can and can't do, when really it isn't their business. Should someone wish to be homosexual and marry another homosexual, it isn't your business or that of the government to decide for them. [..]

Marriage is the business of the government when marriage has any legal status, because the law is part of the business of the government.

I think the law should be that a person's sex isn't relevant to marriage, but if marriage has any legal status then it is part of the business of the government.

 

[Angilion]

Examples and facts are not opinions. I provided examples and facts and sources to each each of my points refuting your logic, you have not. Don't try to make it seem otherwise. Until you do provided sources and facts, I consider your position forfeit.

And I say the same about you, for the same reasons.

This is utterly pointless, so why don't we both stop it? If anyone else cares, which I doubt, they can track back through both our posts and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Tombo]

Define FREE.

You have the freedom of speech to state that you think it is wrong, despite you risk being labelled an ignorant knob for doing so (also freedom of speech innit!). You don't have the freedom of action to prevent it though, which is what Russia appears to be leaning towards doing. Who are the government to decide for you who you have a relationship with?

Scary

The Russian government has not decided who can have a relationship with who at all.

Edit: I am extremely tired and may have misread, will check again in the morning.

 

[Nerusy]

And I say the same about you, for the same reasons.

This is utterly pointless, so why don't we both stop it? If anyone else cares, which I doubt, they can track back through both our posts and draw their own conclusions.

You can not say the say for me, for I have quoted each your sentence and answered it and I linked fact that OED is descriptive hence there is no authority to force the meaning of the word.

You on the other hand have not provided anything to support your view, hence this is not the same. Once again, until you do provided facts to support your view I accept your forfeit.

 

[hurfdurf]

I love that Angilion thinks all Pride movements are filled with people who think they are the superior race and culture, what an amazingly sheltered world view.