Mayor Ford to nix Pride Funding!

[Black Dog]

So you should have no problem with the term "Gay" being used as a pejorative. Since of course many people using it as a pejorative aren't being "homophobic" It's just the way language evolves afterall.

Um. Using "gay" as a pejorative is inherently homophobic. That's why it is pejorative.

[Boges]

Um. Using "gay" as a pejorative is inherently homophobic. That's why it is pejorative.

What if the intent isn't "homophobic"?

Originally Gay meant happy. Word's evolve.

Considering Homophobic doesn't mean phobic at all.

[Oleg Bach]

Um. Using "gay" as a pejorative is inherently homophobic. That's why it is pejorative.

Never liked that word "homo-phobic" - Isn't a phobia something that generates a horrific incapaciting fear? Maybe the word should be homo-indifference....most that are called homo-phobic are people that really are not big on loving and supporting the gay community - they simply don't care or beleive that it is important as the propoganda dictates. Would it be a sin if I was to say - I simply do not want to embrace the notion of gay....This reminds me of a mother that forces two indiffernt children to hug each other - I don't want a damned forced superfical liberal hug - nor am I enclined to give one.

[Rue]

A classic example of the QUIAA's blatant anti-semitism is this comment, found in its FAQ section:

"Israel is a country founded on the idea of different rights for different people, based on race. The first difference is that Jews, wherever they live, have the right to “return” to Israel, but the Palestinians who were expelled from their homes in 1948 do not have this right."

The above statement is a classic anti-semitic mistatement of the right of Jews to have universal sufferage.

Israel was not founded on the concept of Jews as a race. Jews have no particular race. We are black, white, Asian, etc. We come from every known region of the world. Zionism has never defined Jews as a race and neither does the state of Israel.

The "different right" Israel provides Jews is in specific reference to elgitibility for

Israeli citizenship. If someone meets the definition of Jew they are eligible to be fast tracked for citizenship in Israel. What the QUIAA does is engage in classic anti-semitism

and suggest this law of return is racist-it is not and has never been.

In fact it provides a fast track system no different then over 125 other nations that also provide law of returns or fast track citizenship eligibility processes for defined groups of persons.

For example, Eire (Ireland), the People's Republic of China, Serbia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, the Ukraine, Germany, France, Belgium, Liberia to name but a handful of the over 125 countries with similiar laws, also offer the same kind of process.

However the QUIAA would have you believe its only done by Israel for Jews because Jews are a race.

They of course conveniently ignore the fact that the UN stated the law of return was not in fact racist and this kind of preferential treatment is not considered illegal or discriminatory because-non Jews are still eligible for status in Israel and when they become citizens, they legally have the same rights as Jewish Israelis and that includes the right to vote, own land, access the same school and hospitals.

The QUIAA ignore claims this law of return segregates non Muslim Jews.This is a deliberate lie as it is a fact Muslims elect members to the same Knesset as Jews do, access the same schools and hospitals. If there is segregation it is no different then what happens in Western Europe and North America when ethnics choose to live in their own

communities.

The QUIAA deliberately lies and mistates the situation of day to day life in Israel portraying Israel as a state that segregates people based on their religion.

In fact Muslims have their own court system for religious and family affairs as do Christians. In fact the Israeli government pays land for most of its government buildings including the Knesset to Christian church land owners.

In fact the Supreme Court of Israel has upheld the land and civil rights of Muslim Israelis no differently then it has Jewish or Christian Israelis.

In fact when the QUIAA was asked to explain how if Muslims are discriminated against as Israeli citizens they have the highest standard of living of all Muslims in the Middle East-they refused to respond.

When asked how it is Israel has so many human rights organizations and a highly critical press the QUIAA had no answer.

The QUIAA to this day refuses to address how it is it singles out Israel and says it must be dismantled and all Jews who support Israel are "oppressors" but refuses to criticize the system of dhimmitude in the Middle East.

The QUIAA is silent on Iran declaring there are no homosexuals in Iran. It remains silent as to the autrocities committed against gays in Arab League and Muslim nations and chooses only to criticize Israel and Jews who support Israel.

Its decision to blatantly be selective as to who it criticizes and what issues it will debate is central to the proposition that it is anti-semitic. Its refusal to apply an equal standard of criticism to the Muslim world necessarily makes it anti-semitic.

Now Bloody and Black Dog and Shwa and whoever can call me pedophile, anti-semite or homophobe but my position on the QUIAA remains clear. My criticism of it being anti-semitic is specific to its policies and those who specifically support its policies.

No name calling or mistatements will change that fact.

[Black Dog]

What if the intent isn't "homophobic"?

Why is it a pejorative then?

Originally Gay meant happy. Word's evolve.

I look forward to your treatise on why you should be allowed to use the word "nigger" next.

Considering Homophobic doesn't mean phobic at all.

How does it not?

[Oleg Bach]

God does not give a damn who is what - or not...I would safely assume that God is more concerned about murder and hunger than what people are doing in their lonely human existance and their never ending quest for some sort of comfort in this universe.

[Rue]

1-No, I'm baiting you to prove your claims about QuAIA by demonstrating how easy it is to hurl unsubstantiated allegations around.

2-I don't really care that you're Jewish. You're a terrible debater espousing an untenable position. That's really all I need.

3- you lost long ago when you refused to/proved unable to provide real evidence of the status of QuAIA as a hate group.

1-You called me what you did as Bloody did because you both engage in the very exercise you initiated on this board that I then responded to and that is making unsubstantiated

accusations and allegations that go to my personality. You can try rationalize that all you want but your rationalization now only conforms your insincerity and attempt to

defend your accusation. It was a pathetic attempt to bait even for you.

2-The name calling once again is par for the course. Stick your tongue out all you want Black Dog it too is par for the course.

3-I originally and early on quoted the QUIAA web site's words. You chose to ignore them and launch into the personal attacks to avoid debating them not me. Its laughable for you to now claim you tried to discuss them. You never did. You had ample opportunity to and you never did. All you have done is name call.

It speaks volumes of you, your lack of substance and your inability to discuss the QUIAA platform.

Keep the name calling up Black Dog its what you and Bloody do.

As for self-righteous no, but this Oleg knows, you are a coward. If you were with me on one one you would not call me a pedophile.

Those are fine words to call someone when you can hide behind forum words.

Lol.

How was that for being precise O?

Lol.

yer right O. nuff said. I am outta here. O I owe you a beer or 2 for your comments.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Rue

[Boges]

Why is it a pejorative then?

I look forward to your treatise on why you should be allowed to use the word "nigger" next.

How does it not?

It may have initially been used as a pejoritive towards Gays but not as much anymore. It's just part of casual language.

When someone says "That's effing Gay" they usually aren't saying they hate Gay people.

I'm not supporting the use of the term as a negative term. I'm just saying, when people use the term homophobe they'd doing the exact same thing.

When someone calls Rob Ford a "philthy homophob" for not wanting to attend the Pride Parade, quite frankly that's slander. It makes it sound like he's afraid of Gays like people are afraid of snakes or heights.

But you'll tell me that the term has evolved to mean something totally different. I'm telling you, why can't the same treatment be used for "Gay".

[Black Dog]

1-You called me what you need as Bloody did because you both engage in the very exercise you initiated on this board that I then responded to and that is making unsubstantiated

accusations and allegations that go to my personality. You can try rationalize that all you want but your rationalization now only conforms your insincerity and attempt to

defend your accusation. It was a pathetic attempt to bait even for you.

And yet you went for it and your continued citation of it shows how seriously you took it, even though I never actually called you a pedophile.

2-The name calling once again is par for the course. Stick your tongue out all you want Black Dog it too is par for the course.

It's not name calling. It's just the way I see it.

3-I originally and early on quoted the QUIAA web site's words. You chose to ignore them and launch into the personal attacks to avoid debating them not me. Its laughable for you to now claim you tried to discuss them. You never did. You had ample opportunity to and you never did. All you have done is name call.

I'm not going to dive back into the sewer that was our earlier exchanges on the subject. I picked this back up when you started hurling around claims that QuAIA are advancing a pro-terrorism, death to Jews agenda.

As laudable as it is that you have finally (finally!) got around to trying to actually support your arguments, the fact that they hinge entirely on the fallacy of the "new antisemitism" as well as other distortions and misdirections (for example: the furor over the recognition of Israel's "right to exist", as if that's a "right" enjoyed by any other nation state).

You approached QuAIA with the intention of finding antisemitism and by god you would not be deterred even if you had to create it.

[Boges]

As laudable as it is that you have finally (finally!) got around to trying to actually support your arguments, the fact that they hinge entirely on the fallacy of the "new antisemitism" as well as other distortions and misdirections (for example: the furor over the recognition of Israel's "right to exist", as if that's a "right" enjoyed by any other nation state).

So Israel doesn't have the "right to exist" then?

I think you're just pissed that Israel has the full backing of the US and that's why they can be this Island of freedom and civil rights in the hostile place of bigotry and hatred.

And I'm not sure why.

[Black Dog]

It may have initially been used as a pejoritive towards Gays but not as much anymore. It's just part of casual language.

When someone says "That's effing Gay" they usually aren't saying they hate Gay people.

But the only reason "gay" is a bad thing is because of its negative association with homosexuality. It's not much different from saying something like "that pop machine jew'd me out of a dollar."

I'm not supporting the use of the term as a negative term. I'm just saying, when people use the term homophobe they'd doing the exact same thing.

When someone calls Rob Ford a "philthy homophob" for not wanting to attend the Pride Parade, quite frankly that's slander. It makes it sound like he's afraid of Gays like people are afraid of snakes or heights.

Well if phobia means irrational fear or anxiety, how is it not appropriate?

But you'll tell me that the term has evolved to mean something totally different. I'm telling you, why can't the same treatment be used for "Gay".

No, it doesn't mean something totally different. It's still very much tied to its origins (fear and anxiety), even if it's not necessarily reflecting the strict clinical interpretation of the word phobia.

Words change with usage, but you can never divorce them from their history and context remains important.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Black Dog

[Boges]

But the only reason "gay" is a bad thing is because of its negative association with homosexuality. It's not much different from saying something like "that pop machine jew'd me out of a dollar."

Well if phobia means irrational fear or anxiety, how is it not appropriate?

No, it doesn't mean something totally different. It's still very much tied to its origins (fear and anxiety), even if it's not necessarily reflecting the strict clinical interpretation of the word phobia.

Words change with usage, but you can never divorce them from their history and context remains important.

No! because people who cannot affirm homosexual on religious grounds are labeled homophobic as well. That former Sportsnet Commentator Damien Goddard probably was called a homophobe many times for opposing Gay marriage.

It's a term used to silence opposition.

[Black Dog]

No! because people who cannot affirm homosexual on religious grounds are labeled homophobic as well. That former Sportsnet Commentator Damien Goddard probably was called a homophobe many times for opposing Gay marriage.

It's a term used to silence opposition.

If I believed the Bible said black people are inferior and should be treated as such, would the religious origin of my views make me exempt from charges of racism? Doubtful. Why is it any different from religious opposition to homosexuality?

[Boges]

If I believed the Bible said black people are inferior and should be treated as such, would the religious origin of my views make me exempt from charges of racism? Doubtful. Why is it any different from religious opposition to homosexuality?

Because strictly religious people also believe sex before marriage is wrong. You can respectfully agree on certain things without have to be slanderous.

Religious people may disagree with a lifestyle. The one's that actively deny people the right to commit moral sins are on the wrong side of the debate. But I don't see anything wrong with being unwilling to affirm a certain lifestyle. But that's for a different thread.

What about not being comfortable with some of the overt sexuality that happens at the Pride Parade? Is that also homophobic? If someone walked around a school buck naked, they'd be charged as a pedophile. Do it at a parade it's fine, in fact if you don't support those actions, you're somehow a homophobe.

[Black Dog]

Because strictly religious people also believe sex before marriage is wrong. You can respectfully agree on certain things without have to be slanderous.

Religious people may disagree with a lifestyle. The one's that actively deny people the right to commit moral sins are on the wrong side of the debate. But I don't see anything wrong with being unwilling to affirm a certain lifestyle. But that's for a different thread.

Personally, I have no problem labeling religious objections to homosexuality homophobic because it's so irrational. I don't think religion can be used as a shield for irrational viewpoints.

What about not being comfortable with some of the overt sexuality that happens at the Pride Parade? Is that also homophobic? If someone walked around a school buck naked, they'd be charged as a pedophile. Do it at a parade it's fine, in fact if you don't support those actions, you're somehow a homophobe.

Not necessarily. But it's also not necessarily not homophobic either.

[Boges]

Not necessarily. But it's also not necessarily not homophobic either.

That's a very wishy washy answer.

I don't particularly want to see naked men, I'll avoid it if I can. That's not because I hate Gays, it's because I'm hetrosexual and would much prefer looking at naked women.

Am I homophobic for stating this opinion?

[Black Dog]

That's a very wishy washy answer.

I don't particularly want to see naked men, I'll avoid it if I can. That's not because I hate Gays, it's because I'm hetrosexual and would much prefer looking at naked women.

Am I homophobic for stating this opinion?

Not everyone who objects to nudity is doing so because they don't like gays or the gay lifestyle. But many of those who raise objections on those grounds do so for that reason. That's not wishy-washy, it's recognizing that these things are very context-dependent.

[jbg]

Jews were peaceful for centuries - and paid for it dearly. Nearly exterminated. FINALLY they learned their lesson.

THOSE WHO BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES PLOW FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T.

I think western democratic states should be held to a higher standard of behaviour than tinpot dictatorships and oppressive theocracies.

Saipan says it all on anothe thread, as far as Black Dog's post. Western democracies' higher standards are not a suicide pact.

[Black Dog]

Saipan says it all on anothe thread, as far as Black Dog's post. Western democracies' higher standards are not a suicide pact.

I care, but "humanity" is not a suicide pact. If Hezbollah hides out among civilians, they don't get a free pass.

Those standards are not a suicide pact.

The Geneva Convention is not a suicide pact.

Myata's rules of legitimacy aside, Israel is not, nationally, a suicide pact.

The law is not a suicide pact. Especially when fighting enemies that themselves have no law.

You're assuming that the Muslims have any belief in freedom of religion. Our openness should not be a suicide pact.

Glad we can always count on you for completely meaningless buzz phrases.

[Rue]

Let me get this straight: After indignantly protesting the charge that you are branding any criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic, you proceed to support your position by employing an expanded definition of antisemitism that was created for the express purpose of equating criticism of Israeli with antisemitism.

Straight as opposed to gay? Tee hee. You were provided a specific reference making it clear why the definition did not equate criticism of Israeli policies as anti-semitism. You again as in the above comment, choose to deliebrately mis-state the quote. You refuse to preface te above as a subjective opinion but instead pose it as a fact and then as the position stated by the persons I referenced.

You simply show you lack the intellectual integrity to preface your subjective interpretations as such but instead try pass them off as actual restatements of the position you claim to challenge.

You then refuse to explain your position.

Why?

Are you that much of a coward?

Anyone can spit out a subjective opinion Black Dog. You are good at the name calling ad labelling. Its what you do.

Now put up or shut up. Explain how the reference you misquoted states ANY criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.

[Black Dog]

Straight as opposed to gay? Tee hee. You were provided a specific reference making it clear why the definition did not equate criticism of Israeli policies as anti-semitism. You again as in the above comment, choose to deliebrately mis-state the quote.

Here's the quote:

Anti-Semitism is protean, mutating over the centuries into new forms. Now it has changed again, into a shape which requires a new way of thinking and a new vocabulary. The new anti-Semitism does not discriminate against Jews as individuals on account of their race. Instead, it is centred on Israel, and the denial to the Jewish people alone of the right of self-determination.

Now it may well be that, in theory, there's certain types of criticism of Israel that would not get one labelled antisemitic. By the same token, there are no doubt criticisms of Israel that are mere fronts for antisemitic sentiments (though I'd there's really nothing "new" about that form of antisemitism and that such forms are simply not common in the western liberal spheres of debate in question here).

In practice, however, the "new antisemitism" is used as a cudgel to beat down opposition to Israeli policies by invoking the spectre of ethno/religious bias. In short, it's handy way of calling someone a Jew-hater without actually saying as much. That's what makes it so mendacious a construct.

You simply show you lack the intellectual integrity to preface your subjective interpretations as such but instead try pass them off as actual restatements of the position you claim to challenge.

You then refuse to explain your position.

Why?

Are you that much of a coward?

Anyone can spit out a subjective opinion Black Dog. You are good at the name calling ad labelling. Its what you do.

As opposed to passing off quotes and references from noted Israel apologists like Alan Dershowitz as gospel truth? Or using your own biased interpretation to claim QuAIA is a supporter of terrorism?

What constitutes fact in this case?

Now put up or shut up. Explain how the reference you misquoted states ANY criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.

For someone who was whinging and bleating about how you were being told to be silenced, I find your choice of words here to be rather amusing.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Black Dog

[Shady]

I have no problem with people like Black Dogg refuse to recognize Israels right to exist. They just need to hold their parades on their own f'ing dime.

[Black Dog]

I have no problem with people like Black Dogg refuse to recognize Israels right to exist.

It's against forum rules to intentionally mis-spell username.

They just need to hold their parades on their own f'ing dime.

What parades? There's no state-funded "refuse to recognize Israels right to exist" parade.

[Shwa]

I have no problem with people like Black Dogg refuse to recognize Israels right to exist. They just need to hold their parades on their own f'ing dime.

No, you are getting confused and it is coming out in your cheapening of language.

A correct statement would read:

"I just want them to hold their parades on their own f'ing dime."

Your wants are much different from their needs.

[Shady]

It's against forum rules to intentionally mis-spell username.

The g button on my keyboard sticks once in a while. Sue me. But listening to a lecture from you about forum rules is pretty rich. Told anyone to die in a fire recently?