Caitlyn Jenner

[Shady]

Well, the other example I gave was about people being offended by the word "different".The point I'm making is that people do take offense, and have the right to decide what they're called.

People are free to take offence, which is usually the case now in our hyper-sensitive culture, where finding something to be offended by is the new normal. It shouldn't stop people from discussing things reasonably and logically.

[Shady]

The same nature that created said variation. OK.

Yes exactly. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Michael Hardner]

We should be insulted by words that are meant to be insulting.

That would be a great thing in a world without ambiguity.

Words that are not meant to be insulting can be hurtful - can cause you pain - but they shouldn't be insulting. In other words, it actually is your problem if you fall into that group and are insulted by non insulting language.

There's an element of common use at play here, which I agree with, but calling somebody 'damaged' 'badly wired' or an 'error'... that could be taken as 'pejorative' as Albertans felt when Chretien simply said they were 'different'.

[Michael Hardner]

People are free to take offence, which is usually the case now in our hyper-sensitive culture, where finding something to be offended by is the new normal. It shouldn't stop people from discussing things reasonably and logically.

You might be surprised to find that I'm all in favour of allowing insults if that's the intent. It's the wishy-washy non-insult insults that I find unclear and ambiguous. Unclear communication is aggravating and intentionally unclear communication is doubly so.

Oh, and no insults on MLW of course

[Black Dog]

Yes exactly. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

So its a "brain error" and not a "mental illness". Curious as to how you square that circle. Sounds like you're indulging in some of that old time political correctness you and your ilk are so often railing against.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Black Dog

[bush_cheney2004]

You might be surprised to find that I'm all in favour of allowing insults if that's the intent. It's the wishy-washy non-insult insults that I find unclear and ambiguous. Unclear communication is aggravating and intentionally unclear communication is doubly so.

Sometimes that is by design...don't try to change the intent. It's OK to communicate differently.

[Michael Hardner]

Sometimes that is by design...don't try to change the intent. It's OK to communicate differently.

Right, then don't feign shock when somebody is offended by your insincere non-insult. It might be interesting in a room full of Oscar Wilde wordplay experts but it just generates noise on here, debating about what words mean, what they should mean.

Also, for people who brandish their traditional masculinity, it's behavior that could be seen by their peers as downright "catty". I'm just lookin' out for my bros here.

Edited to add: Again, this isn't a facilitation thing but a personal "pet" peeve.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right, then don't feign shock when somebody is offended by your insincere non-insult. It might be interesting in a room full of Oscar Wilde wordplay experts but it just generates noise on here, debating about what words mean, what they should mean.

Also, for people who brandish their traditional masculinity, it's behavior that could be seen by their peers as downright "catty". I'm just lookin' out for my bros here.

Edited to add: Again, this isn't a facilitation thing but a personal "pet" peeve.

Let them be offended...so what ? We can't suffocate words and meanings just because offense might be taken. Things would be pretty boring in such a framework. For instance, I still don't understand why more people can't logically get behind incest for consenting adults !

[Michael Hardner]

Let them be offended...so what ?

I agree with that. But you have people on here saying they "shouldn't be".

For instance, I still don't understand why more people can't logically get behind incest for consenting adults !

We're on the same page with that one, brother.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree with that. But you have people on here saying they "shouldn't be".

That's the modern scourge of our time. The lowest common denominator has sterilized meaningful discourse.

[Smallc]

The same nature that created said variation. OK.

Nature isn't perfect. What are you arguing, exactly?

[Black Dog]

Nature isn't perfect. What are you arguing, exactly?

That anthropomorphizing natural phenomenon is stupid. To wit:

And that variation is not the normal outcome that nature would desire. That should be obvious, as the mechanics were decided long ago.

[Smallc]

It's not the normal outcome. It doesn't mean it's bad. It's like the idea scares some of you, or something.

[cybercoma]

Of course not. The SJWs have decided that this is what their religion requires and they will viciously attack anyone who disagrees with their religious views. It is the face of 21th century religious fundamentalism.

So vicious making people have to justify their idiotic reasoning. VICIOUS!

[cybercoma]

I've already said such.

You're a real piece of work. Gay people now are suddenly suffering from a mental illness too? What an awful, disgusting view to hold.

[Black Dog]

It's not the normal outcome. It doesn't mean it's bad. It's like the idea scares some of you, or something.

If it's within the range of variation then it is, by that very definition, "normal." Not hard.

[cybercoma]

And that variation is not the normal outcome that nature would desire.

Your logic is so broken that you actually just said that nature has desires.

[cybercoma]

It's not the normal outcome. It doesn't mean it's bad. It's like the idea scares some of you, or something.

"It's not a normal outcome" is a short step back from "you're mentally ill, faggot."

[Mighty AC]

"Caitlyn, when you were a man, we could talk about your athleticism, your business acumen," Jon Stewart said. "But now you’re a woman. Your looks are really the only thing we care about." - http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/06/03/jon_stewart_criticizes_caitlyn_jenner_media_coverage_your_looks_are_the.html?wpsrc=fol_fb

Jon was spot on again. He will be missed.

[Smallc]

If it's within the range of variation then it is, by that very definition, "normal." Not hard.

It's natural. It actually falls outside the range of normal variation, as it isn't common in percentage terms.

[Smallc]

"It's not a normal outcome" is a short step back from "you're mentally ill, faggot."

Look, your inability to consider things not in your political correct world isn't my problem. How about keeping your commentary to yourself and actually having a discussion?

[Smallc]

So vicious making people have to justify their idiotic reasoning. VICIOUS!

What you're doing is actually quite vicious, yes.

[Black Dog]

It's natural. It actually falls outside the range of normal variation, as it isn't common in percentage terms.

Cite? And what's the cut off in percentage terms for "normal?"

Edited June 3, 2015 by Black Dog

[Smallc]

Cite?

Gay people are (last I heard) about 1/20th of the population. Other sexual groups are even smaller.

Everyone is acting as if being gay is somehow bad if I say it isn't normal. There's nothing wrong with gay people, gay marriage, gay anything. It doesn't affect me. It doesn't change reality.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

Look, your inability to consider things not in your political correct world isn't my problem. How about keeping your commentary to yourself and actually having a discussion?

No, you just have a problem with my intolerance for your derogatory and spiteful intolerance. Like you keep saying, I have free speech. Suck it up. You want to present disgusting ideas, then don't cry when people call them out for what they are.