tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post5841589035291653203..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Notes on episode 710Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73903659401221677422011-06-14T21:37:19.865-05:002011-06-14T21:37:19.865-05:00I KNEW Mark was Canadian. Makes PERFECT sense tha...I KNEW Mark was Canadian. Makes PERFECT sense that his IP address originates from Canada. I (sadly) thought he was a poe the moment I heard him say the word "about". Canadian all the way.Darth Xilefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05206043932702247591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50728931148087474462011-06-12T08:46:09.060-05:002011-06-12T08:46:09.060-05:00I was one of the people writing in that mark was d...I was one of the people writing in that mark was dismissed too quickly.<br /><br />I've watched maybe 5+ years of TAE and I have to say following an on going story behind one individual such as Mark is proving to be one of the more interesting topics.<br /><br />You are right, it could be an epic troll yet to have revealed himself, that seems unlikely. Or it could be a just an atheist having fun for whatever reason, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen this, although not to this degree of dedication.<br /><br />Still I would like to follow the "Mark Story" as it unfolds, see what he has to say for himself, I think at this point I'm less concerned with him being a troll, it's interesting regardless.Frostyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14742453902401322872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75288568738373428342011-06-06T19:28:58.380-05:002011-06-06T19:28:58.380-05:00Study shows *repeat asinine specious claim here*!Study shows *repeat asinine specious claim here*!estevan carlos bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03938651195986928529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21111306288897769772011-06-04T09:48:38.344-05:002011-06-04T09:48:38.344-05:00Weighing in on Mark, I've been suspicious of h...Weighing in on Mark, I've been suspicious of him for a while and the last call really solidified my opinion. I agree with some previous posters that he is likely an atheist playing out the part of a deconversion. Notice how he continually sets up the hosts with softball questions? He also seems to know a lot about them, asking questions tailored to their particular background.<br /><br />In the last call, he made several statements that sounded like they were coming from an atheist--even directly referring to religion as "false". Really? A few weeks ago he comes to the new idea that he shouldn't just take what the Bible says literally, and now he's progressed to a decision that religion is false and is presenting classic atheist arguments? Not a chance.Eric Pommerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09189649913327685438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91303909553836738752011-06-02T00:52:17.018-05:002011-06-02T00:52:17.018-05:00""This is an issue because terming belie...""This is an issue because terming belief in god as faith is different to the faith I have for my toaster to cook my bread."<br /><br />Sorry this is the quote I wanted to use for the above post.<br /><br />Also mamba24 I would encourage you to read my previous posts more thoroughly as you have not understood what I was stating or point me to where I am not clear. Hopefully though my previous post will provide clarity.A socialist open to criticismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619402773454709868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70663562823943134282011-06-02T00:48:41.373-05:002011-06-02T00:48:41.373-05:00"Without clear contexts for different definit..."Without clear contexts for different definitions, the best we can do is adhere to the original meaning"<br /><br />where I come from faith is used interchangably with belief quite often. It is not necessarily used in every day language to mean what it originally did. This makes it correct to use in this way. I have no problem with it.<br /><br />The problem comes when religious people equate faith1 (belief) with faith2 (irrational belief). This is because you are not discussing the same things not because they are not using the word correctly.<br /><br />The same word often has a lot of different meanings. That is language for you.A socialist open to criticismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619402773454709868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55687748552757593042011-06-01T19:29:51.369-05:002011-06-01T19:29:51.369-05:00"This is an issue because terming belief in g..."This is an issue because terming belief in god as faith is different to the faith I have for my toaster to cook my bread."<br /><br />-I don't know if I agree with this. If you are changing that meaning of the word I guess it fine. But knowing that the toaster has run perfectly fine all times prior to this moment, I wouldn't need faith for my toaster to cook bread. I can have reasonable expectations based on past experience, I can confidently trust my toaster to work. But I wouldn't ever need faith. If that's what it comes down to, then that toaster must be the worst toaster in the world, and NEVER works. lolMamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85704571352937803162011-06-01T15:34:39.207-05:002011-06-01T15:34:39.207-05:00For those wondering about who "Charlie" ...For those wondering about who "Charlie" might be (poe or not, crazy or not, atheist or not, etc), I thought I would mention that he sounded (both in voice and in his level of stupid lunacy) like a local Los Angeles "atheist" rapper known as Charlie Check'm (google his music, if you like bad rap) -- who is, in fact, an atheist homophobe, who started ranting publicly a couple years back. Debbie Goddard over at Center for Inquiry addressed his attitude back then <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/atheist_rapper_homophobe/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and the comments on this blog post were quickly overtaken by Charlie and his insatiable ego. He is a complete loon and, much to everyone's chagrin, also an atheist.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48173219924013329112011-06-01T11:48:44.205-05:002011-06-01T11:48:44.205-05:00"Because, clearly, if we disagree, it's b..."Because, clearly, if we disagree, it's because we haven't."<br /><br />I know I am right, so yeah obviously it is the case that you are incorrect. logical thought is wonderful :)<br /><br />"It's the same problem every time the word "faith" or "theory" enters a conversation."<br /><br />No sorry it isn't, you are confused. This is an issue because terming belief in god as faith is different to the faith I have for my toaster to cook my bread. The issue here is the theist and the atheist are talking about TWO different things wherein the theist is trying to conflate two seperate things. The problem here is not that people are using the word to mean different things in different contexts(which is fine) but that they are using one word to mean two things simultaneously, ie. they are completely ignoring context. In the case of the discussion about homophobe this is not the case.<br /><br />To clarify I will take your example of "theory". The problem comes up because they are not understanding the word can be used in different contexts. It is perfectly acceptable to use theory to mean an "idea" in every day language. However when scientists say "theory" this is not their definition of the word. In these examples you can see "theory" as two words. Call the former theory1 and the latter theory2 for clarity. The theist thinks theory1 and theory2 are the same thing. THAT is the issue. Like you said, context is what allows for words to have meaning :)<br /><br />"Language only works if the words uniquely have meaning."<br /><br />Lol, I can't imagine a more ambiguous thing than language or a more absurd claim. Oh wait then you say this...<br /><br />"Without clear contexts for different definitions, the best we can do is adhere to the original meaning"<br /><br />I call rubbish on this as well. In a lot of cases the original meanings of words are not in use at all anymore. So this is just ridiculous. Furthermore if one goes with how a word is defined in mainstream society then it stands to reason that it is more likely that people will know what you are talking about. Finally If he wants to call himself a homophobe and then clarify exactly what he means by that then who cares?<br /><br />"The word's utility decreases, in terms of communication value."<br /><br />The utility of the word was not the subject of debate though, how the word is used/defined was the issue. I could make the same claim about atheism. People automatically assume this means god hater or satan worshipper. The utility of the word is decreased and yet you use it.A socialist open to criticismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619402773454709868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78017991447522360812011-06-01T10:29:17.159-05:002011-06-01T10:29:17.159-05:00My point, since I wasn't explicit, was that wh...My point, since I wasn't explicit, was that when this person says he's a homophobe, and we don't have contexts to distinguish between different "valid" definitions, there's no way to know <i>what he means</i> without additional paragraphs of supporting information.<br /><br />The word's utility decreases, in terms of communication value.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45653459036916776382011-06-01T10:25:17.399-05:002011-06-01T10:25:17.399-05:00Think about it.
Because, clearly, if we disagree,...<i>Think about it.</i><br /><br />Because, clearly, if we disagree, it's because we haven't.<br /><br />It's the same problem every time the word "faith" or "theory" enters a conversation. Instantly, anyone involved has no idea what, precisely, the other persons using the word are trying to say, because there's a million and one definitions.<br /><br />Language only works if the words uniquely have meaning. We can get away with having more definitions if the <i>contexts-to-definition</i> relationships are well understood.<br /><br />If I say "ram" in the context of farm animals, it's clear what I mean, as much as if I say "ram" in the context of computers.<br /><br />Without clear contexts for different definitions, the best we can do is adhere to the original meaning, lest we wish to marklar the marklar marklar. Marklar marklar a very marklarish marklar.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45530012011840346022011-06-01T09:29:10.036-05:002011-06-01T09:29:10.036-05:00Tracie
"It's like calling our show, sayi...Tracie<br /><br />"It's like calling our show, saying you're a misogynist, then insisting YOU don't hate women, and anyone who uses "misogynist" to mean woman-hater is wrong."<br /><br />Actually I think the opposite. People use the term "misogyny" to encompass more than just hatred of women. It is generally used to indicate a bigotry towards women, it is used instead of the term sexism really. Nothing about sexism or bigotry demands hatred be involved.<br /><br />This is what happens when people pay more attention to what dictionaries say then how people use words. <br /><br />It is fine to say homophobia doesn't necessarily mean hatred of gays and that misogyny doesn't necessarily mean hatred of women.<br /><br />Think about it.A socialist open to criticismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619402773454709868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9411081796322234992011-06-01T09:17:34.888-05:002011-06-01T09:17:34.888-05:00"First off, even if this were true, what diff..."First off, even if this were true, what difference would it make? Sure, homophobia can (and does) include "disgust," but it's the most asinine hair-splitting to try to claim that this emotion is somehow independent or entirely unrelated to fear or hate"<br /><br />Disgust can be completely unrelated to fear or hate. for example I am disgusted by mould that grows in my shower. Do I hate or fear the mould? Not at all. To draw a division between the emotions is fair enough. One cannot accuse someone of being a gay hater if they do not in fact hate gays but are instead disgusted by them. That is dishonest. <br /><br />"if he thinks the definition of homophobia is an inaccurate description of his attitude, then why add to the confusion by using the term to classify himself?"<br /><br />His point was the definition of homophobia DOES fit him and that you were incorrect about what it means. You admitted it can mean disgust and not hate and then later you retract this. Makes no sense to me.A socialist open to criticismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619402773454709868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16454835620387373592011-05-31T22:42:00.959-05:002011-05-31T22:42:00.959-05:00What's in a name? that which we call a rose
...What's in a name? that which we call a rose<br /> By any other name would smell as sweet;tonyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11473370383814794320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43763723227291224152011-05-31T13:55:34.049-05:002011-05-31T13:55:34.049-05:00Yes, reading these comments now it does sound like...Yes, reading these comments now it does sound like Mark may not be legit after all. But his game may be quite the other way round - pretend to be converted, and then make a story about how god made him come back to christianity. <br /><br />Further investigation is absolutely required. It would also be a demonstration of how investigation can reveal the truth about somebody, as opposed to taking them on their word. I hope the hosts find time to dig deeper.Ananthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04169202424066913692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2820839973642538332011-05-31T05:26:53.396-05:002011-05-31T05:26:53.396-05:00Martin-
In those cases where the religious try to ...Martin-<br />In those cases where the religious try to make words mean whatever they want there usually some effort to unpack that. Where the proper and the common definitions disagree clarification is needed to make sure people are talking about the same thing. Sure, in this instance the combativeness on display isn't likely to foster that sort of thing. But in principle using the term 'evolution', say, wrongly isn't an argument for it or against it. And neither is pointing out that incorrect usage an argument, in itself, against a particular position. The assumptions in the faulty definition can illuminate the error. But here Charlie says right off the bat the term is a misnomer. It has no bearing on his position either way. Charlie could easily say, to the question of why he calls himself a homophobe if it is inaccurate, "I don't know" and his position is exactly as clear and stable as it was by not managing to say anything.<br /><br />The difficulty with this conversation, here and now, is things went the way they went based on whatever conditions and perspectives there were at the time. I wasn't there. I'm not trying to "fix" it, per se. I'm just saying it didn't look to me like Charlie was solely to blame for his call turning entirely on, and never getting off of, the semantics and incorrect common usage of "homophobia".<br />Even if it was, I don't think it's a particularly enlightening point to pull someone up on. <br /><br />Also, and it goes without saying that it's not my show, but I do think bigotry of all kinds can and should be addressed intellectually as often as possible. In fact I think it's vital that it is. And I think this show is great place to do just that, even if it is gauche to the point of trolling for someone to lead with it in a conversation like he did. There's plenty of faux rationalist and secular bases/excuses for terrible ideas and people apt to say "The libruls just don't wanna face reality" when they are dismissed out of hand. The occasional reminder that it's not dismissal, they just happen to be wrong and here's why..., is a very good thing indeed. <br /><br />I saw a chance for Charlie's point of view on the matter to be clearly shown to be wrong, to him and everyone else who feels the same, not just semantically confused. So I'm a little frustrated it didn't happen (even if the take on the events differs somewhat). That's all it is.Muzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13623963325540060813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35019735016433368572011-05-30T17:23:04.783-05:002011-05-30T17:23:04.783-05:00Anti-semite, etymologically speaking, means "...Anti-semite, etymologically speaking, means "against semites" which would include Arabs. However, most people use it to mean "anti-Jew". I don't think going into the etymological definition of the term would be appropriate if a caller said he/she was an anti-semite who supported the Palestinians.<br /><br />Edit: This might not be the best example since "anti-semite" seems to never have meant anything other than anti-Jew. I don't know if "homophobe" was originally intended to mean "fear of homosexuality/homosexuals".The Fuck-Uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14424379897087177800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60618407761788971312011-05-30T17:15:47.755-05:002011-05-30T17:15:47.755-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Fuck-Uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14424379897087177800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6746628088217698222011-05-30T16:19:43.899-05:002011-05-30T16:19:43.899-05:00"You know, we don't let theists play this..."You know, we don't let theists play this game of "words get to mean what I want them to mean when their real definitions are inconvenient," so I see no reason why we should be so generous with a self-described "atheist homophobe." In any event, we were asking him why he wasn't using a different word than "homophobe" to refer to himself, and he kept steadfastly dodging the question."<br /><br />-And in this unique circumstance I disagree, it doesn't have anything to do with atheism/theism, so this is irrelevant. The point is that the word "homophobe" has taken on the cultural meaning of "disgust or strong disapproval" of homosexuality, regardless of the "technical definition". I believe this was the point that Charlie was trying to say. So he really wasn't "dodging the question", because frankly he didn't have to, it can be pretty difficult to articulate your point when you are going up against two people who dislike you, and when this happens, it can seem like he is dodging the question. No one, however, is trying to defend Charlie's bigotry here, just saying that his point on the popular meaning of the word is essentially correct. So there is no need to get extremely defensive and accuse us of giving Charlie more credit than he deserves.....because we aren't. We simply agree with him on that ONE point. Hardly giving him too much credit, because in my opinion Charlie is an ignorant anti-gay bigot.<br /><br />"If he can't do that and we call him out on it, suddenly we're the bad guys? Yeah, bullshit, dude."<br /><br />-No one is saying that this is a bad guy/good guy situation. We are merely defending Charlies point on the popular meaning of the word, not his views towards gays.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53882533377459362632011-05-30T12:49:29.489-05:002011-05-30T12:49:29.489-05:00Timwi: If you had listened on, you would have real...Timwi: <i>If you had listened on, you would have realised that what he meant by this was something like, “I am homophobic according to the common, everyday understanding of the word, not the literal, etymological or dictionary definition.”</i><br /><br />And again I say, <i>Who gives a damn?</i> Whether he's a bigot out of fear or disgust, he's still a bigot. I see no reason why we should be obligated to give bigotry a respectful hearing just because the bigot in question thinks disgust is a better justification for it than fear (perhaps because he worries the latter reflects poorly on his "manliness").<br /><br />Call us up and announce yourself as a homophobe in your opening statement, and you should not expect any more respectful treatment from us than if you announced yourself a racist or misogynist or any other kind of bigot. Fear or disgust doesn't matter.<br /><br /><i>Yes, but what the dictionary says was irrelevant to the discussion. You should have instead asked him what he meant by it — and then (if you find the word too unacceptable) suggested to just use a different word for it.</i><br /><br />You know, we don't let theists play this game of "words get to mean what I want them to mean when their real definitions are inconvenient," so I see no reason why we should be so generous with a self-described "atheist homophobe." In any event, we <i>were</i> asking him why he wasn't using a different word than "homophobe" to refer to himself, and he kept steadfastly <i>dodging the question</i>. Whether this was due to being inarticulate, stupid or dishonest, I can't say, but I can say you're giving Charlie more credit for having a salient point to make than he deserves. If he had one, it was his job to make it in a coherent fashion. If he can't do that and we call him out on it, suddenly we're the bad guys? Yeah, bullshit, dude.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22634741090046150872011-05-30T12:44:56.438-05:002011-05-30T12:44:56.438-05:00Yes, I would have to say this in one of the few ti...Yes, I would have to say this in one of the few times, if any, that I have come to a disagreement with the AE hosts, not that they were technically wrong, but they weren't right either in the way they tried to dictate the flow of the conversation. Charlie had a point in regards to the common everyday usage of the word, and in my opinion was correct. We never got past that though because Tracy and Martin weren't able to understand this simple point.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34302292534908892172011-05-30T11:50:42.995-05:002011-05-30T11:50:42.995-05:00Tracie:
Wow. My 'version' of Charlie'...Tracie:<br /><br /><i>Wow. My 'version' of Charlie's call is dishonest?</i><br /><br />Well, maybe I wouldn’t call it <i>dishonest</i>, but you are clearly unaware of the fact that you kept discussing the <i>word</i> and, by doing so, prevented discussion of <i>his actual point</i> (which was <i>not</i> about the word).<br /><br /><i>1. Charlie opened early on by saying he is homophobic.</i><br /><br />If you had listened on, you would have realised that what he meant by this was something like, “I am homophobic according to the common, everyday understanding of the word, not the literal, etymological or dictionary definition.”<br /><br /><i>2. Phobic means (and I didn't write the dictionary) irrational fear that results in aversion.</i><br /><br />Yes, but what the dictionary says was irrelevant to the discussion. You should have instead asked him <i>what he meant by it</i> — and then (if you find the word too unacceptable) suggested to just use a different word for it. Either way, you should have <i>let him get on with making his point.</i><br /><br /><i>5. He claimed I was wrong.</i><br /><br />No, he didn’t. This is the main misunderstanding. He actually <i>agreed</i> with you that the etymology of the <i>word</i> is in the Greek for “fear”. But he further elucidated that since the ancient Greek civilization, the word has changed its meaning and he wants to use the common everyday meaning, even if it could be seen as incorrect to an ancient Greek.<br /><br />To illustrate this, picture a beam in your head. What are you thinking of right now? The word <i>beam</i> has several meanings — you could be thinking of a wooden beam or a light beam, for example. But I bet that you didn’t think of a tree. Yet, that is exactly what the word meant — “tree” — before its meaning changed first to “gallows”, then to something like “elongated piece of wood” and finally to what it means today. Do you think it would be productive for you to pound on someone for (“incorrectly”) using the word “beam” to refer to a light ray when it clearly means tree?<br /><br /><i>Charlie was full of stupidity and fail.</i><br /><br />Maybe — but I would have liked to make that judgment for myself. You didn’t let me because you didn’t let Charlie make his point.Timwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15287288210524312087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55950314093846743082011-05-30T08:21:50.220-05:002011-05-30T08:21:50.220-05:00I wonder what was the point charlie was intending ...I wonder what was the point charlie was intending to make.<br /><br />I first thought he was in to explain that if it's wrong taking on gay it would also be to take on theist. Bu then got lost in the argument that it's not fear but disgust and maybe that AE is in the same case towards theists or something like that.<br /><br />I'm sure this homophobic part was only the premise to a larger argument that I'm sure was even more stupid. I would have liked you to help him just go to the end of his reasoning.jeremy.luchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17356417121563594567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45370628279985747932011-05-29T15:46:05.900-05:002011-05-29T15:46:05.900-05:00One point on the possibly-overly-literal interpret...One point on the possibly-overly-literal interpretation of "phobia" as meaning "afraid of." I think "homophobia" is a misleading term for "the anti-gay equivalent of racism," as it is generally used (heck, if only because it literally means 'an irrational fear of the same'), but that's the connotation it's gained culturally. That being said, there is some precedent for using "-phobia" in a non-literal sense; we refer to various sorts of molecules (in my experience, particularly the phospholipids that make up our cell membranes) as "hydrophilic" or "hydrophobic" based on their interactions with water. Obviously, molecules are incapable of love <i>or</i> fear, and it just has to do with whether or not the molecule will interact with water molecules. Moreover, in this instance (and some others), "-philic," meaning "loving," and "-phobic," meaning "fearing," are used as opposites, despite not actually being opposites in English usage.<br /><br />So there is <i>some</i> reason to use "homophobia" in such a way that is non-literal, and generally "-phobia" as meaning something other than "irrational fear."<br /><br />That being said, the whole conversation he was trying to start is stupid. The evolutionary argument for bigotry is a naturalistic fallacy, and even if it were based on solid science (I suspect the study he was thinking about citing was that asinine Evo-Psych one that got reamed on Pharyngula and elsewhere a few months back) it would be just as valid a justification for racism (we see chimps of one tribe acting violent and shunning chimps of other tribes, etc.). <br /><br />What people need to realize regarding homosexuality is multifold, and coming to this realization was a major part of my coming away from religion:<br /><br />1. Being disgusted by something does not make that thing wrong, nor does it give you the right to stop/prevent other people from doing it. I'm disgusted by macaroni and cheese--the smell, the sound of people eating it, the taste, etc.--but I don't get to pass laws preventing people from eating it if they like it. <br /><br />2. When two people are dating, most people don't immediately jump to thinking about all the squishy, messy, depraved things those people must do in bed--unless those people are gay. There is this underlying assumption among many straight folks (which I've heard voiced in various ways) that you can't be gay unless you've had some kind of gay sex, and that being gay is only about the sex. We don't make that assumption about straight people, because we assume "straight" is default, and that in order to be not-straight, you must already have explored your options. It's a silly assumption for a number of reasons, but once you understand that people are making it, it makes anti-gay propaganda from "teh gays are recruiting" to "gay parents will make their kids gay" to "gay people must have been abused" make a lot of sense. <br /><br />Being gay is just as much about kissing and hugging and holding hands and snuggling on the couch watching Doctor Who as being straight is. Sexuality is about who you're <i>attracted</i> to, and somehow anti-gay people tend to forget that whole part of straight relationships when homosexuality comes up.<br /><br />3. A related point: being gay is not all about butts. There's a great (and really hard-to-watch) video of one of those Ugandan preachers talking about how disgusting gays are because they "eat da poo-poo." For a lot of anti-gay bigots, their disgust toward gays is all about buttsex. That was <i>definitely</i> true for me in my homophobe days. Realizing that my problem was with <i>anal</i>, not <i>gays</i>, that straight people have more anal sex than gays, and that not liking butts didn't make me anti-gay, were major, major elements in my journey out of bigotry.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21578534959855536642011-05-29T09:14:08.518-05:002011-05-29T09:14:08.518-05:00A tad late into the discussion, but still. I'd...A tad late into the discussion, but still. I'd like to thank Russell and the other moderator(whose name escapes me) for diligently handling the many asshats that infest the chat. <br /><br />Seriously, if you have to complain about everything a show you are watching has to offer, why the fuck are you watching it in the first place?The Invisible Pink Unicornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01230632351002748527noreply@blogger.com