girls

oh wow

>>74
Only niggers and jews care about ``civil rights''. I say, fuck you, back of the bus, nigger.

>>76
Yes, yes I do.  The same way that calling you a nigger doesn't make me a racist because words are not magical and intent is really what matters.

>>75
Because sex minus consent equals rape, and children are simply not ready, both biologically and mentally, to give consent.

>>82
Because sex minus consent equals rape, and children are simply not ready, both biologically and mentally, to give consent.
Why not?

>>80
Whether I am jewish or not (incidentally, I am not) bears no significance as to the validity of my arguments.  Only a illogical racist retard would claim otherwise.

>>81
Freedom of expression is what allows you to spew your retarded bullshit on a public textboard.  If you want to be a right-less slave, why don't you go to North Korea.

>>76
Sally rents a flat downtown. She meets run aways on the street and lets them crash at her place. Some of these run aways are teenagers that were kicked out when they came out to their parents. Sally also calls people ``faggot'' when she is angry.

Is Sally homophobic?

>>82
Yes, yes I do.  The same way that calling you a nigger doesn't make me a racist because words are not magical and intent is really what matters.
Intent matters, but so does the basic empathy to realise what words mean to people, you entitled manbaby.
How the fuck is appropriating a slur that applies to a specific group of people and repurposing it to mean ``anything generally bad'' not fucked up in the intent department, anyway? It's not the same as using those slurs against members of that group, but it's still saying ``members of that group are self-evidently undesirable, so it makes sense to use words that refer to them as a generic insult''.

You sound like you've lived a life full of privilege and completely devoid of introspection. I genuinely hope you're only a teenager, because if not, that's fucking embarrassing.

>>83
Biologically, it can easily be shown that females aren't ready to reproduce before the age of 12-14 years old, when their periods begin.  The situation can be inferred to be similar for males.

Mentally, (save a few mathematical geniuses) they're not logical enough to fully asses the medical and social issues of sexuality, nor do they have the information required (or the capacity to comprehend it) to take such a decision.

>>86
I say ``shit'' when I get angry, does that mean I'm telling everyone they're a dog turd?

Should I check my non-canine privilege?

>>85
Yes. Your imaginary Sally has serious problems with unchecked privilege. The existence of cognitive dissonance does not absolve people of all sins.

>>88
Wit.

░░█░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░
░███░░░░░░░░░█░█░███
█████░░░░░░░█░░░██░█
░░█░░░░░░░░█░░░░░███
░░█░░░░░░█████░░░░░░
░░▒░░█░██░░░░░██░█░░
░░▒░█░█░░█░░░█░░█░█░
▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░██░░
░▒▒▒░░█░░█░░░█░░█░░░
░░▒░░░░█░░███░░█░░░░
░░░░░░░░█░░░░░█░░░░░

>>87
(save a few mathematical geniuses)
Mathematical insight and emotional maturity have fuck-all to do with each other. Don't weaken a self-evidently strong position with bullshit.
On that topic, menarche is not the same as sexual maturity either.

>>87
Human frequently engage in sex for pleasure. Why would reproduction capability be a good measure for a minimum age to have sexual contact?

nor do they have the information required
What information is required?

>>86
you entitled manbaby.
Fuck you, fagshit.

It's not the same as using those slurs against members of that group, but it's still saying ``members of that group are self-evidently undesirable, so it makes sense to use words that refer to them as a generic insult''.
That's your dumb interpretation, fagshit.  See, I called you fagshit.  Does it mean I have anything against homosexuals?  No.

You sound like you've lived a life full of privilege and completely devoid of introspection.
That's it, die in a fire.  Come back when you've understood ad hominem.

>>89
Your imaginary Sally has serious problems with unchecked privilege.
Definitely, we must make laws to stop these evil thought-criminals from uttering words that offend some people and to even things out.

>>91
I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't know how to make an argument based on emotional maturity.  Sorry.

On that topic, menarche is not the same as sexual maturity either.
Well, at least it sets a lower bound on age.

>>93
Look, I know that for an stubborn and emotionally stunted douche this must be hard to understand, but sometimes you say things for people to prod people into reflecting about the world and their relationship to it, like when you start on hyperbolic ramblings about thought-crime and what not.

One of such things is reminding people of their privilege as to let them think about why they are saying dumb-ass shit devoid of any consideration for their fellow human beings, such as that people oppressed and persecuted should just take the slurs used to marginalize them like a champ, because they come from the mouth of someone who claims to understand them.

>>93
Back to /b/, please. (On your way there, take your own advice and look up what is and isn't ad hominem.)

>>95

After many repeated scannings, I managed to extract the following statement:

NEGATION(people oppressed and persecuted should just take the slurs used to marginalize them like a champ, because they come from the mouth of someone who claims to understand them)

If this is what your intended argument was, then my response would be as follows:

Please connect this statement to your proof of:

If one says the word ``faggot'', they are homophobic.

>>97
Which wasn't my argument, I just said that it made you inconsiderate and cruel.

But, if you ask so, my argument would be as follows: the fact that if one proffers statements which continue to cement the hopelessness of homosexual people, an oppressed people, then the act is homophobic. If one does so consciously, then one is homophobic.

>>95
Look, I know that for an stubborn and emotionally stunted douche this must be hard to understand
Oh, the irony.

but sometimes you say things for people to prod people into reflecting about the world and their relationship to it, like when you start on hyperbolic ramblings about thought-crime and what not.
Yes, and abstractions can be good or bad.

One of such things is reminding people of their privilege
Which is a shitty abstraction because it encourages further discrimination.

saying dumb-ass shit devoid of any consideration for their fellow human beings, such as that people oppressed and persecuted should just take the slurs used to marginalize them like a champ,
There is no such thing as the right not to be offended.  If you think words are magical and get all uppity about them, it's your fucking fault.  Calling you a faggot references a different meaning of faggot that has less to do with sexual orientation and more with being an annoyingly vociferous cretin.  If a homosexual is offended because I called you a faggot based on the fact that you are an annoyingly vociferous cretin, then it's their problem for not understanding that words may have more than one meaning.

because they come from the mouth of someone who claims to understand them.
But it's okay to use them if you're part of the poor persecuted minority because ``you understand''.  That's discrimination.

>>96
Fuck off, ``faggot''.

>>98
But, if you ask so, my argument would be as follows: the fact that if one proffers statements which continue to cement the hopelessness of homosexual people, an oppressed people, then the act is homophobic.
Prove it, faggot.  Tell me how my words magically oppress people at a distance.

>>99
The lesson here is that not all discrimination is equal. Like how minors are discriminated against on a myriad of activities, for sound reasons.

And yes, you, as an outsider, are being discriminated on the use of slurs against an oppressed class because it was oppressed by outsiders, like, by definition.

Besides, we aren't talking of a legal right here. We are talking about mindful coexistence. Come on, you can get it.

Props on keeping this discussion saged, though.

>>101
Edgy post, bro! Why don't you use its edge to shave off that neckbeard?

>>101
Fuck you, that's how.

>>102
Props on keeping this discussion saged
Back to /jp/, idiot!

>>101
Like, feelings. You know those? Like the frustration and anger which you feel now. BTW, you are a homophobe.

u mad?

>>99
There is no such thing as the right not to be offended.
It's interesting how you entitled fuckwits always turn ``you're an asshole for doing X'' into ``doing X should be against the law''. You're so terrified of coming to realise what a shitty person your unexamined privilege has made you that you've turned it into a desperate victim complex.

Calling you a faggot references a different meaning of faggot that has less to do with sexual orientation and more with being an annoyingly vociferous cretin.
Except that you're doing this because you associate ``annoyingly vociferous cretin'' Do you think ten-dollar words make you look more sophisticated? with stereotypes about homosexuals. You missed the entire point of that Louis CK skit.
The problem here isn't everyone else for understanding what words mean; it's you for dishonestly pretending your private supposed meaning is universal and dominant. It's entitlement at its most whiny and infantile.

Homosexuality is objectively immoral because it is a self-destructive behavior.

It is self-destructive because anal sex is unhealthy due to the fact that the anal tears caused by penetration are infected by the fecal matters of the receiver of the penis. This contamination of the blood stream causes a plethora of diseases.

The same is also true for oral sex, which has now been shown to cause mouth cancer in rates exceeding tobacco. Plus, the tears of the penis caused by the teeth can also result in infection to the receiver of oral sex.

Masturbation is the most healthy of the sexual practices of homosexual, but it is not completely safe since hands are one of dirtiest places on the body which can cause infection to the penis. Also, masturbation is often accompanied by the other sexual acts mentioned bellow. The only way for homosexuality to be acceptable would be for the homos to solely engage in mutual masturbation after having decontaminated the body parts involved (hands, penis).

Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.
37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism.

41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.

Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries.

The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.


This is why homosexuality is for the most part objectively immoral.

>>98

And I completely agree with this statement. The difference is in the intention. Faggot is a word that homophobes use to do what you described. But if one uses the word faggot, they may not be using the word with the same intention. If someone hears them use the word faggot, and in the context, interprets their use of the word as for the oppressive intention, then that is unfortunate. But it is still nothing more than a misunderstanding.

To clear the misunderstanding, the speaker can clarify that they do not intend to use the word faggot in the same way used by homophobes. Another is for the listener to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, until further evidence of their intent becomes apparent. I find the later to be reasonable. Don't make a judgment on a person until you have enough information to confirm the judgment. If you jump to conclusions, then you are responsible for the erroneous judgment.

>>109
To clear the misunderstanding, the speaker can clarify that they do not intend to use the word faggot in the same way used by homophobes.
``I didn't mean that he was awful for being gay, I just meant that he was awful, and indicated this by calling him a name that suggested he was gay!''

Fuck you.

>>110
the explanation would be voluntary.

check my tripz

>>109
Easier said than done, and a demand imposed by the powerful on the oppressed, and that's where this privilege thing comes into play.

But seriously, this shit's tiresome. I'm out of here.

lel

>>112
It is tiresome. And you should know that I agree with you. I wasn't talking so much about what is the right or wrong things to do and say, but just the ambiguous nature of words and communication.

>>102
And yes, you, as an outsider, are being discriminated on the use of slurs against an oppressed class because it was oppressed by outsiders, like, by definition.
Accept discrimination for bogus reasons?  No thanks.

Besides, we aren't talking of a legal right here. We are talking about mindful coexistence. Come on, you can get it.
Of course, I wouldn't publicly use words like faggot or nigger because homophobes and racists could interpret their usage as a confirmation of their ass-backwards beliefs.  But if I'm among friends who are all convinced anti-homophobes, there's nothing wrong with using the word faggot as a pejorative term unrelated to homosexuality since there's no possibility of misinterpretation.

>>103-104
Fuck you, dipshit.

>>106
I didn't know that because I told my friend over encrypted messenger that I think ``My Little Pony is gay'', it's going to make a lot of homosexuals angry and frustrated.

>>107
It's interesting how you entitled fuckwits always turn ``you're an asshole for doing X'' into ``doing X should be against the law''.
When a lot of people think that ``you're an asshole for doing X'', there's an imminent danger that doing X will become illegal.  And I really really hate it when people try to curtail my essential rights, such as that to absolute freedom of expression.

You're so terrified of coming to realise what a shitty person your unexamined privilege has made you that you've turned it into a desperate victim complex.
I reject your idiotic abstraction.  Try to reformulate your bullshit without it, or shut the fuck up.

Do you think ten-dollar words make you look more sophisticated?
Die in a fire, cretin.

You missed the entire point of that Louis CK skit.
Which one?  I guess I missed that one.

it's you for dishonestly pretending your private supposed meaning is universal and dominant.
As mentioned above, I wouldn't use this kind of word when speaking to a general audience since they wouldn't understand the correct meaning.

>>112
Well, I disagree with you, and think you are an idiot.

oh yeah and impolite bump.

fucking nigger lovers ruined the thread

/newpol/ is that way ↭

>>115
No, pejoratively it's still shit. Maybe if you used it devoid of such connotations, I'm not sure. But you ain't.

And the freeze peaches aren't in any real danger here, we can police behavior as a community and that allows for more fluidity than just putting it in the hands of the actual police.

You are still a stubborn and self-important asshole, by the way.

where is the blankpost spammer when you need him

where is the blankpost spammer when you need him

where is the blankpost spammer when you need him

where is the blankpost spammer when you need him

where is the blankpost spammer when you need him