What grinds my gears...

[String fellow]

2 hours ago, shade said:

flowers are gay?

They have both male and female reproductive parts. At school we were taught that the Stamen is the male part and the Stigma is the female part. The bold type is my way of remembering which is which. 

[Buce]

3 hours ago, shade said:

flowers are gay?

 

Please explain.

[Phil Bowman]

1 hour ago, shade said:

I place my genitalia inside another males rectum

I love this choice of verb. Makes it sound somewhat akin to daintily positioning a plate of vol-au-vents on a doily.

[Milo]

2 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

I love this choice of verb. Makes it sound somewhat akin to daintily positioning a plate of vol-au-vents on a doily.

My new favourite euphemism 🤣🤣

[shade]

7 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

I love this choice of verb. Makes it sound somewhat akin to daintily positioning a plate of vol-au-vents on a doily.

hey, I'm a lover not a fighter!

[shade]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Please explain.

it was meant to be a flippant comment on the fact that generally flowers are more likely to appeal to women than men, although I'm hyper aware in the modern world of non conformist gender roles, this is probably frowned upon.

[HighPeakFox]

30 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

I love this choice of verb. Makes it sound somewhat akin to daintily positioning a plate of vol-au-vents on a doily.

Almost spat my dinner out.

[The Bear]

The only thing that I have to say in this debate is that if you wanted to take the piss out of someone at school you'd call them Gaybo or Gaylord. 

 

Although, I still scream at the TV "get up you girl" if a football player falls over too easily after a challenge. If that makes me a monster then so be it. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Almost spat my dinner out.

 

I have the same issue every time I eat at the mother-in-law's...

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, shade said:

So taking it back to my original, flippant and jokey comment calling flowers gay in relation to Forest, we accept that my context and intent means the word gay can be an insult regardless of whether there's anything wrong with homosexuality (which is in itself subjective).

As Milo said above....

 

...huh?

 

An elaboration would be welcome.

 

(No argument with the other point made however.)

[Jon the Hat]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As Milo said above....

 

...huh?

 

An elaboration would be welcome.

 

(No argument with the other point made however.)

To be fair when something like half the population of the world think homosexuality is a sin, I don’t think saying that is subjective is particularly controversial.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be fair when something like half the population of the world think homosexuality is a sin, I don’t think saying that is subjective is particularly controversial.

Touche, that half of the population of the world being objectively wrong and having zero actual moral authority on the matter notwithstanding.

[Phil Bowman]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be fair when something like half the population of the world think homosexuality is a sin, I don’t think saying that is subjective is particularly controversial.

Yeah? Well, once upon a time the entire population of the world thought the world was flat. Is that subjective too?

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

Yeah? Well, once upon a time the entire population of the world thought the world was flat. Is that subjective too?

TBF though we are treading a pretty fine line involving interplay of science and morality here, even though both (at the most basic level) rely on consensus.

 

There's a difference between empirical fact and a moral stance that enough people choose to make (in this case homosexuality being perfectly fine), as correct as it is.

[shade]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

As Milo said above....

 

...huh?

 

An elaboration would be welcome.

 

(No argument with the other point made however.)

It's patently a subjective issue, you can't just assume that objectively you're right that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, do you know how absurd that is? Depending on the date in human history or the place in the world that you dropped out of your mother's vagina determines whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong, how can that make it not subjective?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

It's patently a subjective issue, you can't just assume that objectively you're right that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, do you know how absurd that is? Depending on the date in human history or the place in the world that you dropped out of your mother's vagina determines whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong, how can that make it not subjective?

Yeah, I can't disagree, see above discussion.

 

I think that it's objectively morally correct that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality (because all of the arguments against it are fallacious at the present time in one form or another) and I'll take issue with anyone who thinks otherwise, but there is a difference between that and empiricism.

[shade]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I can't disagree, see above discussion.

 

I think that it's objectively morally correct that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality (because all of the arguments against it are fallacious at the present time in one form or another) and I'll take issue with anyone who thinks otherwise, but there is a difference between that and empiricism.

I mean, I could put up a straw man argument just for the sake of debate that homosexual men are far more likely to engage in dangerous sexual activity and spread a (until recently) deadly disease through the population, and so morally you could say there was something wrong with it. I don't believe that, I'm just pointing out that talking in absolutes is difficult.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Phil Bowman said:

Yeah? Well, once upon a time the entire population of the world thought the world was flat. Is that subjective too?

Hey I put no weight whatsoever on religious teachings, but you really can’t say these two examples are the same.  Fact vs opinion.

[leicsmac]

Just now, shade said:

I mean, I could put up a straw man argument just for the sake of debate that homosexual men are far more likely to engage in dangerous sexual activity and spread a (until recently) deadly disease through the population, and so morally you could say there was something wrong with it. I don't believe that, I'm just pointing out that talking in absolutes is difficult.

...and I'm sure I could find data implying otherwise.

 

But yes, talking in absolutes is difficult, and perhaps this level of defence is taken precisely because of the level of discrimination homosexuals have been forced to endure (both personal and institutionalised) in the past. That's not exactly a scientific stance on my part, but I do believe it to be a moral one. And when it comes to such things, sometimes that's all we have to go on.

 

Don't treat other people as things, one might say.

[The Bear]

2 hours ago, Phil Bowman said:

Yeah? Well, once upon a time the entire population of the world thought the world was flat. Is that subjective too?

Well no they didn't, that's a myth. Even the ancient Greeks knew the world was a sphere. 

 

[BKLFox]

With the news that Claudette Colvin has finally had her arrest record expunged at the age of 82 for not giving up her seat on a bus for a white woman both amazes and saddens me that it was only 66 years ago this was happening, we probably have posters on here that are older, & the fact it took 66yrs to clear her record.

[Carl the Llama]

13 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be fair when something like half the population of the world think homosexuality is a sin, I don’t think saying that is subjective is particularly controversial.

"all opinions are equal and valid"

[Jattdogg]

...Bunch of foxes on here...

[Phil Bowman]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

TBF though we are treading a pretty fine line involving interplay of science and morality here, even though both (at the most basic level) rely on consensus.

 

There's a difference between empirical fact and a moral stance that enough people choose to make (in this case homosexuality being perfectly fine), as correct as it is.

Tbh I was just making the point that just because people believe something, it ain’t necessarily so. I should have used a different example though to avoid this confusion.

[Phil Bowman]

8 hours ago, shade said:

It's patently a subjective issue, you can't just assume that objectively you're right that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, do you know how absurd that is? Depending on the date in human history or the place in the world that you dropped out of your mother's vagina determines whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong, how can that make it not subjective?

Because thinking it is wrong is itself wrong. The issue isn’t that people think something. Just because people think something doesn’t mean it’s subjective; it’s also possible that people are just plain wrong.

 

Some people believe there is a god; some believe there isn’t. This isn’t a subjective thing; one side is simply wrong (the problem here is that it’s a bit tricky to prove which side this is, but that’s a different issue!).

 

People have believed (plenty still do in fact) that people with brown skin are intrinsically inferior to people with pinkish skin. That doesn’t make this issue subjective, a matter of opinion. Those people are just plain wrong.