Homosexuality!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.

And yet you are free to make a personal remark (as well as a completely innaccurate remark) about NS. You are strange. 

Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?

That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?

Is the word "diseased" being interpreted here as being worse than saying you have a disease or is it considered the same thing?

So if I said to someone that my husband is diseased - is that considered worse than saying he has the disease of diabetes?

Sriram said many people do not consider homosexuality a disease but he tends to disagree. So if having a disease is considered the same as being diseased then you can take it personally if you want that Sriram presumably tends to agree that you have a disease / are diseased.

But when people start talking negatively about Islam or Muslims or Christians on here, are those of us who are Muslim or Christian supposed to take it as a personal attack on us? That would mean no one could have a sensible discussion on those topics on here, so I think if theists can manage to treat the discussions in a detached way,  it seems logical that your credibility as a poster is improved if you treat a discussion on homosexuality the same way. I think it's lazy debating  and a cop out to make it personal by asking Sriram if he thinks you are diseased, especially as you made some really good points without resorting to that tactic. I disagree with NS on the whole offensive thing and agree with Rhiannon.

[Nearly Sane]

And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.

And yet you are free to make a personal remark (as well as a completely innaccurate remark) about NS. You are strange. 

Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?

That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?

Is the word "diseased" being interpreted here as being worse than saying you have a disease or is it considered the same thing?

So if I said to someone that my husband is diseased - is that considered worse than saying he has the disease of diabetes?

Sriram said many people do not consider homosexuality a disease but he tends to disagree. So if having a disease is considered the same as being diseased then you can take it personally if you want that Sriram presumably tends to agree that you have a disease / are diseased.

But when people start talking negatively about Islam or Muslims or Christians on here, are those of us who are Muslim or Christian supposed to take it as a personal attack on us? That would mean no one could have a sensible discussion on those topics on here, so I think if theists can manage to treat the discussions in a detached way,  it seems logical that your credibility as a poster is improved if you treat a discussion on homosexuality the same way. I think it's lazy debating  and a cop out to make it personal by asking Sriram if he thinks you are diseased, especially as you made some really good points without resorting to that tactic. I disagree with NS on the whole offensive thing and agree with Rhiannon.

In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each  find offensive which is entirely subjective.

As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.

Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.


On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion

[Rhiannon]

Oh I find it offensive. I just think if we post here was have to expect to get offended from time to time.

[Aruntraveller]

Gabriella

I don't really care. I know I am not diseased.

I am interested/bemused/slightly disgusted by the ducking and weaving Sririam has been doing throughout this thread. He stated at the beginning of this thread that he thought homosexuality was a disease or rather implied it as he was mean and slippery with his words. I am simply asking for clarification.

If you note my first reply I gave my reasons clearly and without rancour as to why I thought he was wrong. HE chose not to engage with that and then play the "they are all attacking me and not discussing the topic"card. When in actuality it was completely the other way around initially.

As to the issues of Islam & Christianity I'm not sure it is comparable in that sense. You can choose your religion (chorus of all sorts of objections - but you really can) you cannot choose your sexuality as even Sririam has appeared to agree (although I expect another of his obsessive posts around that subject will be along in a few minutes).

I really just want him to be clear on what he is saying - and my question was another way of trying to elicit a response from him.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh I find it offensive. I just think if we post here was have to expect to get offended from time to time.

I wouldn't post here if I wasn't offended from time to time. But I am baffled why expressing that offense is then somehow supposed to be bad as has been suggested on this thread.

[Rhiannon]

Oh I find it offensive. I just think if we post here was have to expect to get offended from time to time.

I wouldn't post here if I wasn't offended from time to time. But I am baffled why expressing that offense is then somehow supposed to be bad as has been suggested on this thread.

Indeed.

[Shaker]

I don't really care. I know I am not diseased.

I am interested/bemused/slightly disgusted by the ducking and weaving Sririam has been doing throughout this thread. He stated at the beginning of this thread that he thought homosexuality was a disease or rather implied it as he was mean and slippery with his words. I am simply asking for clarification.

That's very gracious of you, trent - perhaps too much so. I took it as abundantly clear from the off: even in the OP Sriram referred to people who don't think that homosexuality is a disease and don't think that it stands in need of a cure, and went on to say "I tend to disagree." Meaning that in his opinion it is and does. Further use of terms such as "abnormality," "cure" and "normal lives" further compounds this.

If there is some other option, some other interpretation of his words I should very much like to hear it. For me, it was crystal clear.

[Owlswing]

Basic summation of the posts on the last two or three pages of this thread:

Sririam is a shit-stirring homophobic arse who is seriously offended when people get offended by him  and objects to people who treat him as he treats them!

[Shaker]

You do have a way of cutting to the chase, Matt

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each  find offensive which is entirely subjective.

As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.

Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.


On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion

There is lots of stuff I do agree with you on but not in relation to the discussion between you and Rose on page 17. You said that Sriram had been told that his views or terminology were offensive to Trent and should therefore have withdrawn his remarks.

You also seemed to suggest that  Sriram's views on  this forum, or posters supporting on this forum what you considered legal inequality against gay people, created the conditions for or enabled violence against your gay friends. I disagree.

I think it is impossible to have a discussion if we tell people they should not state their opinions because it might lead to violence or offend particular posters with a personal stake in the issue. I think there is a huge difference between holding an opinion about an issue related to gay people and supporting violence against gay people. I think feeling bad because you have a personal stake in issues under discussion goes with the territory of being on an internet forum.

Please note, I am not saying that posters should stop giving Sriram or anyone else (including me) grief for opinions expressed on here - most of us are pretty good at being offensive to each other and it seems to be part of the "charm" of this particular forum. Besides, Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.

Regarding detachment - yes it is a polite fiction - but IMO  on an Internet forum it's more effective in influencing views than making an issue personal and telling people how upset you are by it. Or maybe it's just me - in real life making things personal would influence me because I would be dealing with an individual rather than an abstract concept, plus the person's voice, facial expressions, body language, story, would have an impact, but not on an Internet forum that IMO is meant to facilitate discussion.

[Shaker]

Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.

Hm - by running away.

[Nearly Sane]

In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each  find offensive which is entirely subjective.

As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.

Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.


On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion

There is lots of stuff I do agree with you on but not in relation to the discussion between you and Rose on page 17. You said that Sriram had been told that his views or terminology were offensive to Trent and should therefore have withdrawn his remarks.

You also seemed to suggest that  Sriram's views on  this forum, or posters supporting on this forum what you considered legal inequality against gay people, created the conditions for or enabled violence against your gay friends. I disagree.

I think it is impossible to have a discussion if we tell people they should not state their opinions because it might lead to violence or offend particular posters with a personal stake in the issue. I think there is a huge difference between holding an opinion about an issue related to gay people and supporting violence against gay people. I think feeling bad because you have a personal stake in issues under discussion goes with the territory of being on an internet forum.

Please note, I am not saying that posters should stop giving Sriram or anyone else (including me) grief for opinions expressed on here - most of us are pretty good at being offensive to each other and it seems to be part of the "charm" of this particular forum. Besides, Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.

Regarding detachment - yes it is a polite fiction - but IMO  on an Internet forum it's more effective in influencing views than making an issue personal and telling people how upset you are by it. Or maybe it's just me - in real life making things personal would influence me because I would be dealing with an individual rather than an abstract concept, plus the person's voice, facial expressions, body language, story, would have an impact, but not on an Internet forum that IMO is meant to facilitate discussion.

I suggest you reread page 17, I don't make any comment that Sriram should necessarily have withdrawn his remarks but that given that he did not withdraw it meant that he was still implying that Trent had a disease. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella

I don't really care. I know I am not diseased.

I am interested/bemused/slightly disgusted by the ducking and weaving Sririam has been doing throughout this thread. He stated at the beginning of this thread that he thought homosexuality was a disease or rather implied it as he was mean and slippery with his words. I am simply asking for clarification.

OK - it was a tactic - fair enough.

If you note my first reply I gave my reasons clearly and without rancour as to why I thought he was wrong. HE chose not to engage with that and then play the "they are all attacking me and not discussing the topic"card. When in actuality it was completely the other way around initially.

Yes I did note that and thought your responses were very good.

As to the issues of Islam & Christianity I'm not sure it is comparable in that sense. You can choose your religion (chorus of all sorts of objections - but you really can) you cannot choose your sexuality as even Sririam has appeared to agree (although I expect another of his obsessive posts around that subject will be along in a few minutes).

How likely does it seem to you that anything said on here is going to cause anyone to change their religion or become a theist or atheist?

Even if you can choose your beliefs or religion or politics or nationality people can still be offended by negative generalisations about them, such as all theists are weak-minded or all atheists are immoral, or all adherents of Islam or Christianity support slavery or rape, and I just think it is usually more effective to stick to debating the issue.

I really just want him to be clear on what he is saying - and my question was another way of trying to elicit a response from him.

Ok - yes I get that now, and this can be an effective tactic too.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each  find offensive which is entirely subjective.

As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.

Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.


On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion

There is lots of stuff I do agree with you on but not in relation to the discussion between you and Rose on page 17. You said that Sriram had been told that his views or terminology were offensive to Trent and should therefore have withdrawn his remarks.

You also seemed to suggest that  Sriram's views on  this forum, or posters supporting on this forum what you considered legal inequality against gay people, created the conditions for or enabled violence against your gay friends. I disagree.

I think it is impossible to have a discussion if we tell people they should not state their opinions because it might lead to violence or offend particular posters with a personal stake in the issue. I think there is a huge difference between holding an opinion about an issue related to gay people and supporting violence against gay people. I think feeling bad because you have a personal stake in issues under discussion goes with the territory of being on an internet forum.

Please note, I am not saying that posters should stop giving Sriram or anyone else (including me) grief for opinions expressed on here - most of us are pretty good at being offensive to each other and it seems to be part of the "charm" of this particular forum. Besides, Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.

Regarding detachment - yes it is a polite fiction - but IMO  on an Internet forum it's more effective in influencing views than making an issue personal and telling people how upset you are by it. Or maybe it's just me - in real life making things personal would influence me because I would be dealing with an individual rather than an abstract concept, plus the person's voice, facial expressions, body language, story, would have an impact, but not on an Internet forum that IMO is meant to facilitate discussion.

I suggest you reread page 17, I don't make any comment that Sriram should necessarily have withdrawn his remarks but that given that he did not withdraw it meant that he was still implying that Trent had a disease.

Ok apologies - you didn't say Sriram should withdraw his remark.

You said:

Sriram says in the OP he thinks that homosexuality is a disease. Trent explains why that is hurtful. Sriram dies not withdraw remark and continues to write that he regards it as a disease. Ergo Sriram is stating that he regards Trent as diseased.

I think it's a huge jump from discussing the abstract of whether homosexuality should be treated like a disease and cured to saying Sriram is saying Trent is diseased , based just on Trent findsing the discussion topic offensive, so I don't agree with your ergo.

[Nearly Sane]

He does n' t say it should be treated like a disease, he says he thinks it is one. If he thinks it is a disease then he thinks Trent has that disease.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.

Hm - by running away.

Well, I didn't mean he is convincing anyone that gay people are a threat to the continuation of the human race. I meant I don't think he is particularly upset - probably eating his dinner.

[Shaker]

I think it's a huge jump from discussing the abstract of whether homosexuality should be treated like a disease and cured to saying Sriram is saying Trent is diseased , based just on Trent findsing the discussion topic offensive, so I don't agree with your ergo.

There's no "whether" about it. Sriram considers homosexuality a disease, an abnormality which should be cured so that people can go on to lead normal lives.

Just how much clearer does it have to before you give up this risible, mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy policy of appeasement of his obnoxious views?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

He does n' t say it should be treated like a disease, he says he thinks it is one.

Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure"  that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further. Len's response to the OP indicates he read it the same way?

he thinks it is a disease then he thinks Trent has that disease.

Or he thinks we should discuss whether it is a good thing to develop a treatment for it, though he uses the term " cure" which is like the difference between "having a disease" and "diseased" - IMO the discussion about the ethics of treatment is side-tracked by these subtle differences in the wording used.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think it's a huge jump from discussing the abstract of whether homosexuality should be treated like a disease and cured to saying Sriram is saying Trent is diseased , based just on Trent findsing the discussion topic offensive, so I don't agree with your ergo.

There's no "whether" about it. Sriram considers homosexuality a disease, an abnormality which should be cured so that people can go on to lead normal lives.

Just how much clearer does it have to before you give up this risible, mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy policy of appeasement of his obnoxious views?

Interesting tactic - good use of rhythm in the words - but doesn't work. I will of course be continuing any and all mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy - you fill in the rest. Or add a few more new ones 

ETA: oops - forgot risible.

[Shaker]

Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure"  that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.

So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?

Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure"  that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.

So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?

Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.

Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.

On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.

[Shaker]

Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.

Or discuss very much of anything at all outside of the Muslim Topic, fortunately.

On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.

You will be pointing out any logical problems with anything I've said, won't you?

[Nearly Sane]

Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure"  that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.

So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?

Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.

Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.

On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.

'Deranged, emotive' hmmm the irony

[Sriram]

Hi Gabriella,

Yes...I was having my dinner and also watching a little bit of the IPL matches that are going on.  Just peeped in for a quick look at what this infantile bunch here are up to.  More of the same... as expected.

I think... short of calling for mommy they have been indulging in every other tactic possible. Someone even mentioned his mom actually!

"He said this...he said that....he called him such and such....he called me such and such...I asked him and he didn't answer"...etc.etc.  Goodness! 

And all these long drawn complaints from a bunch of foul mouthed fellas who can't write two sentences without some sort of a personal offensive remark! Believe that! All they have been doing in this whole thread is talk about me and call me names and so on.    

The subject of epigenetics is probably too much for them. There is so much that can be discussed about the research possibilities and the way life could change. But...no! They get all defensive  and start baring their fangs at me. LOL!

Anyway, thanks for your mature defense of my posts, Gabriella. I am off now for some more cricket and then... hit the bed.

Goodnight!

Sriram

[Shaker]

What an utterly pathetic farrago of whining, poor-little-me superiority-complex bullshit.

All they have been doing in this whole thread is talk about me

And that, I strongly suspect, was the intention all along. Attention whoring, essentially.

Your view of "the way life could change" apparently consists of the "treatment" (which actually means eradication) of homosexuality, doesn't it Sriram?