I'm sure you could.
I can see it now, eh?
- Thread starter Hopper
- Start date
I'm sure you could.
Hopper
Banned
I know a guy who is an utter coward. I mean a snivelin, cringin chicken-**** who is afraid of EVERYTHING which he thinks entails the slightest degree of risk, and he sees "risk" even where there aint none.
Is it a "sin" to be a coward? Is it a moral deficiency? That may depend on your definition, but I would say "no." It is a definite weakness, sure, but morality has nuthin to do with it. A baby is weak, but not morally reprehensble on that account.
That said, most (but not all) people do not "respect" cowardice. It just aint respectable, know what I'm sayin?
But this coward DEMANDS respect for, and approval of, his cowardice. In his mind, he's entitled to "respect" for his weakness because, I guess, it bothers him that he isn't respected.
If he had his way, it would be a capital offense for anyone to express the slightest disrepect for cowards. Luckily, the coward doesn't have the nads to ever be in a position to enforce his will, eh?
Is it a "sin" to be a coward? Is it a moral deficiency? That may depend on your definition, but I would say "no." It is a definite weakness, sure, but morality has nuthin to do with it. A baby is weak, but not morally reprehensble on that account.
That said, most (but not all) people do not "respect" cowardice. It just aint respectable, know what I'm sayin?
But this coward DEMANDS respect for, and approval of, his cowardice. In his mind, he's entitled to "respect" for his weakness because, I guess, it bothers him that he isn't respected.
If he had his way, it would be a capital offense for anyone to express the slightest disrepect for cowards. Luckily, the coward doesn't have the nads to ever be in a position to enforce his will, eh?
Hopper
Banned
I found this part interestin, and consistent with my prior understanding, eh, Colton?:
"Other connotations of frivolousness and showiness in dress ("gay apparel") led to association with camp and effeminacy. This association no doubt helped the gradual narrowing in scope of the term towards its current dominant meaning..." If ya click on the camp and effeminacy links, here's some of whatcha git:
"Camp derives from the French slang term se camper, meaning “to pose in an exaggerated fashion”. The OED gives 1909 as the first print citation of camp as "ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical; effeminate or homosexual; pertaining to, characteristic of, homosexuals...
Effeminacy describes traits in a human male, that are more often associated with traditional feminine nature, behavior, mannerisms, style or gender roles rather than masculine nature, behavior, mannerisms, style or roles. It is a term frequently applied to womanly behavior, demeanor, style and appearance displayed by a male, typically used implying criticism or ridicule of this behavior (as opposed to, for example, merely describing a male as feminine, which is non-judgmental)."
Seems that is what "gay" means, or was intended to mean when the term was appplied to homosexuals. Aint none of that too appealin to the average person, whatever their sexual orientation is, know what I'm sayin?
On the one hand, ya got your run of the mill homosexual. On the other, ya got your FLAMING homosexual. For better or worse, the term "gay" has seemingly traditionally been associated with the flamers.
Last edited:
Ive always seen the usage of effemacy as related to culture, there are cultures wherein female are regarded as higher than that of males.
I sorta remember the joke that in heaven, the English are cops, the French are cooks, the Germans are mechanics, the Swiss are the government officials, and the Italians are lovers.
In hell, the Germans are cops, the British are cooks, the French are mechanics, the Swiss are the lovers, and the Italians are the government officials.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Why is that?
Hopper
Banned
I like that better, Nate; it throws in the Italians and Swiss (who are they, anyway?), too. But the the stereotypin is really just beyond the pale here, eh? It is IMPOSSIBLE and STUPID to say ANYTHING about a group of people. It is WRONG, for example, for me the say "The French are good people." Some of them aint.
Of course, that particular example is especially WRONG, because, as it turns out, all of them aint.
LOL, poor Hopper. Guess there's no love for him in either Heaven or Hell.
;-)
(oh and Hopper, I like your use of the blue font up there, that's kinda camp, know what I'm sayin'?)
Hopper
Banned
I really can't even begin to fathom such a suggestion. How do you turn a description into an "insult?"
Here again is the suggestion that your subjective opinion of sumthin determines whether or not that status is despicable and whether it is therefore demeaning to hold such a status.
The true thinkin behind this seems clear. If you don't approve of something, then you are insulting anyone who does approve. You regulate and prohibit the perceived "insults" so as to enforce and instantiate a particular opinion about a subject, to wit, the one you happen to hold, which is obviously the only "correct" one.
Why do people think they have the right and duty to control and regulate the opinions of others?
Why do they think that if they disapprove of sumthin, that MAKES it bad?
Why are people so weak that they think that disagreement with, or disapproval of, their thoughts or actions is an "insult?"
Why do people think that they have every right to DEMAND, rather than earn, "respect?"
If I don't like dogs, or fishermen, or blacks, or the color yellow, then, for me, any association with such things is sumthin I disapprove of. So what? Why the perceived necessity to MAKE me approve? How can my subjective opinions be an "insult?"
Once again, here's the "non-difficult" proposition:
How do you turn a description into an "insult?"
The only way I can makes sense out of your statements, Eric, is to conclude that you in fact equate disapproval with "insult."
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
This kinda thinkin sometimes gets so distorted than some people treat it as an insult if you even attempt to "describe" anything.
For example, if I say: "Some white guy came up to me and tried to bum a cigarette," you will get a response like this from the "description is a insult" crew:
"You're obviously a racist. Would you have said "black guy," if it had been a black guy who tried to bum the cigarette? Of course you wouldn't. To even mention that the guy was white is obviously just an attempt to insult the white race."
Always cracks me plumb up, I tellya.
If some middle-eastern terrorist says, even in a whisper to his wife, that the U.S. flag symbolizes world-wide oppression and genocide, then clearly we have no choice but to immediately alter our flag. His opinion dictates the reality of the situation. Likewise if some cheese-eater says the confederate flag symbolizes the oppression of blacks. Once that is mentioned, all confederate flags must be confiscated and destroyed.
For example, if I say: "Some white guy came up to me and tried to bum a cigarette," you will get a response like this from the "description is a insult" crew:
"You're obviously a racist. Would you have said "black guy," if it had been a black guy who tried to bum the cigarette? Of course you wouldn't. To even mention that the guy was white is obviously just an attempt to insult the white race."
Always cracks me plumb up, I tellya.
If some middle-eastern terrorist says, even in a whisper to his wife, that the U.S. flag symbolizes world-wide oppression and genocide, then clearly we have no choice but to immediately alter our flag. His opinion dictates the reality of the situation. Likewise if some cheese-eater says the confederate flag symbolizes the oppression of blacks. Once that is mentioned, all confederate flags must be confiscated and destroyed.
Last edited: