Active Users:322 Time:05/04/2025 12:00:09 AM
Once again...who are you to make that determination. Jeordam Send a noteboard - 17/08/2018 09:54:41 PM

View original post
It is one thing to freeze up when a spider comes near you. Yes, that is definitely phobia.

But you not wanting fish isn't classified as a phobia, even though you have a clear aversion to it, because you're not saying all seafood is bad, or that people who eat seafood are in some way wrong, or less of a human being, or committing a sin.

For a person to say "homsexual intercourse isn't for me" wouldn't be homophobia. That's their sexuality. But to judge others who are homosexual is different. When aversion to the innate nature of a person, or a group of people, is used to demean them, I think that very much counts as a phobia.


So someone believing something different or contrary is considered a phobia? Since when is that the case? Do you not see that you are judging him just as much (and some could argue even more so) than you accuse him of judging? He is standing among the tenants of his faith. A faith system that's been around for a very long time. A faith system that millions of people believe in. Yet you so very easily declare it "phobic". Sure, there are the wackos out there who very loudly HATE, but there are more who just don't agree.

Don't automatically think that the goal is to demean someone. Don't automatically think that the purpose is to judge them. I don't think that just because someone is gay that they have sex with everything that moves, or that they are effeminate/butch. Much like I don't think that just because someone is <insert characteristic here> that they are <insert corresponding stereotype here>.

I originally asked you how you could tell that someone is phobic, and you jumped to the conclusion that aversion to a behavior in order to demean them is translated to a phobia. I'm still wondering how you know his motivations. How do you know his motive is to demean them?

~Jeordam

ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Reply to message
Interesting article in my Twitter feed last night on an issue Greg (The Shrike) brought up... - 15/08/2018 03:05:37 PM 1170 Views
I thought this response in the comment sectionwas funny - 15/08/2018 08:12:49 PM 505 Views
I was thinking about this at lunch today.... - 15/08/2018 11:43:33 PM 471 Views
I don't - 16/08/2018 12:09:32 AM 486 Views
It seemed more like moondog was making a prostitution reference to me *NM* - 16/08/2018 02:51:23 AM 258 Views
Say what? - 16/08/2018 09:47:19 PM 485 Views
It is a more of a domination / hierarchy reference I think *NM* - 16/08/2018 09:57:23 PM 254 Views
Re: Say what? - 16/08/2018 10:33:43 PM 530 Views
Yes, but there's more to it... - 16/08/2018 10:38:05 PM 466 Views
Says who? - 19/08/2018 05:05:37 AM 491 Views
However much of a hypocrite moondog is, the article, I feel, represents something else - 16/08/2018 05:51:59 AM 507 Views
Phobia - 16/08/2018 10:55:05 PM 493 Views
You don't even understand oral sex? - 17/08/2018 12:43:50 AM 480 Views
Get to a sex education class, won't you? Or at least, use Google - 17/08/2018 05:29:25 AM 430 Views
I am a normal male person, who had conversations with other male people. - 17/08/2018 08:25:48 AM 454 Views
Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 17/08/2018 04:13:09 PM 510 Views
Re: Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 19/08/2018 03:23:10 AM 501 Views
You are wrong about Cannoli. - 17/08/2018 02:49:35 AM 492 Views
No - 17/08/2018 05:41:22 AM 468 Views
Re: No - 19/08/2018 03:29:15 AM 514 Views
Cannoli is right: "sucks" implies the active party in oral sex - 17/08/2018 03:04:40 AM 578 Views
That would be the "receptive partner" in scientific terminology - 17/08/2018 05:44:16 AM 462 Views
Fuck scientific terminology. It blows. - 17/08/2018 08:26:16 AM 474 Views
Regarding phobia - 17/08/2018 06:30:51 PM 503 Views
There's a pretty simple test, I think - 17/08/2018 08:02:31 PM 467 Views
Once again...who are you to make that determination. - 17/08/2018 09:54:41 PM 445 Views
*I* don't make the determination, liberal society did. - 18/08/2018 12:02:22 AM 485 Views
So for clarity - 18/08/2018 01:28:17 AM 482 Views
Yes! - 18/08/2018 01:46:05 AM 464 Views
Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:10:46 AM 467 Views
Re: Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:32:41 AM 482 Views
Are you asking a serious question? - 18/08/2018 02:45:03 AM 492 Views
Yes, I was - 18/08/2018 01:59:48 PM 491 Views
"liberal" society does not police speech - 19/08/2018 03:31:54 AM 482 Views
You don't need to protect speech everyone agrees with. *NM* - 19/08/2018 06:02:17 PM 293 Views
It most certainly *does* police speech. - 20/08/2018 03:01:32 PM 478 Views
But to follow up on that. - 20/08/2018 03:16:07 PM 475 Views
Well, that's why we didn't stop with the FIRST Amendment *NM* - 21/08/2018 04:25:53 PM 242 Views
That's individuals policing speech, not society. Agregate individual action =/= collective action - 21/08/2018 04:25:23 PM 490 Views
I completely agree. - 21/08/2018 04:35:38 PM 448 Views
heh, heh, heh - 21/08/2018 05:00:32 PM 461 Views
Hump it like you mean it! - 21/08/2018 07:00:01 PM 507 Views
About the casual part - 16/08/2018 10:33:45 PM 456 Views
I don't think it's appropriate, but I think it's more about sexual shaming - 16/08/2018 10:35:53 PM 529 Views
Precisely - 16/08/2018 10:59:42 PM 491 Views
You are absolutely correct - 17/08/2018 02:43:21 AM 480 Views
I, for one, am glad to see this topic go flaming. - 17/08/2018 05:16:55 PM 549 Views
Yes, it is a tool used by those who should "know better". - 20/08/2018 03:14:30 PM 450 Views
well said - 20/08/2018 03:50:50 PM 499 Views

Reply to Message