Active Users:1156 Time:23/11/2024 12:35:58 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 1098 Views
I thought this response in the comment sectionwas funny - 15/08/2018 08:12:49 PM 437 Views
I was thinking about this at lunch today.... - 15/08/2018 11:43:33 PM 406 Views
I don't - 16/08/2018 12:09:32 AM 420 Views
It seemed more like moondog was making a prostitution reference to me *NM* - 16/08/2018 02:51:23 AM 230 Views
Say what? - 16/08/2018 09:47:19 PM 415 Views
It is a more of a domination / hierarchy reference I think *NM* - 16/08/2018 09:57:23 PM 229 Views
Re: Say what? - 16/08/2018 10:33:43 PM 463 Views
Yes, but there's more to it... - 16/08/2018 10:38:05 PM 397 Views
Says who? - 19/08/2018 05:05:37 AM 437 Views
However much of a hypocrite moondog is, the article, I feel, represents something else - 16/08/2018 05:51:59 AM 436 Views
Phobia - 16/08/2018 10:55:05 PM 425 Views
You don't even understand oral sex? - 17/08/2018 12:43:50 AM 424 Views
Get to a sex education class, won't you? Or at least, use Google - 17/08/2018 05:29:25 AM 365 Views
I am a normal male person, who had conversations with other male people. - 17/08/2018 08:25:48 AM 420 Views
Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 17/08/2018 04:13:09 PM 429 Views
Re: Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 19/08/2018 03:23:10 AM 435 Views
You are wrong about Cannoli. - 17/08/2018 02:49:35 AM 436 Views
No - 17/08/2018 05:41:22 AM 407 Views
Re: No - 19/08/2018 03:29:15 AM 442 Views
Cannoli is right: "sucks" implies the active party in oral sex - 17/08/2018 03:04:40 AM 503 Views
That would be the "receptive partner" in scientific terminology - 17/08/2018 05:44:16 AM 391 Views
Fuck scientific terminology. It blows. - 17/08/2018 08:26:16 AM 407 Views
Regarding phobia - 17/08/2018 06:30:51 PM 427 Views
There's a pretty simple test, I think - 17/08/2018 08:02:31 PM 404 Views
Once again...who are you to make that determination. - 17/08/2018 09:54:41 PM 387 Views
*I* don't make the determination, liberal society did. - 18/08/2018 12:02:22 AM 421 Views
So for clarity - 18/08/2018 01:28:17 AM 412 Views
Yes! - 18/08/2018 01:46:05 AM 412 Views
Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:10:46 AM 402 Views
Re: Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:32:41 AM 407 Views
Are you asking a serious question? - 18/08/2018 02:45:03 AM 430 Views
Yes, I was - 18/08/2018 01:59:48 PM 425 Views
"liberal" society does not police speech - 19/08/2018 03:31:54 AM 424 Views
You don't need to protect speech everyone agrees with. *NM* - 19/08/2018 06:02:17 PM 267 Views
It most certainly *does* police speech. - 20/08/2018 03:01:32 PM 409 Views
But to follow up on that. - 20/08/2018 03:16:07 PM 403 Views
Well, that's why we didn't stop with the FIRST Amendment *NM* - 21/08/2018 04:25:53 PM 212 Views
That's individuals policing speech, not society. Agregate individual action =/= collective action - 21/08/2018 04:25:23 PM 431 Views
I completely agree. - 21/08/2018 04:35:38 PM 392 Views
heh, heh, heh - 21/08/2018 05:00:32 PM 401 Views
Hump it like you mean it! - 21/08/2018 07:00:01 PM 432 Views
About the casual part - 16/08/2018 10:33:45 PM 386 Views
I don't think it's appropriate, but I think it's more about sexual shaming - 16/08/2018 10:35:53 PM 465 Views
Precisely - 16/08/2018 10:59:42 PM 419 Views
You are absolutely correct - 17/08/2018 02:43:21 AM 412 Views
I, for one, am glad to see this topic go flaming. - 17/08/2018 05:16:55 PM 477 Views
Yes, it is a tool used by those who should "know better". - 20/08/2018 03:14:30 PM 387 Views
well said - 20/08/2018 03:50:50 PM 437 Views

Reply to Message