Homosexuality or bisexuality

I am having a debate with someone who used to be on here who thinks being bisexual is being homosexual.
Yes quite shocking.
I will not name names as am not childish like others, but want to know others views on this whether they view bisexuality as homosexuality, which I do not, being as it is very different.
What do others think?

even just using 3 divisions probably doesn't reflect the spectrum of sexuality.

no they are not he same

Thank you Veya, will wait to see what others say.

I think it's like this:



You can't point to the exact spot at which one color ends and the next begins. Every person is at a different point on the spectrum from any other individual.

completely different.

Not the same, the sort of people who think this are just very simple minded, anything with more than a basic black-white split confounds them...

Eilzel wrote:Not the same, the sort of people who think this are just very simple minded, anything with more than a basic black-white split confounds them...

Exactly my sentiments.
This all started because a poster was comparing me to military geniuses, which I stated I was flattered they were and if that they swung both ways with all this flattery, to then be accused of claiming they were homosexual and if this was then an insult.
Yes I was shocked also, when my point was on them making comparisons showing me flattery, where my point went so clearly above their head.
As I stated, I do not see homosexuality as an insult, or even bisexuality, that only a person at odds with homosexuality uses this as an insult or would perceive it as an insult.
I also explained that homosexuality is not bisexuality to be then told it was by this poster.
I as astounded at his ignorance on this.


Guess you will never guess who thought this, but will not spill the beans, but will give you a clue to them comparing me to certain public school boys that views other boys a certain way.
It exposed his true views on the subject.

Well I just had a look 'elsewhere' and yes it is quite surprising- it seems some people are still locked into asserting homosexuality on actions and not on the factors of love and sexuality. Being attracted to men and women is, by definition, bisexuality- to ignore one is to get the wrong picture.

I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

Eilzel wrote:I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

It beggars belief Eilzel and all done under the guise of free speech, which is an insult to free speech being as they abuse it constantly with such vile hate.
Ad you can see as I said they were celebrating 3 years of the forum running where to me it is 3 years of a platform for racist and homophobic hate.
Am not going to post there much longer and only doing so to wind up the ignorant idiots.
I am not surprised and always suspected some were that bad.
As I say, those who claim indifference or silence to this are making such views acceptable, we never stopped slavery for example by doing nothing, but by standing up against it.
It really is the worst shithole that site and only for the likes of Eddie, Harvesmum, Fatbob, Scrat, etc have I stayed.

Anyway am off to bed mate, take care.

Advice for Didge

THAT drongo that Didge is trying to debate seems to want to fit everything in his/her limited punyverse into "black & white" categories, with no various 'shades of grey' ~ he/she has obviously forgotten to consider also the sheep shaggers, transexuals, goat worshipprs, asexuals, Jedi knights, trisexuals and try-sexuals, and never mind the "desperate and dateless" further compounding the issues...

THIS is the kind of discussion that I'd thought I'd left behind some 30-35+ years ago..   I imagine the 'sexual spectrum' to be somewhat along the lines that Ben has described it, but going on infinitely until you eventually reach the point that you started from..

(AND Elizel touched on side issues like feelings of love and attraction ~ emotions that I doubt even truly exist within the narrow world that Didge's debating-opponent dwells in ?)  

Sheep shaggers??? Is being a Scot a sexual orientation?

Q. WHY do Kiwi's wear gum boots (i.e. Wellies, galoshes or waterboots..) ?

A. SO that the sheep can't run away ! [i.e. >> Place the ewe's back legs in the front of those boots..].


DEPENDING on where exactly one is from, that well-used term of endearment "sheep shaggers" can refer to Kiwis, Scots or Welshmen..

I'M sure that suitable spots could be found somewhere on that "sexual spectrum" to accommodate those Kiwi's/Scots/Welsh who prefer the company of our woolly friends to bed partners of their own species ?

Eilzel wrote:I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

Handy Andy used that kind of language here not long back.

I never noticed tbh, but if he did he's just as bad.

Eilzel wrote:I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

Hi les,
It is called free speech.
I don't like the words used and will often skip,past the offensive words or challenge them, but I do like forums where free speech is allowed.


In answer to the OP, of course it isn't the same! I'm sure the poster you're tailing about does know this though. He isn't stupid.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

Handy Andy used that kind of language here not long back.

Ah yes Rags but his politics is ok!
even if he is a waste of skin.

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

Hi les,
It is called free speech.
I don't like the words used and will often skip,past the offensive words or challenge them, but I do like forums where free speech is allowed.


In answer to the OP, of course it isn't the same! I'm sure the poster you're tailing about does know this though. He isn't stupid.

OP course its not the same, but you knew you would get that response here

Eddie keep up
free speech is only for those that agree with us!

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

Hi les,
It is called free speech.
I don't like the words used and will often skip,past the offensive words or challenge them, but I do like forums where free speech is allowed.


In answer to the OP, of course it isn't the same! I'm sure the poster you're tailing about does know this though. He isn't stupid.

Hi Eddie

Sorry the belief around free speech is nothing mnore than the ability to allow people to be as offensive as possible.
Most people are responsible with free speech and do not use it as a means to be as offensive as possible. Those who claim free speech are normally defending people who wish to cause as much distress to people as possible Eddie.
You can debate without such offensive words used against people which is the point why they are ever needed.
In the real world with have laws rightly because people are irresponsible with free speech and abuse it to commit harm to others, do you wish these laws were scraped?
Basically people are giving lience to something that does not happen in the real world.
If you faced daily sexist remarks about you, then this would get to you Eddie and you would question why it was allowed.
Hence why we have laws to protect people and if people think words are not harmful I suggest they look into the problem of suicide.

So lets have some honesty on free speech, if your child was bullied with verbal abuse you would do everything to stop this, so I wish people would stop excusing the worst abuse people face off free speech.
So why should for example someone Like Eilzel and David, who have throughout their lives faced unprecedented homophobia and abuse about their sexuality have to endure this further all because for claiming to making a place better with free speech? It does not and allows for the offence that many have thought to stop
Is that fair?
No it gives lience for people to do which they are rightly denied by law now, no place of work, school etc would allow such abuse, so why do you think it is acceptable on a forum?


As to the OP, no the poster has continued to argue they are both the same.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Handy Andy used that kind of language here not long back.

Ah yes Rags but his politics is ok!
even if he is a waste of skin.

Hi Nems

Wrong, I have not seen these posts, but if he has then he is wrong also to do so, how and why you think it makes it accetable is absurd nems.
So for example how often have you walked up to someone in the street (not that you have) and called then a racist, homophobic, sexist etc form of abuse?
Is it only because there is no restriction son the internet that now peoples ability to be responsible have been thrown out of the window and allows free reign to abuse.

Seriiously when are people going to learn that free speech is an illusion, you you do not have it in the real world because people are irresponible, yet think it is acceptable in a cyber world.

Go figure

In a flap is no freer than newsfix in terms of freedom to debate opinions. The only difference is flap allows degenerate, needless gutter filth to be spewed i don't see the point or need. Talking with such people just vindicates them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I must say, haven't not posted on there is I don't know how long, it is quite shocking how much racism and homophobia is allowed to pass on there now by ecen the posters I thought were more decent than that- yourself excepted there didge. Words like wog, nig nog and poofter, totally unchallenged. The place makes me want to vomit...

Handy Andy used that kind of language here not long back.

I did, as an example of what is everyday language on the Flop forum and was in everyday use by the rw extremists.
I did say that in my post, but my qualification was converniently omitted by Nems.
If you want to read something really disgusting, try reading Smelly Bandit's joy at learning that many of the dead Pakistani children were Muslim.
I have made a separate thread on that topic.

In defense of this place, I don't know of anybody who has been removed involuntarily.

Except whatsername...don't remember.  Seems to me that even Phil boogied on us rather than the other way round.

Brasidas wrote:I am having a debate with someone who used to be on here who thinks being bisexual is being homosexual.
Yes quite shocking.
I will not name names as am not childish like others, but want to know others views on this whether they view bisexuality as homosexuality, which I do not, being as it is very different.
What do others think?  

............................................................................................................................................................
For the record, this is what started things:

My post read:

Everyone in this forum knew precisely what you meant by suggesting that I might "swing both ways." It was a characteristically crude and offensive attempt to cast doubt on my sexuality in an infantile and desperate bid to deflect attention from your own demonstrable ignorance of basic English. For someone who professes to hold a "masters" (sic) to show such a woeful inability even to construct a basic sentence in his own language is incomprehensible.

And since you appear to place such importance on the subject, homosexuality is a propensity for persons of one's own sex and not an exclusivity. A man who is bi-sexual is, by definition, also homosexual; a man who is bisexual (without the hyphen) is, in effect, an hermaphrodite.


I believe that I later omitted the hyphen (75-year-old arthritic fingers don't help when still attempting to touch type and relying on the spellchecker more) but Didge knew precisely what I meant, and is now trying to portray my opinion as being homophobic. It wasn't, and I am not, and never have been, a homophobe as most people that I know will appreciate.

I do actually know the difference between bisexual and bi-sexual, and I'm open to intelligent discussion on what I posted, and I still believe that it is based on definitions contained in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. I no longer, sadly, expect intelligent discussions from Didge, however.

Also for the record, I never compared Didge to Napoleon the military genius...I compared him to Napoleon the narcissist. Perhaps the difference was lost on him.

Just thought I should clear things up, as I still have friends in this forum.

Moley

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I am having a debate with someone who used to be on here who thinks being bisexual is being homosexual.
Yes quite shocking.
I will not name names as am not childish like others, but want to know others views on this whether they view bisexuality as homosexuality, which I do not, being as it is very different.
What do others think?  

............................................................................................................................................................
For the record, this is what started things:

My post read:

Everyone in this forum knew precisely what you meant by suggesting that I might "swing both ways." It was a characteristically crude and offensive attempt to cast doubt on my sexuality in an infantile and desperate bid to deflect attention from your own demonstrable ignorance of basic English. For someone who professes to hold a "masters" (sic) to show such a woeful inability even to construct a basic sentence in his own language is incomprehensible.

And since you appear to place such importance on the subject, homosexuality is a propensity for persons of one's own sex and not an exclusivity.  A man who is bi-sexual is, by definition, also homosexual; a man who is bisexual (without the hyphen) is, in effect, an hermaphrodite.


I believe that I later omitted the hyphen (75-year-old arthritic fingers don't help when still attempting to touch type and relying on the spellchecker more) but Didge knew precisely what I meant, and is now trying to portray my opinion as being homophobic. It wasn't, and I am not, and never have been, a homophobe as most people that I know will appreciate.

I do actually know the difference between bisexual and bi-sexual, and I'm open to intelligent discussion on what I posted, and I still believe that it is based on definitions contained in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. I no longer, sadly, expect intelligent discussions from Didge, however.

Also for the record, I never compared Didge to Napoleon the military genius...I compared him to Napoleon the narcissist. Perhaps the difference was lost on him.

Just thought I should clear things up, as I still have friends in this forum.

Moley

Open to intelligent discussion, I think all can read for themselves that was not the case or your view on certain public school  boys Ed, so please do not even attempt to get out of that.
You claimed I was being homophobic which was certainly not the case, after you have omitted where you were making comparison to the military geniuses. I made light humour of this by actually asking you a question if you swung both ways.
Again I do not view people being attracted to the same sex as wrong and was more making the point on your comparisons that you took so much effort around lame views about me to if in fact you were attracted to lighten the hostility, which clearly had the opposite affect. Why should you take offense as you did unless you view being attracted to me as wrong? You certainly argued that swinging both ways was being homosexual, which is there for all to see also, where now you make the worst excuse on the definition of using a hyphen or not, sorry that just does not cut it, being as swinging both ways is someone attracted to both sexes.
You say intelligent, you just made a mockery of that by lying.


So that is certainly not how it started, this is how it started.




Lord Edmund Moletrousers wrote:


Perhaps, in the dark ages when I took my degrees, examiners were less tolerant of a sloppy approach to the use of the English language.  

He also thought that, like a ship's captain, he was second only unto God.  In your case I would award a pass for intention but a fail for achievement.


For you to preach humility is about as convincing as Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus preaching piety and chastity.

Phildidge

Well again as clearly English does seem to be a problem for you to understand, as I took my time going over what I have written lessening the chances of mistakes, where I could not give the same undue care for a forum. Thus clearly you really are not the brightest spark are you.

I do not think I am that special, for you to think I am is flattering and even lovely that you care so much for me, maybe you swing both ways Edmundo, which is okay, but I would say you are more like Napoleon, small man syndrome.

Why you keep bringing up military genius to compare me on is very flattering also, I do understand strategy very well, but they have to be the most idiotic choices to make your point.

Lean some humility and grow up, you really are the worst kind of snob.








So please do not lie, it is not very becoming of you

Handy Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Handy Andy used that kind of language here not long back.

I did, as an example of what is everyday language on the Flop forum and was in everyday use by the rw extremists.
I did say that in my post, but my qualification was converniently omitted by Nems.
If you want to read something really disgusting, try reading Smelly Bandit's joy at learning that many of the dead Pakistani children were Muslim.
I have made a separate thread on that topic.

You didn't mention Flap forum in your post. I found your language very offensive.

What you said later:


As to the ludicrous possibility of my being "attracted to you", where would you like me to commence a very long list of valid reasons why Hades will freeze over before there is the remotest possibility of that happening?


Of course I mustn't be judgemental; you may well have attended one of those public schools where pre-pubescent boys were routinely attracted to each other.


I am mightily relieved to say that I didn't.

Maybe you can explain this Ed?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:
I did, as an example of what is everyday language on the Flop forum and was in everyday use by the rw extremists.
I did say that in my post, but my qualification was converniently omitted by Nems.
If you want to read something really disgusting, try reading Smelly Bandit's joy at learning that many of the dead Pakistani children were Muslim.
I have made a separate thread on that topic.

You didn't mention Flap forum in your post. I found your language very offensive.

This was my quote - which was making direct reference to UKIP supporters , and also a extreme far right wingers - everyone knows to which posters on which particular forum I was referring.
The debate was about the cause of too much traffic on the roads - sane posters were saying there are endless reasons - farage and the far right were blaming it soley on foreigners and immigrants.

Hence my tirade at the objectionable thoughts of the far right.

Yes there ARE too many cars on the road.
To suggest it is because of immigrants is ludicrous.
Do you include French, German , Dutch and eastern European drivers or are the roads only packed out with illegals, chinks, niggers, nig nogs, wogs, coons and blackies?
That is the warped mindset of extremist right wingers.


I hope that everyone is offended by that language - I certainly am, which reinforces my view that the far right are in the wrong.

Ah HA, back for some proper debate are we troll?
Got bored of shitting in the street did you?

Just make sure you stick to the subject matter. We don't slag off other forums on here, it's childish and a little sad.

And Nems doesn't slag off JD's forum?
It is ok for her to do it to JD, but not for me to skag off Flop.

Handy Andy wrote:And Nems doesn't slag off JD's forum?
It is ok for her to do it to JD, but not for me to skag off Flop.

Go to flap to slag it off.
And final word to you and joy perversion

What a pair of tossers you are.
Run along now troll, back to daddy troll
its quite safe no new posters are allowed to join.

Handy Andy wrote:And Nems doesn't slag off JD's forum?
It is ok for her to do it to JD, but not for me to skag off Flop.

Okay, I am asking you nicely troll.
If you want to post here please feel free to join in debates - Id like to see some input.
If you've come here because your brain is bleeding from the forum boredom you're suffering elsewhere and you wish to jizz up your forum-life.....you've come to the wrong place to spread your plague andy.
You know the forums that like squabbles and pointless slanging matches; you're admin on one aren't you?

So let's stick to the OP.

Oh for fuck sake, you can speak out against people you do not like but not to people who are openly abusive towards homosexuals.

Sorry Nems that is wrong on every level.

That is because Nems has lost the debate, Bras.
Not sure why she finds it so difficult to condemn those that hate gays,non caucasions, Muslims.

Handy Andy wrote:That is because Nems has lost the debate, Bras.
Not sure why she finds it so difficult to condemn those that hate gays,non caucasions, Muslims.

Knob even a member of your own forum has just pulled you up for your sexism.
You twonk.

Handy Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't mention Flap forum in your post. I found your language very offensive.

This was my quote - which was making direct reference to UKIP supporters , and also a extreme far right wingers - everyone knows to which posters on which particular forum I was referring.
The debate was about the cause of too much traffic on the roads - sane posters were saying there are endless reasons - farage and the far right were blaming it soley on foreigners and immigrants.

Hence my tirade at the objectionable thoughts of the far right.

Yes there ARE too many cars on the road.
To suggest it is because of immigrants is ludicrous.
Do you include French, German , Dutch and eastern European drivers or are the roads only packed out with illegals, chinks, niggers, nig nogs, wogs, coons and blackies?
That is the warped mindset of extremist right wingers.


I hope that everyone is offended by that language - I certainly am, which reinforces my view that the far right are in the wrong.

There was no reason for you to use that language in that thread in that context. Nobody had mentioned black people or Chinese people.

Brasidas wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

............................................................................................................................................................
For the record, this is what started things:

My post read:

Everyone in this forum knew precisely what you meant by suggesting that I might "swing both ways." It was a characteristically crude and offensive attempt to cast doubt on my sexuality in an infantile and desperate bid to deflect attention from your own demonstrable ignorance of basic English. For someone who professes to hold a "masters" (sic) to show such a woeful inability even to construct a basic sentence in his own language is incomprehensible.

And since you appear to place such importance on the subject, homosexuality is a propensity for persons of one's own sex and not an exclusivity.  A man who is bi-sexual is, by definition, also homosexual; a man who is bisexual (without the hyphen) is, in effect, an hermaphrodite.


I believe that I later omitted the hyphen (75-year-old arthritic fingers don't help when still attempting to touch type and relying on the spellchecker more) but Didge knew precisely what I meant, and is now trying to portray my opinion as being homophobic. It wasn't, and I am not, and never have been, a homophobe as most people that I know will appreciate.

I do actually know the difference between bisexual and bi-sexual, and I'm open to intelligent discussion on what I posted, and I still believe that it is based on definitions contained in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. I no longer, sadly, expect intelligent discussions from Didge, however.

Also for the record, I never compared Didge to Napoleon the military genius...I compared him to Napoleon the narcissist. Perhaps the difference was lost on him.

Just thought I should clear things up, as I still have friends in this forum.

Moley

Open to intelligent discussion, I think all can read for themselves that was not the case or your view on certain public school  boys Ed, so please do not even attempt to get out of that.
You claimed I was being homophobic which was certainly not the case, after you have omitted where you were making comparison to the military geniuses. I made light humour of this by actually asking you a question if you swung both ways.
Again I do not view people being attracted to the same sex as wrong and was more making the point on your comparisons that you took so much effort around lame views about me to if in fact you were attracted to lighten the hostility, which clearly had the opposite affect. Why should you take offense as you did unless you view being attracted to me as wrong? You certainly argued that swinging both ways was being homosexual, which is there for all to see also, where now you make the worst excuse on the definition of using  a hyphen or not, sorry that just does not cut it, being as swinging both ways is someone attracted to both sexes.
You say intelligent, you just made a mockery of that by lying.


So that is certainly not how it started, this is how it started.




Lord Edmund Moletrousers wrote:


Perhaps, in the dark ages when I took my degrees, examiners were less tolerant of a sloppy approach to the use of the English language. (Demonstrably true)

He also thought that, like a ship's captain, he was second only unto God.  In your case I would award a pass for intention but a fail for achievement.


For you to preach humility is about as convincing as Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus preaching piety and chastity.
(Anyone reading your arrogant and dismissive posts in IAFcould not fail to agree with me)
Phildidge

Well again as clearly English does seem to be a problem for you to understand, (some may disagree) as I took my time going over what I have written lessening the chances of mistakes, where I could not give the same undue care for a forum. Thus clearly you really are not the brightest spark are you. ( I will pit my "spark" against yours any day...even at my age.)

I do not think I am that special, for you to think I am is flattering (I don't - far from it) and even lovely (the very last word I would use to describe you) that you care so much for me, (Actually, I care  more for the hedgehog that lives under my garden shed than I care for you) maybe you swing both ways Edmundo, (this was totally irrelevant, uncalled for and a deliberate and calculated attempt to cast doubt on my sexuality to other posters in IAF - and you know it.) which is okay, but I would say you are more like Napoleon, small man syndrome.

Why you keep (once!) bringing up military genius (I compared your proven narcissism to that of Napoleon) to compare me on is very flattering. I do understand strategy very well, but they have to be the most idiotic choices to make your point.

Lean some humility and grow up, you really are the worst kind of snob.








So please do not lie, it is not very becoming of you

...............................................................................................................................................................
This whole thread is based on your lie; you were perfectly aware that I knew the difference between bisexual and bi-sexual because I had already quoted the dictionary definitions.

Are you saying that at some public schools pre-pubescent boys are not attracted to each other? I was not being judgemental about it; I was merely saying that it didn't happen to me and that I was quite pleased it didn't. Since when has a personal preference for heterosexuality been a form of homophobia...which is precisely what you are implying against me in this forum and which you stupidly believed that I would not be able to see and challenge.

I have always made my position perfectly clear. I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuals; I do not criticise homosexuals; I do not post abusive material against homosexuals; I have the greatest respect for those homosexuals that I know personally.

But I am NOT a homosexual, and I make no apology for not wishing to be so inclined.

Incidentally, your friends in this forum may well be surprised to learn that among your nasty little tricks in IAF has been to imply that I am suffering from dementia and to mock both my Christianity and membership of the Royal British Legion.

And you presume to lecture me on humility, you devious, disgusting little wretch.

Incorrect you immediately accused me of calling you a homosexual, would you like me to bring up the post as well Ed, as I am happy to do so.

Why are you bringing up about public school boys being attracted to themselves and then going you are glad you are not one? Why are you glad, unless something is inherently wrong with that? If you are heterosexual, then you would not be attracted to other boys, so there would no need to be glad about it unless again you think there is something wrong with that. You cannot control who you are attracted to, if you think you are I suggest you find the most ugliest woman you can and try and be attracted to them, even after 10 bottles of Vodka I doubt you would be.

To be glad to be something you are not is to find fault with something you are not, that is logical, even if your reasoning is innocent of which i am willing to accept, but it is of a view to be glad not to be something based on not wanting to be something. I m not homosexual but have never stated I am glad i am not.

Yes I said some poor shitty things just as you did trying to demean my qualifications which you went to great lengths to which actually matter greatly to me, which may have escaped you. I do not claim to be an expert on English and if may have escaped you but only debate things I understand well. You took offence to something that was not intended and normally we can banter, it then turned ugly from both of us, so there is no excuses from either of us and make none myself. You may want to but I do not and admit if i am poor and I do know how to push buttons and what gets at people.


So even now I am being fair and yet you still wish to continue acting poorly, that is your choice, but we both made poor comments. You though did wrongly take the view I was claiming you were homosexual, which I did not even say and maybe you took offence to this after your recent loss due to the closeness you had together, which was not my intent either. My intent was to try and lighten the hostility, which backfired.

So you may not be homophobic you certainly tried to claim I was. Anyway you can stay hostile all I like, what again disappoints me is you have issue with someone like me because sometimes I am arrogant which is more to do with winding up those on the far right, than you or with the real vile views of those of the far right. Like I said by being silent is just mking such views acceptable, people seem more concerned at being ostracized by people on a forum in fear of speaking out than doing the right thing and condemning something. That is why I hold my hands up to Costa today, she needs no encouragement and just says what is wrong.

Be at odds with me, that is your choice, not mine.
Go with peace

Lord Ed, while I would hesitate to call you a homophobe, it is still typocal of RW simplistic thought and wrong to call a bisexual person 'homosexual by definition'. Do you also call them 'heterosexual by definition'? Because they are as much one as the other and the 'label' (however much we may or may not like labels) for a person such as this is bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual are exclusive, bisexual by definition is not.

And while I do not consider you a bigot I do include you as part of the problem of silence on flap where real hate and bigotry is concerned (not that you need care what I think of course).

Eilzel wrote:Lord Ed, while I would hesitate to call you a homophobe, it is still typocal of RW simplistic thought and wrong to call a bisexual person 'homosexual by definition'. Do you also call them 'heterosexual by definition'? Because they are as much one as the other and the 'label' (however much we may or may not like labels) for a person such as this is bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual are exclusive, bisexual by definition is not.

And while I do not consider you a bigot I do include you as part of the problem of silence on flap where real hate and bigotry is concerned (not that you need care what I think of course).

Which is the problem mate, hope you are well and tired now after all the nonsense here tonight, have sent you a pm.

All the best.

Night

Eilzel wrote:Lord Ed, while I would hesitate to call you a homophobe, it is still typocal of RW simplistic thought and wrong to call a bisexual (no, no, no bloody no! I know the difference between bisexual and bi-sexual, for Christ's sake.) person 'homosexual by definition'. Do you also call them 'heterosexual by definition'? Because they are as much one as the other and the 'label' (however much we may or may not like labels) for a person such as this is bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual are exclusive, bisexual by definition is not.

And while I do not consider you a bigot I do include you as part of the problem of silence on flap where real hate and bigotry is concerned (not that you need care what I think of course).

Yes, personally I would say they are both. And - yet again - I was referring to bi-sexual people and Didge or whatever he calls himself on here knows bloody well that I was. That hyphen makes all the difference;

I don't particularly like "labels" either, but we are stuck with them.

What I cannot and will not accept is that anyone who is not homosexual  should not be able to discuss the subject without being "labelled" either a bigot or a homophobe or, even sillier (and I'm sorry to say it since you introduced it) Right Wing.

I'm centre right and I make no apologies for it. One of the reasons that I left this and certain other forums is that they are often rabidly Left Wing and some posters are equally as intolerant as the worst hard liners on IAF. I genuinely felt unwelcome and a rank outsider here, though I have a lot of respect for Ben. I also badly needed a rest...losing a wife of 50 years was not an easy thing to cope with.

Hatred and bigotry cuts both ways, you know, and as one of the most tolerant and sensible posters I know I would have thought you would have appreciated that.

No, I do not get myself involved in the "hate" topics...not because I am (another jibe I'm sick and tired of hearing) a coward, but because I exercise what I obviously foolishly think is my absolute right not to do so. I have always made perfectly clear that I do not support far right politics, but I am not going to give equally obnoxious Left wing posters - and they exist in equal measure -  ammunition to pursue their acrimonious squabbles by dragging me into them.

But they know damn well that they do not have my support for their extreme politics, and to be honest they seem to accept that with far more willingness than people from your side of politics who post here and on IAF.

It's not my fault that the forums polarise so badly, but they do. And I am certainly not going to go round wearing a hair shirt and bewailing the evil of it all; I have other problems to contend with.

First of all I said typical of RW thought, and it is. I didn't say non-gay people shouldn't be able to discuss the subject, but if people make statements that are wrong they should be called out for doing so.

And of course you are not obliged to say anything against anyone. However it seems on flap there is a line of thinking by most that criticising the freedom to say anything is worse than excessive bigotry and hate speech- this is nonsense. People are posting on a site where words no one would say face to face to strangers are spewed daily without anyone passing a single comment. It is passive acquiescence at best. You aren't under obligation to say anything but everyone judges people on what they do or do not do- whether fair or not. Civil and equal rights in all areas did not advance because people stayed quiet.

I would point out they are not even RW on there they are just hate filled bigots
they are not about RW economic ideology at all,
as seen with Tommy(who isn't too bad) his opinion on the ideal corporate rules for the UK is basically communism. Even I found myself defending Capitalism against him

it is actually sad that a legitimate RW side hardly exists any more as it has been too infiltrated by hate filled idiots. I think ' IndependentThoughts' on here is the closest I have seen to intelligent educated RW it in a long time. Sure I don't agree with him often but his stuff is not hate speech and often just a different economic outlook.

Would like to See Lord Ed post more, you seem quite reasonable. regardless of what you don't say (I actually agree with Lord Ed that is just not fair judging people on that, particularly in a forum where people can be logged in but still doing other things.... and not need the headaches)

For the record I believe Lord M.

sometimes its down to other people taking.....not necessarily out of context.....a different perception/interpretation of what someone else is trying to convey through the written word.

I do honestly believe this is a case of misunderstanding and crossed communication wires.

HELLO M'lud - so lovely to "see" you. Hoping all is well in your neck of the woods. all my love and best wishes for a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your gal

xx

For the record I believe Lord M.

sometimes its down to other people taking.....not necessarily out of context.....a different perception/interpretation of what someone else is trying to convey through the written word.

I do honestly believe this is a case of misunderstanding and crossed communication wires.

HELLO M'lud - so lovely to "see" you. Hoping all is well in your neck of the woods. all my love and best wishes for a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your gal

xx

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Lord Ed, while I would hesitate to call you a homophobe, it is still typocal of RW simplistic thought and wrong to call a bisexual (no, no, no bloody no! I know the difference between bisexual and bi-sexual, for Christ's sake.) person 'homosexual by definition'. Do you also call them 'heterosexual by definition'? Because they are as much one as the other and the 'label' (however much we may or may not like labels) for a person such as this is bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual are exclusive, bisexual by definition is not.

And while I do not consider you a bigot I do include you as part of the problem of silence on flap where real hate and bigotry is concerned (not that you need care what I think of course).

Yes, personally I would say they are both. And - yet again - I was referring to bi-sexual people and Didge or whatever he calls himself on here knows bloody well that I was. That hyphen makes all the difference;

I don't particularly like "labels" either, but we are stuck with them.

What I cannot and will not accept is that anyone who is not homosexual  should not be able to discuss the subject without being "labelled" either a bigot or a homophobe or, even sillier (and I'm sorry to say it since you introduced it) Right Wing.

I'm centre right and I make no apologies for it. One of the reasons that I left this and certain other forums is that they are often rabidly Left Wing and some posters are equally as intolerant as the worst hard liners on IAF. I genuinely felt unwelcome and a rank outsider here, though I have a lot of respect for Ben. I also badly needed a rest...losing a wife of 50 years was not an easy thing to cope with.

Hatred and bigotry cuts both ways, you know, and as one of the most tolerant and sensible posters I know I would have thought you would have appreciated that.

No, I do not get myself involved in the "hate" topics...not because I am (another jibe I'm sick and tired of hearing) a coward, but because I exercise what I obviously foolishly think is my absolute right not to do so. I have always made perfectly clear that I do not support far right politics, but I am not going to give equally obnoxious Left wing posters - and they exist in equal measure -  ammunition to pursue their acrimonious squabbles by dragging me into them.

But they know damn well that they do not have my support for their extreme politics, and to be honest they seem to accept that with far more willingness than people from your side of politics who post here and on IAF.

It's not my fault that the forums polarise so badly, but they do. And I am certainly not going to go round wearing a hair shirt and bewailing the evil of it all; I have other problems to contend with.

I call myself here after a Spartan military genius, the only one they had, surprised at you not knowing this.
Yes bigotry does work both ways, but let us have some honesty here. Where the forum there has become a platform not as a place of discussion, but for people to be as abusive as possible about groups of people which leads those opposing this to also at times fall to the way side and say things that are abusive and wrong also. This happens because of the fact those who do this are not challenged and like I say you find where I am arrogant at times of more annoyance, than people being hateful about groups of people, which I would question the very validity of being in any moral or ethical standing.

You yourself as a Christian which I am not going to mock this here as I have, which was wrong but question why you would stand by and allow such hatred promoted by people on there and not say something which hits at the heart of offense used? I am not trying to stifle a decent discussion on any subject and would rather welcome this without all the offensive racist, homophobic words which is what does actually stifle debate on there. People are continually using the view of free speech as a means to be as offensive as possible, which is wrong on every level, it is why laws had to be introduced over years, because people could not be responsible with free speech. Not only that we know where such hate speech leads to and have seen this with some of the most ugliest events in history from slavery the worst form of racism to the holocaust. I understand PC is off the charts also and is mad at times, this though does not mean people can be as offensive as possible though about groups of people, what needs to change is some of the PC madness, not laws that protect equality.

The world in inaflap is a virtual world that does not really exist in the real world in the west. Where daily equality is still being fought for many people because there is still problems with racism, homophobia, sexism etc, all of which these issues can be debated from either view point without any of the abuse thrown onto them. They accept the fact you will not speak out against them and thus see this as submission on your part, because it is easier to get on with people who are silent on such matters which again does in fact actually make their views acceptable, that is why they are willing and acceptable of you. The very fact it has been people standing up against wrongs in the world that has brought about change where others were to sacred or too frightened to say anything. Nothing changes by saying you are against something but never do anything to show you are against that. The internet has allowed for a make belief world where people can be as abusive as they like who would never do the same in the real world, so when people sit back and allow this to happen they are in fact allowing such people to be at their worst behind a PC making their views acceptable when they never should be.

It is up to you if you wish to remain silent but you jump down on me and others because we do stand up against them, because I have called some of them Nazi's, well sorry Ed, some of them are Nazis, where some want to wipe out Muslims, is nothing short of the same methodology of hate that Hitler had against the Jews. This though is far worse for someone to say than the racial hatred expressed on that forum and there is something very wrong with that, where a word which denotes the worst form of racism, is seen worse than racism itself. I am happy to even not.even use such a word, but lets face some home truths, wishing the annihilation of a group of people and viewing blacks as inferior and viewing them as barbaric, not only ignores history but is just about the worst forms of racism you can get.

How are posters able to even debate the topics if like for example homophobic abuse is left to go unchallenged, what does it even bring to the debate such words of abuse and mockery , than some sick self satisfaction that these people feel empowered to abuse people on a forum, that they would not do so in the real world? If you think it is better to fit in with people than to stand up and be counted against such hate and challenge them, then that hate has won, their friendship is more important than doing what is right by challenging such hate. It is like I have just said on another thread, like a school playground, where people allow the worst forms of bullying and hate to stand just to be in and cool with the other school kids. It seems that mentality has never changed.

You are your own person and if you feel where I am arrogant to some of the far and right and to you at times yourself, then clearly something is wrong how you would view that worse that real hate that is promoted. For my part I had no intention for us to allow things to go so far between us and apologise for any offense I may have caused and it is more to do with your inaction that has allowed me to become annoyed at times, which is no excuse either.

Life is to short to be at odds and I have no hate for even those who promote the hate and never have, they are people I have never met nor am I likely to meet, but people true to their word stand up and say if something is wrong, thy do not allow it to become acceptable, that happened in the 1930's in Germany and we saw the repercussions of that.

All the best

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Lord Ed, while I would hesitate to call you a homophobe, it is still typocal of RW simplistic thought and wrong to call a bisexual (no, no, no bloody no! I know the difference between bisexual and bi-sexual, for Christ's sake.) person 'homosexual by definition'. Do you also call them 'heterosexual by definition'? Because they are as much one as the other and the 'label' (however much we may or may not like labels) for a person such as this is bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual are exclusive, bisexual by definition is not.

And while I do not consider you a bigot I do include you as part of the problem of silence on flap where real hate and bigotry is concerned (not that you need care what I think of course).

Yes, personally I would say they are both. And - yet again - I was referring to bi-sexual people and Didge or whatever he calls himself on here knows bloody well that I was. That hyphen makes all the difference;

I don't particularly like "labels" either, but we are stuck with them.

What I cannot and will not accept is that anyone who is not homosexual  should not be able to discuss the subject without being "labelled" either a bigot or a homophobe or, even sillier (and I'm sorry to say it since you introduced it) Right Wing.

I'm centre right and I make no apologies for it. One of the reasons that I left this and certain other forums is that they are often rabidly Left Wing and some posters are equally as intolerant as the worst hard liners on IAF. I genuinely felt unwelcome and a rank outsider here, though I have a lot of respect for Ben. I also badly needed a rest...losing a wife of 50 years was not an easy thing to cope with.

Hatred and bigotry cuts both ways, you know, and as one of the most tolerant and sensible posters I know I would have thought you would have appreciated that.

No, I do not get myself involved in the "hate" topics...not because I am (another jibe I'm sick and tired of hearing) a coward, but because I exercise what I obviously foolishly think is my absolute right not to do so. I have always made perfectly clear that I do not support far right politics, but I am not going to give equally obnoxious Left wing posters - and they exist in equal measure -  ammunition to pursue their acrimonious squabbles by dragging me into them.

But they know damn well that they do not have my support for their extreme politics, and to be honest they seem to accept that with far more willingness than people from your side of politics who post here and on IAF.

It's not my fault that the forums polarise so badly, but they do. And I am certainly not going to go round wearing a hair shirt and bewailing the evil of it all; I have other problems to contend with.

Lord ed, apart from bisexual bit and the part about losing your wife, I couldbe written this post lol
That's how I am on flap; I often think the posts and comments are way OTT but I don't have to reply to most of them as whats the point? I will sometimes say my piece but when people are that pig-headed what is the point?? They're not going to change!
Also, as you've said, I find this place a bit pukingly left and stupid at times - too scared to say that there are some real threats from Muslims because they're scared to use the "M" word!!!

So I applaud your post. I dint think you're homophobic, for the record, I just think that there's been a misunderstanding between you and didge - he does sometimes take a stick and run with it, without checking to see which end he's holding!

This is the whole problem, people wrongly think that saying nothing is not worth it because they are not going to change. I mean if we take that stance why even come to a forum to debate in the first place because people are very stuck in their political views? That is the reality that you will happily debate something but not bother if people are disgusting when it is exactly when they are that they should be condemned. Fair play Eddie you do condemn, but many do not and really was disappointed at excuses I received from nems yesterday who seems more concerned over her political views which agree with others there that if she condemns something they will be at odds with her, when you Costa and others are not treated that way at all, showing there is no fear of this. That is what I am disappointed out that people can have friends and then sit by and watch such abuse to happen which matters in regards tot heir friends.


Sorry Eddie but your stance and Lord Ed, actually passivelly allows for discrmination to become acceptable. If we took this stance within schools or the work place then discrmination would become common place again. Nobody is saying people should fall out over this or be nasty to them but condemn things said. I may not be affected by such words by they are certainly upsetting to others and do nothing for the debate but lower the whole tone of debate down to an infantile level.

I have argued countless times on here about Muslims and take a fair stance on this, or did you miss my debates with zack, Veya etc? This is what I find poor, that people think things are restriccted from debate, when they certainly are not. What it is then is about people needed support from others of their own views, because they feel intimidated by a majority of another political view. It shows they are not confident to take on others, which I am not shy of doing. All such abuse just stifles the debate and it is done intentionally to ruin debates.

Seriously just ignoring such abuse is making it acceptable, when it should never be acceptable and should always be condemned.