Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Colleague said something homophobic watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    No, you have misinterpreted by argument once again. Reread my reply to the apple guy, I explained it all there.
    I read that, but maybe you didn't really understand my reply.

    I did have a link to a really nice article on basic logic but unfortunately I've lost it.

    Anyway, I'll explain it at a slower pace (not trying to be patronising).

    The conclusion: homosexuality is natural.

    The premises: 1) If something is shown in multiple species, it is natural.
    2) Homosexuality is shown in multiple species.

    Now this argument so far does make sense. It's saying that if something is shown in multiple species, it is natural. Because homosexuality is shown in multiple species, it must be natural. Right?

    The problem is when you look at the bigger picture of the 1st premise. It's like maths, let's substitute other values into the "something" box and see what the conclusion says.

    Substituting "incest", would mean that because incest is shown in multiple species, it is natural. Obviously, this is not true. Incest is not natural. (You could substitute many other things such as murder, and exclusive power hierarchies etc.)

    So the only thing we can make of this argument is (assuming incest, murder, and power hierarchies are unnatural) that it is invalid, because it says certain unnatural things are in fact natural.

    If you think this is wrong, I suggest you read it a few times over.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty sure it's only homophobic if she discriminates for those reasons . Nothing wrong with thinking it's wrong .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    I read that, but maybe you didn't really understand my reply.

    I did have a link to a really nice article on basic logic but unfortunately I've lost it.

    Anyway, I'll explain it at a slower pace (not trying to be patronising).

    The conclusion: homosexuality is natural.

    The premises: 1) If something is shown in multiple species, it is natural.
    2) Homosexuality is shown in multiple species.

    Now this argument so far does make sense. It's saying that if something is shown in multiple species, it is natural. Because homosexuality is shown in multiple species, it must be natural. Right?

    The problem is when you look at the bigger picture of the 1st premise. It's like maths, let's substitute other values into the "something" box and see what the conclusion says.

    Substituting "incest", would mean that because incest is shown in multiple species, it is natural. Obviously, this is not true. Incest is not natural. (You could substitute many other things such as murder, and exclusive power hierarchies etc.)

    So the only thing we can make of this argument is (assuming incest, murder, and power hierarchies are unnatural) that it is invalid, because it says certain unnatural things are in fact natural.

    If you think this is wrong, I suggest you read it a few times over.
    I have read your reply and it still doesn't refute what I said, as the animal example was specific to homosexuality given that the reason people are opposed to it is due to it supposedly being unnatural.

    Talking about basic logic, it's you who has to be schooled in it. People are not generally opposed to murder on the basis of it being unnatural, but rather because it harms people, so it's a totally different argument to homosexuality.

    Similarly with incest, most people would probably be opposed to it due to the possibility of deformed children being born. In regards to the actual act of invest, I see nothing wrong with it. Threads have been done on it before and a surprisingly high number of people said that as long as the couple consented then it was fine.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Veggiechic6)
    That's not homophobia. That's her opinion and she's entitled to it. Stop trying to label people's opinions. Just because you disagree with her doesn't make her opinion any less valid than yours. Homophobia would be if she said she hates gay people, wanted to kill them because they were gay etc.
    Label people's opinions? :laugh: :giggle: homophobic is an adjective, and an adjective describes something.

    Also definition update:

    Homophobia (I'm 100% sure of) means "a fear of, or irrational/prejudice/discrimination against homosexuals" in other words.

    (Original post by iamthetruth)
    People should have the freedom to say that at work I thought this is a free country. So now we can't say certain things because we are afraid of what people might think? What's even worse is that some people would want you fired for saying that. They want to deny you the chance to provide for your family. The hypocrisy is that they are allowed to talk about their sexuality and how gay they are but if we say we are against it then we are told to shut up. If that's the case then they shouldn't be allowed to publicize their sexuality.
    They want to deny you for being unprofessional.
    Since when do people just talk about how gay they are? Stop talking about a subsection in the gay community, so to speak, and you might actually realise if there wasn't this stigma surrounding homosexuality in the first place, there wouldn't be much of a divide between the cultures of the gay community and hetero community in the first place. There'd be no need for pride, which you probably find so needlessly obnoxious, although you talk about the news in the media, the things with the attention the most.

    Stop extrapolating stories from probably the Daily Mail to all homosexuals, or homosexuality itself. And please make the distinction between gay culture where applicable and homosexuality.

    Ugh... what a messy post I've made.

    (Original post by Veggiechic6)
    Yes I am a homophobe because I defended someone's right to an opinion without others slapping an incorrect label on it. I already highlighted the difference between what real homophobes say and what the lady said. If you have a different definition, good for you.

    I noticed a few people talking about how this balloon lady is discriminating... strange, there was no mention in OP's post about the lady treating gay people differently whenever she comes into contact with them. People just... assumed that was happening because that's what assumptions the labelling promotes, even though we've no idea if that's true or not. Weird. :confused:
    Definition update applicable here (but I've already mentioned that to you.)

    (Original post by Profesh)
    Given that you're basically a walking moral vacuum; who honestly cares?
    Lol

    (Original post by MAINE.)
    Gonna play devil's advocate here, but I remember reading something like the estimated number of gay people as a percentage of global population is like 1.5%, which statistically makes it more akin to a disease or defect than "perfectly natural".
    Naturalness is determined by whether it occurs without human interference; occurs within nature (must meet both stipulations.)
    That'd just make homosexuality (statistically) abnormal, as normal is a quality mainly dictated by majority.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Not necessarily. We know homosexuality isn't a disease so that comparison doesn't hold much weight. And something being present in a small percentage doesn't make it any less natural.
    (Original post by Veggiechic6)
    That's different. People can't control the colour of their skin, that's obvious. Whether or not people can control their sexuality... well the jury is out on that. I've never come across any evidence or studies to prove people can be born gay. I'm not going to get into the whole debate, I'm just making the point that it's not as clear cut as race.

    What bothers me so much is how quickly people have labelled this as a 'homophobic' incident and even worse, assuming this unknown balloon lady is discriminating against gay people even though there was nothing to suggest that. If this lady is treating gay people differently because they're gay, then yes I agree that's wrong but it's perfectly possible to not agree with what someone does/how someone lives their lives and treat them like anyone else. Some people don't seem to accept that. They think 'oh, that person is saying being gay is wrong therefore she must hate all gay people.' There are millions of people in this world who will hold the same opinion as this lady, just like there are millions who won't.
    Sexuality is more often than not broken down to sexual behaviour and sexual orientation. So yes, they can control their sexual behaviour, so their sexuality to some extent.

    But implying that they can control their sexual orientation is just ludicrous and wrong, and incredibly offensive because (as it's so illogical) it's mocking all of those who have committed suicide because they couldn't change that aspect of themselves.

    There's two genes contributing to male homosexuality, and people don't choose their genetics, and secondly epigenetics during foetal development in the womb has been linked to homosexuality, and the foetus doesn't choose which environment it is subjected to, to change the extent to which their genes are "on" or "off".

    Now, even if socialisation was a factor (the acquisition of societal norms), how do children choose what they are subjected to? Such as what culture, schools, music, books? On top of that, how do they choose which food they eat (or can eat), amount of water they drink, sunlight, pollution, bacteria, activities in the mud, how often they shower.

    And just because people hold this opinion, doesn't make it right. And people covertly impose their opinions without meaning to all the time.

    (Original post by Howard)
    Couldn't you just say "I disagree with you because..."? Why make such a drama out of it? - all she did was utter an (albeit wrong) opinion.
    I'll correct it for you (see above in quoted post.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I have read your reply and it still doesn't refute what I said, as the animal example was specific to homosexuality given that the reason people are opposed to it is due to it supposedly being unnatural.

    Talking about basic logic, it's you who has to be schooled in it. People are not generally opposed to murder on the basis of it being unnatural, but rather because it harms people, so it's a totally different argument to homosexuality.

    Similarly with incest, most people would probably be opposed to it due to the possibility of deformed children being born. In regards to the actual act of invest, I see nothing wrong with it. Threads have been done on it before and a surprisingly high number of people said that as long as the couple consented then it was fine.
    Read it a few more times over. The problem is that you're saying that if animals do something- then it is natural. You can't isolate homosexuality and say that because animals exhibit homosexuality- it is natural. Where is the reason to believe that it is natural just because animals do it? That would just be an arbitrary statement with no reasoning behind it. If you still don't understand, then try and put what you think your argument is into the conclusion and premise format. It will come up invalid.

    You're saying that only homosexuality is natural because animals do it. What? So what's stopping incest from being natural because animals do it, what's stopping murder from being natural only because animals do it? Why only homosexuality?

    As for your second statement, that's all irrelevant. I made no comment about my opposition to those things, but only to whether or not they were natural. I'm not making any implications here.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Read it a few more times over. The problem is that you're saying that if animals do something- then it is natural. You can't isolate homosexuality and say that because animals exhibit homosexuality- it is natural. Where is the reason to believe that it is natural just because animals do it? That would just be an arbitrary statement with no reasoning behind it. If you still don't understand, then try and put what you think your argument is into the conclusion and premise format. It will come up invalid.

    As for your second statement, that's all irrelevant. I made no comment about my opposition to those things, but only to whether or not they were natural. I'm not making any implications here.
    You're conflating 2 arguments. Of course what animals do is natural, how could it not be?

    But the issue here is saying something's wrong due to it supposedly being unnatural, when we know it isn't.

    To reiterate, I'm not saying that everything that's natural is right, but rather underlying the fallacy of claiming something is wrong because of a false reason.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Read it a few more times over. The problem is that you're saying that if animals do something- then it is natural. You can't isolate homosexuality and say that because animals exhibit homosexuality- it is natural. Where is the reason to believe that it is natural just because animals do it? That would just be an arbitrary statement with no reasoning behind it. If you still don't understand, then try and put what you think your argument is into the conclusion and premise format. It will come up invalid.

    As for your second statement, that's all irrelevant. I made no comment about my opposition to those things, but only to whether or not they were natural. I'm not making any implications here.
    I just wanna be sick at the idiocy exemplified here. (Though not saying you're necessarily an idiot.)
    "natural" means "to occur without human interference; to occur within nature" so if animals exhibit homosexuality then in all likelihood it is natural (providing it's not caused my human interference, which I doubt it is.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You're conflating 2 arguments. Of course what animals do is natural, how could it not be?

    But the issue here is saying something's wrong due to it supposedly being unnatural, when we know it isn't.

    To reiterate, I'm not saying that everything that's natural is right, but rather underlying the fallacy of claiming something is wrong because of a false reason.
    Very true, I must be really ****ing tired to have come out with all that ****.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    I just wanna be sick at the idiocy exemplified here. (Though not saying you're necessarily an idiot.)
    "natural" means "to occur without human interference; to occur within nature" so if animals exhibit homosexuality then in all likelihood it is natural (providing it's not caused my human interference, which I doubt it is.)
    You're right. I'm so tired lol damn. Still no excuse.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    At work today, we have a woman who is in our store every saturday morning, we pay her to make balloons and facepaint for customers with little kids. I talked to her for the first time today and she said something homophobic to me ("it's just wrong to be gay" I wanted to smack her... I do not tolerate homophobia at all and especially not at work.

    What should I do? She is not a normal employee she is almost like a 'contractor' person I guess.
    Mate. Shut up. It's her flipping opinion. Everyone's entitled to one. Not just you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You have, probably unknowingly, totally misinterpreted by argument.

    I am not saying "if animals do X then it is OK for humans to do it" where X is an arbitrary action. Otherwise I would be in favour of murder because lions kill gazelles.

    I brought up the animal point specifically for homosexuality.

    Now, let's examine why exactly people tend to think homosexuality is wrong. There is really only one main answer to this: because it is unnatural/against the natural order as set down by God.

    A smaller minority may argue the risk of sexual infections case but this argument is clearly void because heterosexual sex is just as likely to give you an STD.

    Therefore the main reason for people thinking homosexuality is wrong (it's innatural) is refuted by it being observed in animals.
    Okay, but majority of studies have found that being desensitised is the main cause for attraction of the same sex. Such as over exposure or being "indoctrinated".

    No study has ever found it to be genetic and there is no evidence supporting this, so you cannot argue in favour of it being natural because it isn't genetic.
    Maybe people find other pleasures after being subject to over exposure but that doesn't make it natural due to it solely being caused by environmental factors and it's psychological.

    No one says that everything animals do is natural either, this would lead into a whole other debate as to whether ethics and morality applies to animals.

    So for you to claim it is natural is wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamthetruth)
    How is that homophobic? That is her opinion and she's entitled to it. I agree with her.
    I think it's silly to be homophobic - you'll be depriving yourself of great entertainment! The gays are very good in the arts, you know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    Okay, but majority of studies have found that being desensitised is the main cause for attraction of the same sex. Such as over exposure or being "indoctrinated".

    No study has ever found it to be genetic and there is no evidence supporting this, so you cannot argue in favour of it being natural because it isn't genetic.
    Maybe people find other pleasures after being subject to over exposure but that doesn't make it natural due to it solely being caused by environmental factors and it's psychological.

    No one says that everything animals do is natural either, this would lead into a whole other debate as to whether ethics and morality applies to animals.

    So for you to claim it is natural is wrong.
    Really, that's the first time I've heard that, mind providing the studies showing this?

    False. Genetic components to homosexuality have been discovered, see genes Xq28 and 8q12 on the X chromosome.

    You have also made the false equivalence that because something isn't genetic it must be unnatural. Environmental factors affect all manner of things and these are still natural.

    That's just simply not true. Something having environmental factors =\= unnatural.

    And again, homosexuality is observed in animals proving its natural and not some phenomenon caused by desensitisation. That's just nonsense, proven by animals who aren't indoctrinated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Really, that's the first time I've heard that, mind providing the studies showing this?

    False. Genetic components to homosexuality have been discovered, see genes Xq28 and 8q12 on the X chromosome.

    You have also made the false equivalence that because something isn't genetic it must be unnatural. Environmental factors affect all manner of things and these are still natural.

    That's just simply not true. Something having environmental factors =\= unnatural.

    And again, homosexuality is observed in animals proving its natural and not some phenomenon caused by desensitisation. That's just nonsense, proven by animals who aren't indoctrinated.
    Why do you consistently compare animals to humans? As if it applies to animals then it must apply to humans, no. Also, why would desensitisation be a phenomenon?

    How can you also say that animals aren't over exposed or desensitised?

    Please explain how something which is only due to environmental factors can be natural.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    False. Genetic components to homosexuality have been discovered, see genes Xq28 and 8q12 on the X chromosome.
    The study which concluded that many homosexual people had similar markers on these genes provided a small test sample. Bad controls and no tests for Bisexual or Heterosexual. So that study is relatively irrelevant and you can definitely suggest that its false that it isn't genetic.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    At work today, we have a woman who is in our store every saturday morning, we pay her to make balloons and facepaint for customers with little kids. I talked to her for the first time today and she said something homophobic to me ("it's just wrong to be gay" I wanted to smack her... I do not tolerate homophobia at all and especially not at work.

    What should I do? She is not a normal employee she is almost like a 'contractor' person I guess.
    I once got asked my opinion on this when I was doing my work experience, when I was fifteen. After giving an honest response, I found myself hauled in front of the manager for being a homophobe.

    I'm a lot more understanding now, but I will say this: judging someone for an opinion they reveal in conversation is just as wrong as she believes homosexuality to be. I'm absolutely not homophobic now, but I will stick up for people who have their feelings - always provided those opinions are simply kept, and only spoken of when asked/prompted. Otherwise, we might as well just get the thought police in now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Just keep on saying "why" and make her explain her view.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    At work today, we have a woman who is in our store every saturday morning, we pay her to make balloons and facepaint for customers with little kids. I talked to her for the first time today and she said something homophobic to me ("it's just wrong to be gay") I wanted to smack her... I do not tolerate homophobia at all and especially not at work.

    What should I do? She is not a normal employee she is almost like a 'contractor' person I guess.
    Boo fkin hoo.. you do-gooder, go do good elsewhere.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    She should be arrested how dare she express an opinion which is not sanctioned buy the government, take her to the gulag immediately.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, I'm going to clarify definitions for people (especially this [presumably] dude below.)

    genetic means characterised by base sequence
    environmental factors means factors in the surroundings
    epigenetic means characterised by gene expression; the extent to which a gene is on or off
    natural means to occur without human interference; to occur within nature
    psychological means relating to the mind

    Now I'll explain how all of these relate to each other.
    genetic factors would show that something is natural, providing human activity never caused it, like splicing or mutations caused by mutagenic substances from humans. Genetic factors most likely natural.

    epigenetic factors, gene expression is affected by the environment, like hormone levels or nutrition. Can be natural, can be unnatural. Can occur before birth, in womb, and after birth, for the entirety of your life. I'd say in womb largely natural.

    Now for natural, if something occurs in animals, it is likely to be natural because it is unlikely to have been caused by human interference or activity..

    psychological factors can be natural, if there are for example natural biological bases to them.

    Now I'll explain how all of these relate to each other in this context

    Genetic factors: genetic factors of homosexuality in males have been shown to be two genes (which I cannot remember the name of) so far. I'd say these are natural.

    Epigenetic factors: epigenetic factors of homosexuality have been shown to occur in foetal development, due to (I think) variations in some hormone levels, and the mother's reaction to the foetus, a certain type increasing per birth of child (hence likelihood of homosexuality increases for each older sibling you have.)(Don't quote me on the intricacies here, I haven't done much formal research here.)

    I doubt this phenomenon is at least predominantly caused by environmental factors affected by human interference, so I'd also say that's natural.

    Homosexuality occurs within other animals, further supporting the statement that homosexuality is natural.

    By the way, seems genetic, and the epigenetic factors aforementioned, both occur before birth, it is correct to say one is born gay and what not.

    Now, sexual attractions are within the mind, so to speak, and saying psychological factors aren't natural is just as much saying attractions to the opposite sex aren't natural, because heterosexuality is also a sexual attraction (a sole sexual attraction to the opposite sex.)

    Now, also whether something is natural (or not) is entirely separate from morality, or that'd be appealing to nature.

    So, user ,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong,
    wrong (irrelevant),
    conclusively wrong.


    (Original post by )
    Okay, but majority of studies have found that being desensitised is the main cause for attraction of the same sex. Such as over exposure or being "indoctrinated".

    No study has ever found it to be genetic and there is no evidence supporting this, so you cannot argue in favour of it being natural because it isn't genetic.
    Maybe people find other pleasures after being subject to over exposure but that doesn't make it natural due to it solely being caused by environmental factors and it's psychological.

    No one says that everything animals do is natural either, this would lead into a whole other debate as to whether ethics and morality applies to animals.

    So for you to claim it is natural is wrong.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.