The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why are people NOT homophobic??

Scroll to see replies

Original post by shadowdweller
I do indeed expect you to provide that, yes, given I've done the same for LGBT+ characters. If you can't do it, then you can't really argue that LGBT+ have more positive representation on TV.

I have at no point claimed a binary status. You apparently inferred that I meant they could 'only' be negative, which is not the same as me asking for examples of negative representation.


Logic fail again!:biggrin:

Except I show Religious people are represented negatively, then I cannot argue there are more LGBT people being represented on TV than religious people being represented on TV?:biggrin:

That is like telling me: Unless I cannot show black people are being put in film parts as villain characters, then I cannot argue that there are more white main characters than black main character in films.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

That might sound logical to @Stiff Little Fingers, but that is what is called a logic fail!:biggrin:
Original post by RoyalBeams
Except I show Religious people are represented negatively, then I cannot argue there are more LGBT people being represented on TV than religious people being represented on TV?

That is like telling me: Unless I cannot show black people are being put in film parts as villain characters, then I cannot argue that there are more white main characters than black main character in films.


We've been talking about positive representation, as well as just pure number terms. I've demonstrated that LBGT+ is incredibly mixed and has high levels of poor representation. I've also shown the percentage of representation it has on prime tv. You have not been able to show any negative aspects of religious representation, nor even a breakdown of how much it is shown. Unless you can do that, your argument is essentially void at this point because it's entirely your opinion, and not remotely backed up by any kind of fact.

That actually is something you can very easily show though, you'd just have to cite how many black people were cast as villains and how many white, it would be a very easy demonstration. I see you played around with the phrasing to make it sound like it's more difficult, but what I would actually be asking in that scenario is "Demonstrate that black people are cast as villains" which again, would be easily done.
Original post by velvetcap
If there weren't any straight people humans would have become extinct very long ago. It's not like being black, that isn't against nature, in fact animals come in all sorts of colours which proves that being a different colour isn't unnatural. Being homosexual is unnatural on the other hand and anyone who denies this denies common sense. Being black is easily explainable by the country someone is from for example, whereas being homosexual is an unnatural mutation that goes against nature.

Treat it just like you treat any other illness. Yes, I consider it an illness because anything that goes against nature is an illness. I don't say it doesn't exist, only that people who are born with it have a defect which should be treated.


And yet, you seem to be using a laptop, which is unnatural, presumably in a house which is equally so. It's a bit redundant to pick and choose which unnatural things you will condemn, and which you will condone.

Homosexuality also occurs in animals in nature, so you can't even really state that it goes against nature in the first place.
Well what are your arguments against the LGBT community? Im not a maniac supporter myself, I feel as if it just "no big deal" whether someone is LGBT or not, and isnt really worth mentioning. You are or you aren't, no big deal either way. What are your arguments against, and I'll have a go at debunking them.
Original post by velvetcap
If there weren't any straight people humans would have become extinct very long ago. It's not like being black, that isn't against nature, in fact animals come in all sorts of colours which proves that being a different colour isn't unnatural. Being homosexual is unnatural on the other hand and anyone who denies this denies common sense. Being black is easily explainable by the country someone is from for example, whereas being homosexual is an unnatural mutation that goes against nature.

Treat it just like you treat any other illness. Yes, I consider it an illness because anything that goes against nature is an illness. I don't say it doesn't exist, only that people who are born with it have a defect which should be treated.


Fine. Then treat it like any other illness by trying to change it only if it is a risk to them or they want it changed and treating them as members of society and representing them in culture.
That'll do.

I'll accept that being gay is a defect or illness to some extent, but it is not a risk to them so doesn't need treatment unless they want it. Also, since there is no real treatment for it there's nothing to be done or than help them come to terms with it even if they wanted it treated.
Original post by shadowdweller
We've been talking about positive representation, as well as just pure number terms. I've demonstrated that LBGT+ is incredibly mixed and has high levels of poor representation. I've also shown the percentage of representation it has on prime tv. You have not been able to show any negative aspects of religious representation, nor even a breakdown of how much it is shown. Unless you can do that, your argument is essentially void at this point because it's entirely your opinion, and not remotely backed up by any kind of fact.

That actually is something you can very easily show though, you'd just have to cite how many black people were cast as villains and how many white, it would be a very easy demonstration. I see you played around with the phrasing to make it sound like it's more difficult, but what I would actually be asking in that scenario is "Demonstrate that black people are cast as villains" which again, would be easily done.


Again, in your desperation to distract from your inability to uphold your challenge of my statement, you have lied!

No, we have been debating about representation on TV!!!

The fact that homosexual characters and issues which are far more reprepresented are also virtually always put positively, is just an additional buttress of my argument of the homosexual agenda of the media and entertainment industries.

But the core of what we were arguing about and what you challenged is that: Homosexual main characters and issues are far more represented on TV than religious main characters and issues.
Original post by RoyalBeams
No, we have been debating about representation on TV!!!

The fact that homosexual characters and issues which are far more reprepresented are also virtually always put positively, is just an additional buttress of my argument of the homosexual agenda of the media and entertainment industries.

But the core of what we were arguing about and what you challenged is that: Homosexual main characters and issues are far more represented on TV than religious main characters and issues.


Of which positive and negative representation is ultimately a key component, and is frankly, more important than the actual numbers.

I've already given you proof they are not virtually always positive, which you have failed to satisfactorily dispute, and have not provided any evidence to the contrary for.

Similarly, I have given you evidence that there is very low levels of LGBT representation, whilst you have given absolutely no reference to for Religious representation. You can't expect your argument to stand if you don't have, and refuse to give, anything to support it.
Original post by velvetcap
Artificial doesn't always mean unnatural in the sense of going against nature, ie in the sense of being an illness or a mutation. Laptops are very useful though artificial. On the other hand, homosexuality is neither useful nor natural, nor artificial. It is simply unnatural and unproductive. You could say it is like someone born with gluttony. If they aren't treated, they will become obese. Being obese is not natural, and is a result of the fact that they were born with an illness. That illness must be treated. Animals can be ill too, I don't see your point.


You define it as being ill because it is 'unnatural'; animals experience homosexuality too, so by its very definition it is not unnatural. Meaning if you wish to conflate it with illness, you'll have to find a different justification for doing so.
Because there's something off about being against something that is naturally occurring, and doesn't particularly affect you in any way. And if it's more a case of you believing that it's not natural then you're just a moron who deserves to be called out.
Original post by velvetcap
Semantics, change it to harmful to nature or whatever, I still don't see your point.


If you're changing it to harmful to nature, you have to actually have a justification for that - we're experiencing vast overpopulation as it stands now, a minimally reduced birthrate is beneficial to nature, if anything.
Reply 470
Original post by Texxers
Honestly, I don't see why people actually support the LGBT community. I don't see why it's so frowned upon for me to express my opinions on this issue. Just wanted to see what other TSR members thought of it..

And no I don't hide myself under Anon ever when it comes to controversial topics.


Im straight yet supports LGBT. They're normal humans trying to live normally. It's just basic human rights. I cant tell you to stop being homophobic but i can say TOUGH! More people are accepted. If you're homophobic I'm guessing, you're racist, sexist, ageist etc. Stop being so ignorant and trying to cause problems and provoke and instigate beef. They're people and can like anyone and have any sexual orientation
is this thread ever going to end
Original post by RoyalBeams


1) Incest is generally illegal in virtually all countries.
.


TBH, the only argument for it being an issue is that you can't force people to abort the abomination they could accidentally create. But I guess gay incest is fine?
Original post by shadowdweller
Of which positive and negative representation is ultimately a key component, and is frankly, more important than the actual numbers.

I've already given you proof they are not virtually always positive, which you have failed to satisfactorily dispute, and have not provided any evidence to the contrary for.

Similarly, I have given you evidence that there is very low levels of LGBT representation, whilst you have given absolutely no reference to for Religious representation. You can't expect your argument to stand if you don't have, and refuse to give, anything to support it.


:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

And the next thing you would say is that you never suggested it was binary.

Very confused arguments. :biggrin:
Original post by LibertyMan
TBH, the only argument for it being an issue is that you can't force people to abort the abomination they could accidentally create. But I guess gay incest is fine?


I don't understand you first sentence/point.
Because, whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a society where we are being forced to accept anything and everything, and if don't, you are looked down upon
Original post by Texxers
So I'm abnormal for having an opinion that's different to the average user on TSR?


You are not wrong, just emotionally undeveloped. Your statement is as absurd as someone else saying they are phobic about people with red hair. People are what they are, in sexual orientation or appearance. Some of those people are kind, trustworthy, funny - others are mean, lying and cheats. Your appearance or sexual preferences says nothing about you as a person. You need to get rid of the monkey on your back! Work out where you got it from, and deal with it, because people are not born with prejudices, as any observation of a nursery class will tell you. If you persist with your prejudice, you will find a lot of people will turn away from you, straight and gay. Persisting with your trip-wire over this (for that is what it is) will prevent you functioning as a sensible, fully functioning adult in the C21.
Original post by RoyalBeams
Explain how that statement means religious characters and issues are represented negatively.

Please have a go at that explanation.:biggrin:


You're claiming few religious characters meet the criteria you laid out for positive portrayal, since there is not a lack of religious characters on tv, the only follow on is that they're negatively portrayed.


That was not what my argument was?:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

So what was my argument?:biggrin:

Do I need to quote you at yourself again or are you going to try having an honest debate?
Original post by RoyalBeams
x


Please do address the points you've been repeatedly avoiding if you wish to continue this discussion further :smile:
Original post by Stiff Little Fingers
You're claiming few religious characters meet the criteria you laid out for positive portrayal, since there is not a lack of religious characters on tv, the only follow on is that they're negatively portrayed.


I knew you would follow the logic fail!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

Purely ridiculous and senseless conclusion.:biggrin:


Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

Do I need to quote you at yourself again or are you going to try having an honest debate?


Just tell me what my argument was.:colondollar:

Latest