Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
You gave me no indication that you intend to honestly debate.
(*chuckle*) As if you ever do. I stand by everything I said. I really do mean what I say. The questions I ask are not simply (hah!) rhetorical. I really do want to hear the answers to them.
quote:
First off, the part where you supported your assertion.
The fact that there is no word for "homosexual" in the language would be a big part of it. The fact that all of the passages that refer to same-sex sexuality in the text are in reference to pagan rituals would be another big part of it. When we don't find any descriptions of things that we would call "homosexuality" and don't even have any words to describe it, that would seem to indicate that the concept didn't exist. Now, I'm not that big of a fan of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (I find it to be more psychological than linguistic...choices of words influence thought because of the psychological choice of words, not by the linguistic forcing of thought), but I do go the other way: Thought influences words. If you don't have the thought, you don't have the words. And when we find a distinct lack of words that have connection to certain concepts, that's a pretty good sign that the people just didn't think that way.
Take a look at our own language: We have a distinct color term for the shade of light red known as "pink." We don't have a term for the similar shade of light blue. That doesn't mean it is impossible to talk about shades of light blue, but look at the linguistic gymnastics we have to go through in order to do it: "Sky blue," "baby blue," "robin's egg blue." Note that we keep coming back to a more basic term, "blue," and adding qualifiers to it. We just don't think that way. While "pink" has managed to separate itself from "red" so that we consider it different and come up with a different term for it, we haven't done so for other colors.
Or, more accurately, we made our decisions about where the color breaks are. Not all languages have the same breaks. There are languages with only two color terms: "Black" and "white." This doesn't mean they can't discuss color. It means that they always refer to color by referencing an object...just as English uses "turquoise." The term refers to the rock which happens to have the color we mean.
Ancient Greek doesn't have a color term for blue. And yet, Athena has blue eyes. This will commonly get translated as "grey-eyed Athena," but that's because there is no term for "blue" and the translators are trying to be faithful.
They just didn't think that way. Thus, there are no words to use to describe the thought they don't have.
quote:
Secondly, that they did have man-on-man sex and that homos have man-on-man sex so to say that they had no concept of it is misleading.
You are confusing mechanics for sexuality. I didn't say they had no concept of sex taking place between people of the same sex. I said they had no concept of what we would call "homosexuality." There is more to being gay then the physical process of sexual activity. One can be gay and never have sex. And one can have sex with someone of your own sex and not be gay.
quote:
Strange how there are so many people that don't seem to share your interpretation of what "homosexuality" means....
Indeed, but I think a good starting point is to let the gay people speak for themselves. When we listen to the words of gay people telling us that they knew they were gay before they had sex, when we hear them speak of their emotional bonds, it becomes clear that there is more to it than simply checking for the ratio of X to Y chromosomes.
Are you suggesting you didn't know if you were attracted to the appropriate sex until you actually had sex? That kinda begs the question of why you would have bothered having sex if you weren't attracted until after the fact. That could lead one to think that your first sexual act was not voluntary, but that's going a bit far afield.
quote:
That's why I fucking asked, you dumbass.
And when you were told that it wasn't "simple," why did you insist upon it? Notice that we're still talking about it. I didn't say "simple." You did. And when I told you that no, I didn't mean "simple," you continued to harp on it. And now that you've been told that really and truly, I didn't mean "simple" in any way, you're still trying to make it appear as if I did.
The words you're looking for are, "Oops. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth."
quote:
quote:
You put words in my mouth and now you're complaining that I'm not accepting your changing of my words. I didn't say "simply different," so why on earth did you respond as if I did?
I didn't.
(*sigh*)
See, the thing about the internets is that your words stick around. We can go back and take a look at what you said:
Message 78:
Rrhain writes:
The passages are there to tell Jews how their ritualistic practices are different.
Message 80:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Simply different?
Now, did I say "simply"?
No, I didn't.
Did you say "simply"?
Yes, you did.
Ergo, you put words in my mouth. I didn't say "simply" different. You did. I then corrected you to let you know that no, I didn't mean "simply" different. And yet, here we are still going on about a word that you inserted into my statement.
If you truly wanted to have that "honest debate" you mentioned at the beginning of your post, it would help if you would hold up your end of the bargain.
quote:
I asked if you were saying that the passage just says they are different or if there more to it than that.
And I said there was definitely more to it than that.
Message 81:
Rrhain writes:
Since when is "different" ever "simple"?
But apparently that wasn't good enough for you. You wandered off into argumentum ad dictionary. And did you choose to define "different"? No...you chose to define "simple."
Message 82:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sim*ply: -adverb
merely; only: It is simply a cold.
But apparently, even you realized the silliness of this because you went on:
Catholic Scientist writes:
And then with the context of the following sentence, you can see that I was implying that it there is something more there than just saying they are different.
But if you truly believed this, why did you define "simple"? The bone of contention seems to be the word "different," which I directly said in my response to your claim of "simply different" was not to be interpreted as something "merely" or "only." When I used the word "different," I was referring to something on a very large scale. Given that the topic is Judaism, it would seem to be inherent as Judaism is, in part, about otherness, distinction, and being "different." The Law is there to define the Jews as separate from the rest of the world. There's a reason why they are called the "chosen" ones.
Since when is "different" ever "simple"?
But no, this simply (hah!) won't do. Gotta keep harping on it. Gotta make it look like I was the one that screwed up. Yeah, you asked a question and got a direct answer, but the answer contradicted the ad hominem you were trying to make! Can't let that happen. Let's keep on whining about it instead of saying, "Oops. My mistake. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth," and moving on.
quote:
You could have just responded with this
You mean you entered a conversation about the meaning of Judaism without doing any homework on the subject? You decided to participate in a thread about the foundational Law of a religion without even bothering to read the Law in question?
Remember when you were commenting about having an "honest debate"? Don't you think that preparing for the conversation is part of it? Don't you think identifying the fact that you don't know much about the subject you are engaging in would make for a better response?
quote:
“gay” is an adjective and “homosexuality” is a noun.
And here we go with the argumentum ad dictionary. Indeed, the two are different parts of speech. That's irrelevant, though. The concept that the two are referring to is the same thing: Identification with people of your own sex.
quote:
I was assuming that there’s more to “homosexuality” that just “gay sex”
Yeah...what did you say it involved? Oh, that's right.
Message 82:
Catholic Scientist writes:
talking with a lisp while having limp wrists, generally acting like a girl and saying "fabulous" a lot
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
Of course, there's the problem that no, you weren't assuming that there was more to "homosexuality" than just "gay sex." Instead, that is precisely what you were claiming:
Message 82:
Catholic Scientist writes:
I wouldn’t say that the passage refers to “homosexuality” but that it does refer to gay sex.
"Gay" sex is the sex that takes place between gay people. Sex between people of the same sex is not necessarily "gay" sex because you don't have to be gay to have sex with someone of the same sex.
Oh, and then there's the fact that right after this very claim of yours that you don't mean it, you directly state that you do!
Catholic Scientist writes:
Rrhain writes:
The passage refers to sex between two males. Surely you aren't saying that all sex between people of the same sex are "gay," are you?
Pretty much.
So the military is full of gay people, is it? Then why is there such a brou-ha-ha over "morale" since the forces are overflowing with gay people?
And then you say it again:
Catholic Scientst writes:
Rrhain writes:
It happens to be between people of the same sex, but that doesn't make it "gay."
I don’t believe that.
So when you said that you were assuming that there was "more to 'homosexuality' than just 'gay sex,'" that wasn't exactly true? You didn't really mean it?
quote:
Your position is that perfectly straight men would go buttfuck the priest as a fertility ritual
We know that straight men routinely had sex with each other (is there a particular reason why you immediately fantasize about intercourse when you think of having sex with another man? Are you trying to tell us something?) Sparta had an entire culture based around it. Are you saying all the men in Sparta were gay? Then how on earth did they have children? Everyone was bi?
quote:
But then, if I was gay, I guess I’d have that bias too.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
And notice the implication that I'm gay. I still haven't said one way or the other, but let me quash one rumor:
I'm not going to have sex with you, whether it be "buttfucking" you or some other form of sexual activity (yes, there are others), so please stop asking.
quote:
quote:
Only if you also claim that all the other passages describing straight sex as abomination "add weight to the claim that god has a problem with straight sex." Do you?
Yes.
Where? You have talked about the "consequences" of same-sex marriage, but you have never mentioned the "consequences" of mixed-sex marriage. So if you truly believe that there is "a problem" with straight sex, we should have seen at least one post by you of such.
Help us out. Remember: The internets keep your words alive. Go back and search for it because I can't recall a single time you have ever laid into mixed-sex sexual activity the way you do same-sex sexual activity. And since there are nearly 100 times more admonitions against mixed-sex sexual activity, one would think that it would be the topic more commonly discussed.
Remember when you were claiming to what an "honest debate"? That wasn't exactly true, now, was it?
quote:
Maybe when you twist the passages that reference gay sex into NOT being about gay sex like you do to the story of Lot.
Where is same-sex sexual activity ever mentioned in the story of Lot? Are you saying the entire crowd was made of gay people? Then how on earth did they have any children? If they were there for sex, why did they become enraged when Lot offered them sex?
Most specifically, why did the townspeople demand to interrogate the strangers? They certainly didn't ask to have sex with them.
quote:
But you assume that people are playing dumb when they’re not.
No, it isn't assumption. It's justified conclusions based upon direct statements. Like when you claim to mean one thing and then immediately contradict it in the very next sentence. Like when you harp upon the word "simply" when I never used it. Like when you immediately jump to insults when discussing gay people and then claim that you are engaging in "honest debate."
Let's not play dumb about you playing dumb.
quote:
I had an honest question that I thought you might be able to honestly answer.
And I did:
Since when is "different" ever "simple"?
Apparently, you didn't like the answer.
quote:
You'd rather be an asshole.
No, I'd rather have an "honest debate," but that requires two people. If you're not going to hold up your end of the bargain, why should I?
Edited by Rrhain, : Fixing typos
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
