Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[ahinton]

Your "point" being that you and a bunch of 15 years olds correctly identified homosexual behaviour amongst Skylarks from some distance when the male and female of the species are virtually identical, even to Bill Oddie.

My point being that I think you have- shall we say- "elaborated" :erm: your story somewhat, to suit your argument.

Your "point", Mr Pee? You are seriously tring to tell us all here that you actually have anything that could be dignified by describing it as a "point"? One could wonder what it might be, if one could be bothered. What is your problem here?

[Padraig]

Your "point", Mr Pee? You are seriously tring to tell us all here that you actually have anything that could be dignified by describing it as a "point"? One could wonder what it might be, if one could be bothered. What is your problem here?

Please leave me out of 'us all here' mr ahinton. Silence might imply consent, and I don't want to be associated with such an offensive message, Thank you.

[ahinton]

Please leave me out of 'us all here' mr ahinton. Silence might imply consent, and I don't want to be associated with such an offensive message, Thank you.

With no direct help or encouragement from me, please feel free to consider yourself self-exonerated by reason of your post from the category "us all here" if so you desire; whilst the "silence" to whih you refer might or might not imply all manner of things or nothing in any context that anyone might or might not choose, irrespective of the extent or otherwise to which you might desire to consider yourself to be offended by a message such as that of Mr Pee to which mine happened here to refer, this fact does not in and of itself confer upon Mr Pee's statement (such as it is) anything that could reasonably be regarded as a "point" in the context of the topic.

[Nick Armstrong]

With no direct help or encouragement from me, please feel free to consider yourself self-exonerated by reason of your post from the category "us all here" if so you desire; whilst the "silence" to whih you refer might or might not imply all manner of things or nothing in any context that anyone might or might not choose, irrespective of the extent or otherwise to which you might desire to consider yourself to be offended by a message such as that of Mr Pee to which mine happened here to refer, this fact does not in and of itself confer upon Mr Pee's statement (such as it is) anything that could reasonably be regarded as a "point" in the context of the topic.

I'll have to return to that sentence *yikes* in the morning - tiredness prevented me from tracking through the sub-clauses...

[jayne lee wilson]

With no direct help or encouragement from me, please feel free to consider yourself self-exonerated by reason of your post from the category "us all here" if so you desire; whilst the "silence" to whih you refer might or might not imply all manner of things or nothing in any context that anyone might or might not choose, irrespective of the extent or otherwise to which you might desire to consider yourself to be offended by a message such as that of Mr Pee to which mine happened here to refer, this fact does not in and of itself confer upon Mr Pee's statement (such as it is) anything that could reasonably be regarded as a "point" in the context of the topic.

Worthy of Kafka, by Polonius :smiley:!

[jayne lee wilson]

Your "point" being that you and a bunch of 15 years olds correctly identified homosexual behaviour amongst Skylarks from some distance when the male and female of the species are virtually identical, even to Bill Oddie.

My point being that I think you have- shall we say- "elaborated" :erm: your story somewhat, to suit your argument.

O-M-G... He - he - REALLY doesn't get it... is that a :laugh: or a :oh: ? Nah, I think it's just a :laugh:.

[scottycelt]

Hoist by your own petard, eh?

But you didn't actually ask a question in the post I was quoting from. I was just musing on Dawkins, the idea of a genetic basis to human sexuality, and the use of the word "normal". I said nothing about who had or hadn't been using the word "normal". This thread isn't all about you, you know.

Hello again, Richard, and a hearty Good Morning to you!

Yes, I know you were obviously just 'musing', and off you went at a conveniently-timed tangent about Dawkins. You had 'normal' in quotation marks and then referred to 'you' (me) in your characteristically kind way in the last sentence so, on the strength of the written evidence, I obviously, if stupidly, assumed I must have been the target! As far as I know this thread is supposed to be all about proposed new laws in Russia aimed at curbing the active promotion of homosexuality and not about me or Dawkins. Have I, against all forum odds, managed to get at least that right?

I, in turn, simply queried whether you would accept the majority will of the Russian people and their right to decide their own future society but you responded to the effect that what the majority of Russians think is pretty much irrelevant in the great scheme of things. You didn't actually explain how this majority will of the Russian people should be thwarted by outraged foreign outsiders in the West like yourself, though, did you? To be fair, you are not 'normally' noted for enthusiastically backing Western intervention in other countries' affairs, so I'm simply being curious, you see.

And, when all is said and done so much for the interests and rights of 'the people' we are so regularly urged to care about, don't you think... ?. Or aren't the Russians 'people', too?

After all, one member has already queried what the term 'Russian people' can possibly mean ... would have even the brilliantly silly likes of my favourite comedian, Tommy Cooper, got away with that one? :winkeye:

[Mr Pee]

I'll have to return to that sentence *yikes* in the morning - tiredness prevented me from tracking through the sub-clauses...

Indeed......I rarely make it to the end of one of ahintons long-winded posts without dozing off half way. :yawn:

[ahinton]

Indeed......I rarely make it to the end of one of ahintons long-winded posts without dozing off half way. :yawn:

Then why bother to start in the first place? Why not save yourself time and stay awake in order to be able to post more of the same as you have been doing? I will in the meantime refrain from comment on whether or not short-windedness or a limited attention span may constitute virtues in your case, Mr Pee.

That said, what you might consider yourself to be capable of is hardly of prime importance here, so let's return to the topic.

[ahinton]

After all, one member has already queried what the term 'Russian people' can possibly mean ... would have even the brilliantly silly likes of my favourite comedian, Tommy Cooper, got away with that one? :winkeye:

The member concerned simply queried who it is that you regard as "the Russian people" in this context and whether you presume, or indeed have evidence, that all - or at the very least the majority of - Russian citizens support legislation that curbs the rights of homosexuals - no more, no less. Oh, and Tommy Cooper has less place in this discussion than has Richard Dawkins, by the way.

[Mr Pee]

O-M-G... He - he - REALLY doesn't get it... is that a :laugh: or a :oh: ? Nah, I think it's just a :laugh:.

Oh my good God....you told us a story about two male Skylarks copping off, which you claim to have witnessed and which somehow contributed to your sexual awakening, which is a slightly weird and disturbing premise in itself.

I suggested that since it is pretty much impossible to tell the the difference between male and female, even close-up, that your little tale was at best mistaken, and quite possibly a load of balderdash. I incline toward the latter.

(Skylarks-Lark Ascending-on a Radio3 messageboard? Funny how it wasn't just a pair of Blackbirds, or house sparrows......) :whistle:

[jean]

I do think that the argument around the concept of normal got a bit off track, but in this context it's not important enough for me to try to (helpfully) sort it out.

What's semantically important on this thread is this, helpfully set out again by scotty:

...proposed new laws in Russia aimed at curbing the active promotion of homosexuality...

The problem with this form of words, as anyone who remembers the infamous Section 28 will know all too well, is that no-one has ever been able to say what it actually meant.

[Richard Tarleton]

Enough ornithology folks

http://i.imgur.com/wc8XYR2.jpg

[scottycelt]

The member concerned simply queried who it is that you regard as "the Russian people" in this context and whether you presume, or indeed have evidence, that all - or at the very least the majority of - Russian citizens support legislation that curbs the rights of homosexuals - no more, no less. Oh, and Tommy Cooper has less place in this discussion than has Richard Dawkins, by the way.

Apparently virtually nine-out-of-ten Russians support the new laws according to reports. I know you said you don't have much time for opinion polls but I somehow feel sure you would quickly change your mind if 88% of Russians thought differently!

http://www.autostraddle.com/russia-poised-to-pass-nationwide-dont-say-gay-bill-180783/

I didn't introduce either Tommy Cooper or Professor Dawkins into this discussion but I don't have any sort of problem whatsoever with discussing either, or indeed any other little off-topic references now and again. As long as we eventually return to the main subject!

[jean]

Apparently virtually nine-out-of-ten Russians support the new laws according to reports.

They probably don't understand them any better than you do.

Look at the form of words you gave so confidently above:

...proposed new laws in Russia aimed at curbing the active promotion of homosexuality...

Can you say what you think this means?

Give an example, perhaps, of specific behaviour which would contravene these laws?