Chick-Fil-A: Society Gone Full Retard

[dagrimreefah]

Yea, an ancient Greek would be a little miffed at the usage, but it comes from a tradition in the sciences to knowingly use Latin or Greek incorrectly as far as the native speakers would be concerned. Translate any animal or medicine, it's gibberish. Also, to argue correct usage is like the old "octopuses" vs. "octopi" argument people sometimes like to have. They're both wrong, it's "Octopods" if you wanted to be hoity-toity about it, and then that's wrong because marine biologists just call them octopuses anyway. So it's a moot point really.

Still, in the case of someone who has a clinical fear of the same. How would you diagnose him?

I understand your point. But your point only makes sense in so far as we are concerned with pluralization of words or other such semantics. Once people start replacing the original meanings of words with new meanings, that's when it is just ridiculous in my opinion. Especially when bankrupt whore companies like Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. jump on the politically-correct bandwagon and exacerbate it. Seriously, what's the problem with the original term "homoerotophobia"?

[cobaltjones]

I recently read a comment from an American citizen who was so proud how America is the first with yet another civil rights movement which is going to make the world a better place.

Guess what guys? Here gay and lesbian marriage is the most normal thing in the world....for years already. How people can be against it is beyond every Europeans mind. Get your shit together man. How are your conservative politicans even meeting with our foreign minister or Berlins mayor? Both are gay and the last time they got into trouble for that was when visiting some backwards arabic 3rd world country. Not the USA, the worlds bestest democracy...lol.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 62638.html

[Ignus]

Still, in the case of someone who has a clinical fear of the same. How would you diagnose him?

I understand your point. But your point only makes sense in so far as we are concerned with pluralization of words or other such semantics. Once people start replacing the original meanings of words with new meanings, that's when it is just ridiculous in my opinion. Especially when bankrupt whore companies like Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. jump on the politically-correct bandwagon and exacerbate it. Seriously, what's the problem with the original term "homoerotophobia"?

Because homophobia is a more elegant word, easier to say and look at. Also, homoerotophobia implies focus more on the sexual act and less on the fear of a cultural strata, which is the core of the issue and definition. So, less that you don't want to touch a man's pee-wee and more that you are willing to see a fellow human's rights undermined because of it.

[borka]

cobaltjones posted a link

date of article: 07/03/2008

you got to know that Bushido played the real bad tough guy to sell records mainly to kids - that worked - meanwhile he turned 180 grade and sells himself as older, wiser and family guy writing books - works too...it was just a cheap trick bashing gays ...funny enough that he's the 7th wave of Berlin Rappers...the first wave for sure has been cooler and openminded...

SO36Boys - LaBelle1983-4

http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/99-problems-but-gay-marriage-aint-one-jay-z-flexes-his-influence-for-same-sex-ma

[dagrimreefah]

Because homophobia is a more elegant word, easier to say and look at. Also, homoerotophobia implies focus more on the sexual act and less on the fear of a cultural strata, which is the core of the issue and definition. So, less that you don't want to touch a man's pee-wee and more that you are willing to see a fellow human's rights undermined because of it.

So aesthetics and political-correctness shape our medical language today rather than what was used throughout history, i.e. etymology. Gotcha. I agree with this, although I don't have to like it...

and more that you are willing to see a fellow human's rights undermined because of it.

But I thought the word was supposed to mean fear of gays. Now it means to be prejudiced against someone for being gay? Which one is it?
Also my other question still stands. How would you go about defining someone who has a fear of the same? I guess we use the same word? Or make a new one?

[Ignus]

Because homophobia is a more elegant word, easier to say and look at. Also, homoerotophobia implies focus more on the sexual act and less on the fear of a cultural strata, which is the core of the issue and definition. So, less that you don't want to touch a man's pee-wee and more that you are willing to see a fellow human's rights undermined because of it.

So aesthetics and political-correctness shape our language today rather than what was used throughout history, i.e. etymology. Gotcha.

and more that you are willing to see a fellow human's rights undermined because of it.

But I thought the word was supposed to mean fear of gays. Now it means to be prejudiced against someone for being gay? Which one is it?
Also my question still stands. How would you go about defining someone who has a fear of the same? I guess we use the same word? Or make a new one?

Yes, aesthetics has been a defining factor in language change for thousands of years. Check out the evolution of the alphabet, or English from its Norse roots, it's a grand old read. And I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear before, but etymology is still the study of the history and evolution of words. Much like history, it merely records and interprets and changes. We don't go around claiming Germans are Nazi's and Chalemagne rules Europe because history once said so.

And homophobia is still the psychological community's chosen word for the fear of homosexuality, much like octopuses and marine biologists. I'm sure the ancient Greeks couldn't give less of a shit. We could go back to the pre-70's terminology for homophobes and just call them bigots if you like. I'm fine with it.

[dagrimreefah]

Yes, aesthetics has been a defining factor in language change for thousands of years. Check out the evolution of the alphabet, or English from its Norse roots, it's a grand old read. And I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear before, but etymology is still the study of the history and evolution of words. Much like history, it merely records and interprets and changes. We don't go around claiming Germans are Nazi's and Chalemagne rules Europe because history once said so.

Yes I agreed with you about the aesthetics part. I mistyped, I know aesthetics have been a major factor in the evolution of words. Again, what I don't agree with is political demagoguery shaping our language. Don't care if you agree with that or disagree, that's just my opinion on the matter.

And homophobia is still the psychological community's chosen word for the fear of homosexuality, much like octopuses and marine biologists. I'm sure the ancient Greeks couldn't give less of a shit. We could go back to the pre-70's terminology for homophobes and just call them bigots if you like. I'm fine with it.

Yes because you are a leader in the field of psychology. Doesn't matter how much you pound the table and tell me that psychologists incorrectly use the word "homophobia", the correct term is still "homoerotophobia". And the etymologically correct definition of "homophobia" is still fear of the same. You can continue to use the politically-correct version of the word if you like, however. I don't give a rat's ass :p

[Ignus]

Yes, aesthetics has been a defining factor in language change for thousands of years. Check out the evolution of the alphabet, or English from its Norse roots, it's a grand old read. And I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear before, but etymology is still the study of the history and evolution of words. Much like history, it merely records and interprets and changes. We don't go around claiming Germans are Nazi's and Chalemagne rules Europe because history once said so.

Yes I agreed with you about the aesthetics part. I mistyped, I know aesthetics have been a major factor in the evolution of words. Again, what I don't agree with is political demagoguery shaping our language. Don't care if you agree with that or disagree, that's just my opinion on the matter.

And homophobia is still the psychological community's chosen word for the fear of homosexuality, much like octopuses and marine biologists. I'm sure the ancient Greeks couldn't give less of a shit. We could go back to the pre-70's terminology for homophobes and just call them bigots if you like. I'm fine with it.

Yes because you are a leader in the field of psychology. Doesn't matter how much you pound the table and tell me that psychologists incorrectly use the word "homophobia", the correct term is still "homoerotophobia". And the etymologically correct definition of "homophobia" is still fear of the same. You can continue to use the politically-correct version of the word if you like, however. I don't give a rat's ass :p

I'm not and don't need to be a leading psychologist to understand basic terminology. I've ignored it up until now, but your repeated use of "politically correct" is very odd, I think you are seeing political motivation where there is none. Do you sincerely believe that in 1969/71 they thought "You know that word no one uses? Yea, homoerotophobia. It's a bit harsh on the bigots. What? No not the anti-black ones, the anti-gay ones. Let's use homophobia instead." and then viciously repressed it out of existence? No, because it is at best a hopelessly archaic and pedantic interpretation of a dead language and at worst a paranoid rant about perceived political oppression.

[dagrimreefah]

I'm not and don't need to be a leading psychologist to understand basic terminology. I've ignored it up until now, but your repeated use of "politically correct" is very odd, I think you are seeing political motivation where there is none. Do you sincerely believe that in 1969/71 they thought "You know that word no one uses? Yea, homoerotophobia. It's a bit harsh on the bigots. What? No not the anti-black ones, the anti-gay ones. Let's use homophobia instead." and then viciously repressed it out of existence? No, because it is at best a hopelessly archaic and pedantic interpretation of a dead language and at worst a paranoid rant about perceived political oppression.

And I think you're looking for an argument when there is none. I already stated my opinion several times, and what is odd is that you seem to ignore that it is opinion every time and continuously try to pound your bullshit media-fed ideologies into me.

But what is not opinion is the terminology. The etymologically correct definition of homophobia is still fear of the same. And the etymologically correct term for "fear of gays" is still homoerotophobia.

EDIT: Also what is odd is how you pretend to be and try your hardest to sound intellectual, but you think the term "political correctness" is synonymous with political oppression. Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about really? XD

[Ignus]

I'm not and don't need to be a leading psychologist to understand basic terminology. I've ignored it up until now, but your repeated use of "politically correct" is very odd, I think you are seeing political motivation where there is none. Do you sincerely believe that in 1969/71 they thought "You know that word no one uses? Yea, homoerotophobia. It's a bit harsh on the bigots. What? No not the anti-black ones, the anti-gay ones. Let's use homophobia instead." and then viciously repressed it out of existence? No, because it is at best a hopelessly archaic and pedantic interpretation of a dead language and at worst a paranoid rant about perceived political oppression.

And I think you're looking for an argument when there is none. I already stated my opinion several times, and what is odd is that you seem to ignore that it is opinion every time and continuously try to pound your bullshit media fed ideologies into me.

But what is not opinion is the terminology.

There is an argument, since you were shouting down people that were disagreeing with you, as you usually do. Then, when someone stands up to the ranty tin-hat and points out the vast holes in his thinking he moves in to the ad hominems and back peddles into "it's my opinion". Well I'm very sorry, but opinions can be empirically wrong. Besides, internet arguments aren't there for me to convince you or vice versa, it is for one person to pick apart another for the public to watch. They can make their own minds up.

And "media fed ideologies"? Rather cliché.