Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 6:14:35 GMT
Maybe because I'm not a homophobe I don't get it. Okay... Well, okay then.  |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 10, 2017 6:22:21 GMT
Who alleged you were a homophobe? I don't feel like going back and reading this whole thread; it's been going for what feels like a month. Pretty sure it wasn't me. Did I?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 6:26:13 GMT
Who alleged you were a homophobe? I don't feel like going back and reading this whole thread; it's been going for what feels like a month. Pretty sure it wasn't me. Did I? Nobody in this thread has accused me of being homophobic. Yet. I was simply pointing out that not understanding what the Chesire Cat posted in a thread about homosexuality has to do with the subject does not label someone posting in such a thread means that that person is ignorant about homosexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 10, 2017 6:34:48 GMT
Who alleged you were a homophobe? I don't feel like going back and reading this whole thread; it's been going for what feels like a month. Pretty sure it wasn't me. Did I? Nobody in this thread has accused me of being homophobic. Yet. I was simply pointing out that not understanding what the Chesire Cat posted in a thread about homosexuality has to do with the subject does not label someone posting in such a thread means that that person is ignorant about homosexuality.Yo, this is a syntactical fucking mess. I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to say. Reread the thread and apply like 1% more brainpower. Some dude made some bland, generic statement about generally being tolerant in a vague way of gay characters in movies, to which you replied with the nigh-autistic reponse, "Explain." So I explained to you that dude made a passing statement about not seeing any particular reason to arbitrarily exclude gay characters from any specific movie, per se. So I said to you that he was a "tolerant, reasonable person." And then you said, "Who is?" Well, who the fuck did you think? THE PERSON WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING. "graham," or whatever. It was such a mind-blowingly stupid question I posted a gif of the Cheshire Cat (representative of nonsense/silliness) in response to your nonsense, flat-liner question. etc. etc. I feel DUMBER for having typed that all out. Jesus... |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Mar 10, 2017 6:41:47 GMT
If you genuinely believe what you have written in the above post jamesavalon I can only conclude you are either A: Mentally Challenged and Barely Educated, B: Brainwashed by Lunatic, Homophobic Parents and Relatives since Birth, or C: a Manipulative Sociopath with a Radical Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian Agenda comprised of Fear, Ignorance or Hate.
Guy, A good friend of my family - who we have known since he was a boy - is a hugely successful gay man who has worked his way to the top of the corporate ladder and is now a top executive with the Mercedes Benz Company. His mother, Claire, now 80, a passionate committed christian who doesn't believe in evolution, did not even know Guy was gay until he came out to her at the age of 30.
Claire, who quickly got over her shock and still loves Guy as much as she always did, is a close friend of mine and a highly intelligent and capaple, if sometimes blinkered and self involved, woman, who is still working as a book-keeper for a law firm, but we have different views on lots of things. I never realized that she didn't know Guy was gay.
I must point out at this stage that Claire, although bizarrely unaware of her son's true sexuality for so long is not and has never has been a homophobic person who was vehemently against gay men and women.
However Clare, her late husband and their two children, Guy and Kate, would spend every summer with us when were children. Not that he ever told my middle brother or I in so many words back then, but Guy knew he was gay from the time he was about five-years-old, and my younger brother and I (who were aged about 10 and 12 when Guy was five, and are both heterosexual) knew even then that his true sexuality was different to ours. Call it intuition, but I assure you we knew. Were my brother and I so much more intelligent and perceptive than you were at that age jamesavalon?
I should also mention to you that I grew up in one of the most reppressive, racist and conservative countries in the world - ruled with an iron fist by one of the cruelest, uncoolest governing parties in history.
My working class parents, however, taught us to love, respect and accept everyone; even their more "flambuoyant" male friends and associates, and female relatives with close-cropped haired and severe shoes.
Well, I stopped reading your post. But, of course I believe it. It is about the science. It makes no sense that a person is born gay. I'm saddened you stopped reading my post because of the first paragraph jamesavalon. It wasn't meant to offend you, I just wanted to shake up your worldview. Just know that being gay is not a choice james. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 6:50:30 GMT
Well, I stopped reading your post. But, of course I believe it. It is about the science. It makes no sense that a person is born gay. I'm saddened you stopped reading my post because of the first paragraph jamesavalon. It wasn't meant to offend you, I just wanted to shake up your worldview. Just know that being gay is not a choice james. You can't shake up my world view. I have likely seen much more of the world than you have but even if I hadn't, science is entirely on my side on this issue. And you clearly did not understand what I typed. All I said, and this is 100% correct, is that no one is born gay. That is true. But you need to believe people are born gay. So you ignore the science. This is why liberals are not credible on this and most issues. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 7:02:57 GMT
You can't shake up my world view. I have likely seen much more of the world than you have but even if I hadn't, science is entirely on my side on this issue. And you clearly did not understand what I typed. All I said, and this is 100% correct, is that no one is born gay. That is true. But you need to believe people are born gay. So you ignore the science. This is why liberals are not credible on this and most issues. How do you stop a gay baby from crying? You take a pacifier, and you shove it up his ass. No, you do. I'm calling CFS. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Mar 10, 2017 7:11:15 GMT
If provided a third option, such as "It's up to the artists to decide whether to include them, and up to consumers to decide what they'll watch," or even a rephrasing of the single question to, for instance, "Should the makers of kids & family movies have the freedom to include gay characters," I could have participated. But what Conspirologist presents is what Marisa Tomei so eloquently described in My Cousin Vinny as a bullshit question, and being forced into an invalid metric by someone with an axe to grind is something I - even, and especially, as a gay man - must reject. Thank you for that doghouse. I am in such agreement with you that I am now having doubts about my contributions to this thread - heartfelt as they have been. In fact, I am wondering if I should even have participated in the vote. You're a good man, and your thoughtful contribution to this thread is much appreciated. Here is a trailer for the outstanding, heartbreaking and shockingly illuminating Showtime documentary L WORD MISSISSIPPI: HATE THE SIN. I watched this doccie last week and it made me so sad I thought my heart was breaking. But it also made me really angry and my blood was boiling by the end of it. So I guess I let some of that anger out on this thread. I hope my reaction/explanation makes some type of sense to you. My heart has always got in the way of my head, but it is a good heart and as I have got older - while I have also tempered my emotions to a degree - I have learned to trust it (or at least to understand it). Trailer of Showtime's L WORD MISSISSIPPI: HATE THE SIN. www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyInYg_JSHoAnd here is the late, great Levon Helm with a song for you doghouse. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkidg91kkOo |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 7:17:11 GMT
I figure you're responding to me. Use the Quote feature. |
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 10, 2017 7:19:10 GMT
Its debateable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 7:28:05 GMT
I'll use whatever I want, Sparkle-pants. You're a basement-dwelling loser. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Mar 10, 2017 7:42:59 GMT
I'm saddened you stopped reading my post because of the first paragraph jamesavalon. It wasn't meant to offend you, I just wanted to shake up your worldview. Just know that being gay is not a choice james. I have likely seen much more of the world than you have but even if I hadn't, science is entirely on my side on this issue. And you clearly did not understand what I typed. All I said, and this is 100% correct, is that no one is born gay. That is true. James - I am 57-years-old, I grew up in apartheid South Africa, lived to see apartheid fall, got to vote for the late, great Nelson Mandela (he was My President, My President and like everyone else in my country I loved him with all my heart) in SA's first democratic election, I have been to war and I have served hard time in one of the toughest military prisons in the world. I have seen the worst of mankind, I have seen the best of mankind, and I have lived to tell. I have an open heart and an open mind and I try to live every moment of every day to the fullest. I have also seen more films than almost anybody on the planet - but that''s another story for another day. That's a little bit of who I am. Who are you jamesavalon? Who do you think you are to say that "science" is on your side jamesavalon?. 'Cause you're sure as f..k ain't no scientist. If the fact that proud, honorable gay posters such as MikeTheMechanic and Doghouse6 - who do not lie (I and many other posters on Classic Board can vouch for their sincerity and honesty) have come onto this thread and told us they were born gay and knew they were gay from an early age isn't enough to convince you, do some basic research. How old are? Twenty? It is my humble and heartfelt opinion that you are a profoundly ignorant person jamesavalon. Fact is, I think you live in a delusional bubble with your head buried in the sand and have seen hardly anything of the world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 13:01:32 GMT
I see no reason why they shouldn't have gay characters in any given movie. Explain. Not sure what needs explanation there. You're going to have characters in your movie. I don't see why some of them shouldn't be gay. There's nothing at all wrong with being gay, so why not have gay characters? What I am saying is that when I think about the sentence "There should be no gay characters in kids and family movies because..." then I can't think of any reasonable and honest way to complete that sentence. To my mind it's no different from asking whether there should be female characters, or non-white characters, or tall characters, or short characters, or brave characters, or characters with curly hair, or disabled characters, or... well, any other kind of character. Does that explain it to you? |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Mar 10, 2017 14:14:31 GMT
Not sure what needs explanation there. You're going to have characters in your movie. I don't see why some of them shouldn't be gay. There's nothing at all wrong with being gay, so why not have gay characters? What I am saying is that when I think about the sentence "There should be no gay characters in kids and family movies because..." then I can't think of any reasonable and honest way to complete that sentence. To my mind it's no different from asking whether there should be female characters, or non-white characters, or tall characters, or short characters, or brave characters, or characters with curly hair, or disabled characters, or... well, any other kind of character. Does that explain it to you? Because whatever your stances on gay people are, it is a highly divisive issue in society that should not be paraded around such movies. Same goes with hundreds of other things. There are hundreds of types of people, from radical anti-meat activists etc. that I fully support and find no problem with at all - but certainly should not be in such films, because that is not the place for it. Yes moral messages should always be a part of movies, children movies as well, but there is a difference between largely universally accepted messages and clear divisive lines in society. And please don't start with the nonsense "oh but they are just showing gay people, not bringing politics into it" because it is one the most ridiculous arguments to possibly make. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 14:23:49 GMT
Because whatever your stances on gay people are, it is a highly divisive issue in society that should not be paraded around such movies. This makes no sense to me. Only putting straight characters in your movies is equally divisive. So by your logic, nobody should do that either. Which would mean that nobody should make kids and family movies at all. I take that as a reductio ad absurdum which demonstrates that your premise is flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Mar 10, 2017 14:31:09 GMT
Because whatever your stances on gay people are, it is a highly divisive issue in society that should not be paraded around such movies. This makes no sense to me. Only putting straight characters in your movies is equally divisive. So by your logic, nobody should do that either. Which would mean that nobody should make kids and family movies at all. I take that as a reductio ad absurdum which demonstrates that your premise is flawed. Lol. and how is that divisive? The vast majority, vast vast majority of the world is straight, and there has been no prominent movement in any society in any portion of history that has questioned whether being straight is ok or not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 14:38:55 GMT
This makes no sense to me. Only putting straight characters in your movies is equally divisive. So by your logic, nobody should do that either. Which would mean that nobody should make kids and family movies at all. I take that as a reductio ad absurdum which demonstrates that your premise is flawed. Lol. and how is that divisive? The vast majority, vast vast majority of the world is straight, and there has been no prominent movement in any society in any portion of history that has questioned whether being straight is ok or not. No, nobody claims that it's wrong to be straight. (Well, I'm sure somebody does but it's a tiny minority.) But there is a widespread movement that says that movies should be diverse - that minority groups have a right to be represented as well. So if you make a movie that lacks such diversity, this is controversial - we see this from time to time, i.e. the "white oscars" controversy from a year or two ago. Now of course you might want to dismiss those people and say they're stupid and wrong. But then they would do the same regarding the argument that being gay is somehow not ok. And they'd be right, IMO. So by your logic, we must not have gays because it is controversial. And we must not exclude gays, because it is controversial. Which can only mean we must not make movies at all. Although that would probably be controversial too. It's impossible to avoid controversy when you make movies. So the argument that movie must avoid controversy is nonsensical. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 16:14:52 GMT
"Should" is a loaded question since there no particular reason to have characters in it just to represent a demographic.
However, there's nothing wrong with a gay character.
People should expect that if the lead characters are gay that it could lead to lower box office simply de to loss of interest rather than the notion of boycotts
|
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Mar 10, 2017 18:10:57 GMT
Lol. and how is that divisive? The vast majority, vast vast majority of the world is straight, and there has been no prominent movement in any society in any portion of history that has questioned whether being straight is ok or not. No, nobody claims that it's wrong to be straight. (Well, I'm sure somebody does but it's a tiny minority.) But there is a widespread movement that says that movies should be diverse - that minority groups have a right to be represented as well. So if you make a movie that lacks such diversity, this is controversial - we see this from time to time, i.e. the "white oscars" controversy from a year or two ago. Now of course you might want to dismiss those people and say they're stupid and wrong. But then they would do the same regarding the argument that being gay is somehow not ok. And they'd be right, IMO. So by your logic, we must not have gays because it is controversial. And we must not exclude gays, because it is controversial. Which can only mean we must not make movies at all. Although that would probably be controversial too. It's impossible to avoid controversy when you make movies. So the argument that movie must avoid controversy is nonsensical. Dude I already had this exact same discussion with another person in this same thread, and they never replied. Even if we skip ahead and take it is a "necessity" that movies "have" to be to be diverse, then why are 99.999% of other minority groups not even given a tiny ounce of the representation and attention gay people get on TV and movies? Why does "diversity" only mean gay people, and a very select few others? If you're going to make all movies social causes, and expect diversity - then you have to be outraged out of your mind that an absurd about of other minority groups are nearly always excluded. It'd be like if they made a movie about general American history, and absolutely all of the actors were white, but one or two were Jewish Americans. And the filmmakers celebrated that as a fantastic "diversity" achievement. Would you not be asking questions instead why none of the other races were included? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 20:14:33 GMT
Dude I already had this exact same discussion with another person in this same thread, and they never replied. Even if we skip ahead and take it is a "necessity" that movies "have" to be to be diverse, then why are 99.999% of other minority groups not even given a tiny ounce of the representation and attention gay people get on TV and movies? Why does "diversity" only mean gay people, and a very select few others? You're arguing that movies should not exclude any group? I'm right there with you. I don't see why any group should be excluded. No, not "outraged out of my mind". I've no idea what would make you think that. But I'm certainly with you in being fine with lots of diversity. It's good that we've found common ground to agree on.  |
|
