egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:

> My point is why don't you give gay people the same courtesy as
> black people? You don't use phrases like 'wogs' and 'niggers'
> so why do you think it acceptable to use 'homos' and
> 'shirtlifters'?
>
> Is it because you're homophobic?

We have established that Rodders is homophobic (and proud of it), but I cannot see anything wrong in the use of the phrase 'homos'. It is merely short for 'homosexual' (which is a bit of a mouthful) and in fact the very same short form is part of the word 'homophobic' (which should really be homosexualphobic, because 'homo' really only means 'equal').

Yes, the preferred form these days is 'gay', but in the long run this is likely to become a politically incorrect word too - unless the underlying attitudes in society change the once correct terms become sooner or later forms of abuse (like 'moron' or 'negro' or 'cripple' or 'paki', etc.). There are already signs that this is slowly happening to 'gay', as in teenage speak it has become a synonym for 'bad'. Personally, I really hate it when people give up on a word just because others use it for abuse - it is a form of surrender.

open to abuse and has been for centuries

Wether religion is real or fiction matters not to me

Something that you choose to believe in on a personal level is nobodies business until it starts to effect theirs

I have religious organisations knocking on my door a few times a year and we have a pleasant 5 second chat before the inevitable where I tell them

Religion bores me to death compared to anything else
I've already booked my seat to hell,now unless you wish to come with me

GOODBYE


As to the debate which Stephen Fry put forward...
I agreed with everything he said

It was like watching a surgeon doing an operation,
each incision cutting to the bone

Yes he could have gone further but to what point

You dont change organisations which have a billion followers by calling them idiots in a debate

From his wiki page

Views on religion

Fry has repeatedly expressed opposition to organised religion and has identified himself as an atheist, while declaring some sympathy for the ancient Greek belief in capricious gods. In his first autobiography he wrote, "I knew I couldn't believe in God, because I was fundamentally Hellenic in my outlook."[81] He has accepted that religion can have positive effects, "Sometimes belief means credulity, sometimes an expression of faith and hope which even the most sceptical atheist such as myself cannot but find inspiring." [82] In 2009 he and Christopher Hitchens participated in an 'Intelligence Squared' debate in which they argued against Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Onaiyekan, who supported the view that the Catholic Church was a force for good. Fry and Hitchens argued that the church did more harm than good. Fry attacked the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and denounced its wealth.[83]

On 15 September 2010, Fry, along with 54 other public figures, signed an open letter published in The Guardian, stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom being a state visit.[84]

On 22 February 2011, Fry was presented with the Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University, joining a list of previous honorees including novelist Salman Rushdie, screenwriter Joss Whedon, and Mythbusters Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman.[85]

'Paki' is short for 'Pakistani'. If anyone on this forum went up to a group of Pakistanis and said, 'All right, Pakis?' they may be in for a tough time. The reason being that many people use the term 'Paki' in a derogatory way. We all know this. The same for 'homo'. I've never heard anyone use the term 'homo' in a kind, sensitive, innocent way.

The whole point of language, originally, is to be understood. In art and humour we can use language in creative ways to give different desired effects but for the most part language is about conveying information and ideas as accurately as possible. The more accurate we can be the easier we are to understand. Given that, we avoid terms and words that may give off a false image of what we are thinking/conveying. Even if you don't have any gay prejudice at all, using terminology closely and commonly associated with prejudice will more than likely give the wrong impression, confuse and often offend.

I'd liken it to politeness and etiquette also. It is not unhygienic for you if I pick my nose 3 tables away from you in your favourite restaurant. I refrain from doing so, though, because it might put you off your escargot. I realise it is socially unacceptable and would expect someone to complain.

I complained to RoddersUK. He -following my nose-picking analogy- said he was going to pick his nose in any restaurant he liked and if the other customers didn't like it they could go fuck themselves. Of course he'd be the first to complain if anyone picked their nose in front of him while he was eating. Hypocrites are like than, you see.

I wouldn't give a flying fuck if they did. I would laugh and point the fucker out and embarass him, you arsehole.

I'm surprised a homophobe brought up 'arsehole'. It's usually the 'twatt' comeback. Weird you should think of arseholes when we start talking about gays. Hmmm.....

You know, many homophobes are actually frustrated gays who are to scared to come out of the closet? It's like professing too much, if you get my drift. They overdo the machismo stuff because they're so concerned about people finding out.

If it turns out you are a frustrated, closeted gay then I'd understand fully and you'd have my deepest sympathy. Course, you're probably just a boring, nasty bigot.

Shame.