Active Users:781 Time:03/02/2026 07:48:02 PM
Once again...who are you to make that determination. Jeordam Send a noteboard - 17/08/2018 09:54:41 PM

View original post
It is one thing to freeze up when a spider comes near you. Yes, that is definitely phobia.

But you not wanting fish isn't classified as a phobia, even though you have a clear aversion to it, because you're not saying all seafood is bad, or that people who eat seafood are in some way wrong, or less of a human being, or committing a sin.

For a person to say "homsexual intercourse isn't for me" wouldn't be homophobia. That's their sexuality. But to judge others who are homosexual is different. When aversion to the innate nature of a person, or a group of people, is used to demean them, I think that very much counts as a phobia.


So someone believing something different or contrary is considered a phobia? Since when is that the case? Do you not see that you are judging him just as much (and some could argue even more so) than you accuse him of judging? He is standing among the tenants of his faith. A faith system that's been around for a very long time. A faith system that millions of people believe in. Yet you so very easily declare it "phobic". Sure, there are the wackos out there who very loudly HATE, but there are more who just don't agree.

Don't automatically think that the goal is to demean someone. Don't automatically think that the purpose is to judge them. I don't think that just because someone is gay that they have sex with everything that moves, or that they are effeminate/butch. Much like I don't think that just because someone is <insert characteristic here> that they are <insert corresponding stereotype here>.

I originally asked you how you could tell that someone is phobic, and you jumped to the conclusion that aversion to a behavior in order to demean them is translated to a phobia. I'm still wondering how you know his motivations. How do you know his motive is to demean them?

~Jeordam

ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Reply to message
Interesting article in my Twitter feed last night on an issue Greg (The Shrike) brought up... - 15/08/2018 03:05:37 PM 1278 Views
I thought this response in the comment sectionwas funny - 15/08/2018 08:12:49 PM 605 Views
I was thinking about this at lunch today.... - 15/08/2018 11:43:33 PM 588 Views
I don't - 16/08/2018 12:09:32 AM 614 Views
It seemed more like moondog was making a prostitution reference to me *NM* - 16/08/2018 02:51:23 AM 312 Views
Say what? - 16/08/2018 09:47:19 PM 592 Views
It is a more of a domination / hierarchy reference I think *NM* - 16/08/2018 09:57:23 PM 300 Views
Re: Say what? - 16/08/2018 10:33:43 PM 659 Views
Yes, but there's more to it... - 16/08/2018 10:38:05 PM 571 Views
Says who? - 19/08/2018 05:05:37 AM 601 Views
However much of a hypocrite moondog is, the article, I feel, represents something else - 16/08/2018 05:51:59 AM 605 Views
Phobia - 16/08/2018 10:55:05 PM 628 Views
You don't even understand oral sex? - 17/08/2018 12:43:50 AM 587 Views
Get to a sex education class, won't you? Or at least, use Google - 17/08/2018 05:29:25 AM 521 Views
I am a normal male person, who had conversations with other male people. - 17/08/2018 08:25:48 AM 581 Views
Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 17/08/2018 04:13:09 PM 613 Views
Re: Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 19/08/2018 03:23:10 AM 599 Views
You are wrong about Cannoli. - 17/08/2018 02:49:35 AM 598 Views
No - 17/08/2018 05:41:22 AM 574 Views
Re: No - 19/08/2018 03:29:15 AM 636 Views
Cannoli is right: "sucks" implies the active party in oral sex - 17/08/2018 03:04:40 AM 686 Views
That would be the "receptive partner" in scientific terminology - 17/08/2018 05:44:16 AM 562 Views
Fuck scientific terminology. It blows. - 17/08/2018 08:26:16 AM 571 Views
Regarding phobia - 17/08/2018 06:30:51 PM 632 Views
There's a pretty simple test, I think - 17/08/2018 08:02:31 PM 570 Views
Once again...who are you to make that determination. - 17/08/2018 09:54:41 PM 552 Views
*I* don't make the determination, liberal society did. - 18/08/2018 12:02:22 AM 583 Views
So for clarity - 18/08/2018 01:28:17 AM 581 Views
Yes! - 18/08/2018 01:46:05 AM 569 Views
Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:10:46 AM 570 Views
Re: Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:32:41 AM 583 Views
Are you asking a serious question? - 18/08/2018 02:45:03 AM 590 Views
Yes, I was - 18/08/2018 01:59:48 PM 585 Views
"liberal" society does not police speech - 19/08/2018 03:31:54 AM 582 Views
You don't need to protect speech everyone agrees with. *NM* - 19/08/2018 06:02:17 PM 408 Views
It most certainly *does* police speech. - 20/08/2018 03:01:32 PM 581 Views
But to follow up on that. - 20/08/2018 03:16:07 PM 584 Views
Well, that's why we didn't stop with the FIRST Amendment *NM* - 21/08/2018 04:25:53 PM 289 Views
That's individuals policing speech, not society. Agregate individual action =/= collective action - 21/08/2018 04:25:23 PM 598 Views
I completely agree. - 21/08/2018 04:35:38 PM 582 Views
heh, heh, heh - 21/08/2018 05:00:32 PM 557 Views
Hump it like you mean it! - 21/08/2018 07:00:01 PM 615 Views
About the casual part - 16/08/2018 10:33:45 PM 554 Views
I don't think it's appropriate, but I think it's more about sexual shaming - 16/08/2018 10:35:53 PM 631 Views
Precisely - 16/08/2018 10:59:42 PM 622 Views
You are absolutely correct - 17/08/2018 02:43:21 AM 616 Views
I, for one, am glad to see this topic go flaming. - 17/08/2018 05:16:55 PM 660 Views
Yes, it is a tool used by those who should "know better". - 20/08/2018 03:14:30 PM 553 Views
well said - 20/08/2018 03:50:50 PM 604 Views

Reply to Message