₦airaland Forum

lexy2014:
we are still saying the same thing. u have admitted that "the definition of the word "homophobia" also includes fear of homosexual people". hence my question: "how do people fear homosexual people?"

@ the bolded
That aspect of the definition of homophobia is irrelevant to our main discourse but I will answer you though
I'm not a psychiatrist so I'm not an expert in this field and I haven't met or had a conversation with a person who possesses such fear,neither have I experienced such so I am incapable of explaing how people fear homosexual people but I accept that "fear of homosexual" people fits the description of the term "homophobia" just as "hate for homosexual people" does. . The word patronise has several meanings one is "to belittle someone" another is "to purchase s service or goods from someone" does that mean that when s person uses the word patronise he is referring to the two meanings ?When I use the term homophobia I'm referring to hate for homosexual people or homosexuality so I don't know why you keep dragging this .

lexy2014:
you dont know how and why people fear homosexual people and yet u put it as your definition? i didnt say u constructed the word, but if u chose to use it to support your claim, shouldnt you have understood it first before using it?

Some persons have phobia for water,I don't know how and why they do but would that prevent me from using the word aquaphobia to describe a person who fits that description?

I used the word homophobia to describe people who hate homosexuals,but the definition of the word "homophobia" also includes fear of homosexual people. You asked me to define homophobia and I provided the definition I obtained from the dictionary,I don't know the problem you have with that

lexy2014:
I haven't made a point. I only asked u a question based on the definition u gave which is:

Since u say homophobia means "to possess fear,dislike or hatred for homosexuality or homosexual people", that means we can substitute one word for the other. So how do people fear homosexual people?

Response to the bolded
I don't know how or why people fear homosexual people but I guess there are people who possess such fear. So many weird phobias exist,I can't explain how or why they do
Satisfied
By the way the definition I gave for homophobia is gotten from the dictionary,I didn't construct or invent the word,if you feel that definition is not appropriate you can channel your grievienace to the appropriate direction not me

lexy2014:
Am only following the definition u gave. Aren't these your exact words?

Yes
What is your point ?

lexy2014:
Which still takes us back to my question. since u say homophobia means "to possess fear,dislike or hatred for homosexuality or homosexual people", that means we can substitute one word for the other. So how do people fear homosexual people?

I don't understand why we are going back and forth with this
If a person fears homosexual people or homosexuality the person is homophobic
If a person hates homosexual people or homosexuality the person is homophobic

I haven't seen anyone who fears homosexual people and if that occurs I can't describe why or how,but we do know that many people hate homosexual people.
When I use the term homophobia I'm usually referring to hate for homosexual people or homosexuality and that is consistent with the meaning of the word
Kini big deal

lexy2014:
Good, since u say homophobia means "to possess fear,dislike or hatred for homosexuality or homosexual people", that means we can substitute one word for the other. So how do people fear homosexual people?

I don't know,I just gave you the definition of homophobia
Fear,dislike or hatred for homosexuality or homosexual people . If one possesses any of such attitude then the person is homophobic

Flipmac:
You must be gay. The lord is your strength.

So everybody who speaks against racism against blacks must be black too right,anybody who also speaks out against violence against women must be a woman too right
Try using your brain madam
I'm not gay I don't have any gay friends or relations,I have never met an openly gay person in my life but I know well enough that homophobia is inhumane, primitive, disgraceful,and doesn't belongs to the 21st century,why is that difficult to understand

lexy2014:
In English language, The word phobia means fear. How does phobia now translate to hatred and dislike?

Can u explain how people fear homosexual people?

You have to confront Google about that,I have given you the dictionary definition of homophobia I don't know what you are driving at.
Besides phobia doesn't just mean fear,phobia means fear or aversion to something so what is the problem with the definition I gave. Like I said that is the definition that the dictionary gave

lexy2014:
What does it mean to be homophobic?

to possess fear,dislike or hatred for homosexuality or homosexual people

TONYE001:
1. @Your first point: we are essentially saying the same thing. The UK seems to have found a pattern in the spread of the virus and the MSM community appears to be chief players in this transmission. Age is an unmodifiable risk factor of hypertension. With this information, we know it is important certain intervention protocols are activated in the elderly population as regards containing age-related incidence and prevalence of hypertension. See? So, if homosexuality is identified as a key factor in the spread of the virus, mechanisms should be put in place to contain it. In this instance, homosexuality is modifiable (unlike age in the HTN example you mentioned). If this infection is serious enough and life-threatening enough, the UK may put a law against the practice of homosexuality...thus,they would have MODIFIED this risk factor. See?

well firstly homosexuality as in the attraction to the same sex is not modifiable,what we can change is sexual activity between the same sex and in this case anal sex among homosexual men,I take it that we both are in agreement on that. Secondly if it is established that anal sex is a major risk factor then the government can seek ways to contain this,I don't think it can be banned entirely because anal sex is not the root cause of the problem. Look at Smoking,it is associated with lots of diseases like COPD and lung Cancer but it is still legal. I think all the government can do is to issue a disclaimer that people who engage in anal sex are likely to acquire the disease and as such encourage safe anal sex( that is testing before such activity)

2. Sexual intercourse is nature's way of ensuring the continuity of life. Recall that one of the characteristics of living things is reproduction. This is nature's primary intent for sex. Any form of sex that does not amount to reproduction is unnatural.

I agree that the primary intent of sex is for procreation and I believe that the pleasure that we have for sex is to encourage the process,however what you just gave is not the definition of unnatural but even if I'm to accept it I can extend that definition to other practices. The female mammary gland is meant for feeding babies so men fumbling breast is unnatural,innit ?

3. I did not write anywhere that homosexuals shove their businesses in my throat, did I?

No,my bad let me use the your exact words,do they disturb you with their business and if they do how so?.

4. I'm glad you agree that anal sex is a major health risk. True, prolapse is not an infectious condition. So, it doesn't affect me directly. However, by engaging in high-risk sexual activities, public health is exposed to an avoidable risk. You cannot guarantee or ensure safe sex. As far as people practice anal sex, the health of populations not involved in the act is at risk. Homosexuals can pick up infections and transmit the same to others. Our universe is a closed system. Nothing escapes it. Things are recycled, one way or the other. So, no matter how you view it, anal sex and other forms of high-risk sexual lifestyles put us all at risk of coming down with STD's

.
Same applies to smoking and alcohol use but these things are legal aren't they?
Compulsory vaccination has always been met with stiff resistance despite the fact that the refusal to get vaccinated puts others at health risk
I'm not a religious person and I can list various ways that religion imparts negatively on the life of the adherents and by extension on my life too but I can't force them to stop believing in in an imaginary God can I
Conclusion,you have to understand and respect the choice of others especially if it doesn't directly affect you,we can advocate for people to get tested for STIs more often,limit number of sexual partners and other ways to limit the spread of STIs but if you suggest that outrightly banning MSM is the way to go then I think that comes from a position of bigotry

5. By the way, I wonder where you got your homophobia talk from. I can't recall mentioning that I'm homophobic.

Sorry my bad,I will ask you directly,are you homophobic,before answering please check the meaning of homophobia if you don't know

deolumike:
You kill an unborn baby. Best believe, the appropriate word that describes you is "murderer"

Why stop at an unborn baby,anyone who evicts viable sperm is also a murderer. If you choose to appropriate the same right a full human enjoys to that of a foetus(I have no issues with that) at the detriment of the mother(this I my concern) then I can also extend the same right to sperm cells after all they are viable and capable of developing humans

With "bodily autonomy" comes maternal obligation/responsibility bestowed by nature. You fail at it when you terminate the life of your own helpless baby

Helpless or not that baby is not a full human yet and the life and welfare of the mother supercedes it so if the woman chooses not to carry it anymore she should be allowed to remove it from her body that's what abortion is,nobody puts a knives on anyone's throat or shoots anyone the woman simply removes the foetus from her own body

kingyakos:
Ok.
And I don't hate people

If you say so

TONYE001:
Sir, if you understand epidemiology, you'd appreciate that the UK did not just wake up from sleep to accuse the MSM community of being possible important vectors of the virus

Associating the virus with homosexual behaviour does not indict homosexuality what the UK government is trying to do is identify the factors responsible for a problem and seeking for ways to handle it. Hypertension is associated with age does that mean that geriaritics are bad

Nobody hates anyone. I do not support unnatural sexualities and this does not imply that I hate those that indulge in the act. All I'm asking is that they keep their businesses away from me.

First off,you have to define what unnatural sexualities is and while doing so be reminded that homosexuality has been observed in humans from time immemorial and is also observed in almost all animal species. You could also enlighten me on how homosexual people shove their business and down your thoat

The anus is not structured for sex. It is highly vascular. There is a very rich anastomosis in that region. This makes it easy for diseases to pass on to those that peruse the region.

Anal sex is therefore a significant threat to our health.

With further investigations and studies, we'd come to know how gays contribute to the transmission of this virus.

I agree that the anus is not structured for sex,I also agree that STI's are more easily transmissible through anal sex,but that doesn't justify homophobia after all if anal prolapse occurs it doesn't affect you,for prevention of transmission of STI's people should have safe sex, unprotected sex only when they are sure their partners are STI free and avoid cheating and that solves the problem for both heterosexual and homosexual people engaging in anal sex. I don't see how homophobia is justified with the reasons you gave

kingyakos:
Are you one of them

Nope,I'm heterosexual

Puskas:
You must be a Gaybriel for supporting this. Spits

This is how you identify people with a low IQ
If I don't share your primitive mindset then I'm gay,bravo

seunH:
I'm so sorry, I'm not a Christian sir!!!

What are you then

Starzo:
So me not supporting gay unions means I automatically 'hate' people doing it??

Do you even know/understand the meaning of the word 'hate'?

Simple question
Are you in support of the legislation that criminalizes homosexual people or homosexual behaviour ?

Giorgia:
God will bless you for this your statement!

Thanks

Puskas:
Shut up.

Are you guilty

kingyakos:
Angry for?...

Angry at gays

I say it again You guys are not different from the guys that killed Deborah in Sokoto
If you hate other humans because of their sexual orientation then you are not different from a person who hates others for following a different religion
Again emphasis on the word hate

kingyakos:
Carry ur nyash go give atiku make e put prick na, since u love them

Why are you angry

seunH:
My dear Bros, this is not a game or competition sir, we are 2 learned adults trying to learn from each other.

"If humans are too complex to exist spontaneously how come the designer who is far more complex than humans came into the picture spontaneously"

Take note sir, I never claimed the creator originated spontaneously. What I said was that the originator exists outside our realm and not subjected to the laws of our realm. In addition, there is no way we can grasp the full nature of this creator since we are still confined within this realm and the creator exists outside this realm. Let me give you an instance, you were born and breed in big box, all your existence is confined inside that box. My brother, if you want to look for the origin of that box, would you look inside the box or outside the box?

"The argument for an intelligent designer is basically hinged on our complexity so the more complex an entity or system is the more unlikely that it started existing spontaneously so if that applies to humans it should also apply to the intelligent designer who is far more complex"

That's wrong boss, the argument of an intelligent designer is based on a lot things sir, what you stated is just a fraction. For instance ID is also based on irreducible complexity (remember my kidney example), origin of species, information theory (which is a death knell for atheists- science has proven that despite having our organs well designed and positioned in the right places in our bodies, it needs to be programmed to work and function the way they do, that their existence doesn't indicate functionality, so who programed it? topic for another day) etc

" If you base your argument for God on the complexity thing I have the right to apply the same argument for your God"

But you can't fully know the nature of my God, because his existence transcends our realm, if the creator is confined within our realm, then you have the right to ask for evidence of origin and full nature

"But even if I agree that a first cause was responsible for the existence of the universe,the first cause can be an infinite number of things,it could be something devoid of emotion or feelings,it could be something that humans can not comprehend,it could be DEAD"

I think this is the only point I'm tempted to agree with you, but at this point, this is now subjected to your individual belief and this is where religion comes to play. If your first cause is a flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, Brahma etc, it is subjected to your personal belief


"Your reason for dismissing the obvious flaw in your argument ; infinite regression is to avoid ending in infinity but that is exactly what the first cause is an infinity with no beginning or end,does infinity make sense to you,but you accept it nonetheless"

No sir, you're getting it wrong. I wasn't the one who dismissed infinite regression nor avoided ending in infinity, SCIENCE DID!!!. Science told us that 17 Billion years ago, the universe was an empty vacuum without form. 1 billion years later, the universe sprang into existence, meaning the universe and our existence has a date hence FINITE.

I can't say I agree with everything you said but I think I agree with most
I do not subscribe to the idea of intelligent designer because there may be other reasons beyond our grasp for the origin or sustenance of life if there is any such thing. I'm happy you said the nature of the First Cause is outside our scope of thinking,so even if you believe in ID you can't tell the nature of the designer or if it's still extant. Be rest assured though your argument doesn't give any credence to your Christian faith

Everyone respects the sanctity of life and we know that human life has to be viewed as sacred for self preservation purposes. However no matter how you spin it,all human beings are not as important as the other,we may not like that but that's the way the world is. What makes a person valuable is the level of love and/or positive influence (perceived or factual) the person has on a given number of individuals.
A feotus in an unwanted pregnancy has no use to anyone and at the same time is not wanted by the Mom. It's a no-brainer,in such circumstance the mother should decide, thousands of children are born daily so we are definitely not devoid of seeing foetuses carried to term and delivered so what's the fuss if a few aren't.

ChristineC:
and who are you to determine that a life is more precious than another? you want to decide who lives and who does not when there's no medical emergency that warrants making such choice, are you God? in what ways are you different from Hitler?

I do not decide who lives and who does not and neither do you,that choice belongs to the mother,if she decides not to further carry a pregnancy because of risk to her life or welfare then she has the right to remove the foetus from her body

so when a baby is born, it can also be dropped to exist by itself and if it can't, then by all means good riddance to bad rubbish.

If a baby is born and the mother doesn't want to take care of him/her I think she can make that choice,she can be relieved of that responsibility but to avoid such trouble I advocate that if someone is not ready to bring a child into this world avoid getting pregnant,there are so many simple ways to do that but if you become pregnant terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible,makes things easier. However if she makes a conscious effort to terminate the life of the new born baby or consciously refuses to take care of it when she didn't indicate disinterest in doing so then she is culpable for murder,homicide and manslaughter respectively,that's the way I see it

why can't we apply same principle to people in coma or suffering a stroke or the geriatric community?

What does that prove to you,the lives of people who are loved and valued would be cared for and preserved at all odds. In plain terms the reason we can't apply the same principle to the groups you mentioned is VALUE,their lives no matter how morose it is is till valued

you guys sound effortlessly ridiculous, it would have been fun if it wasn't such a pitiable situation.

You must think I'm a cold hearted punk who enjoys sharing innocent blood(pun intended)
The basis of my position is not my admiration for the termination of these beautiful lives,not at all. My point is based on two major principles
1) The life and interest of a full grown woman is above that of a developing and dependent human life form
2) Bringing children into the world when you are not prepared or capable of raising them would spell doom to the child and the society(not in every cases though). You can imagine the problems we are facing with children who were birthed by consenting parents much less when their parents were forced to have them

Food don land for una
Blame everything on LGBTQ including TB and Cancer
My own be say if you hate other humans because of their sexual orientation you are not different from those who killed Deborah in Sokoto,nah the same mindset una get na just say u no dey violent
Emphasis on the word hate

ChristineC:
this is a useless analogy.
a law should be enacted that basic biology should be compulsorily passed at A-grade for all students.

You think you know embryology better than me.
Anyways that was not an analogy,you seem not to know what an analogy is
My point is simple,the life and welfare of a full grown woman is far far above that of a month old foetus. The foetus can not exist independent of the mother,so the mother decides if she wants to carry it to term or not, otherwise she can simply remove it from her body,that is what abortion is actually so the comment I made was not an analogy. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy,a pregnancy is the carriage and development of one or more offsprings in a female species,if the woman decides she doesn't want to continue the pregnancy her part is to terminate it by removing the foetus,the foetus dies because it can not exist by itself. Is this an analogy too
The way you guys describe abortion it seems as if the foetus is injected with a substance harmful to humans,all they do is eject it from the woman's uterus

BanevsJoker:
She shouldn't.
Don't partake in activities that create a baby and then change your mind when the baby comes.
The baby has rights too, and didn't force the woman to conceive.

But it is going to force the woman to carry it in her womb and deliver it at the expense of her life and comfort
A woman can have unprotected sex if she wants the only problem I have is those who for some reasons remove to use emergency contraceptives afterwards or other means of contraception,but that nothwistanding I still rate the comfort of a woman ahead that of a foetus which can be barely distinguished from a tadpole. Should women who are that careless be shunned,yes but can they have an abortion, absolutely yes.

seunH:
The intelligent designer is THE ORIGIN. Ask me why? The reason is this, if we ask who created the intelligent designer, we would be forced to ask again, who created the person who created the intelligent designer, then we would go on and on and on, till infinity. And you know the result if that be the case? we would never had been in existence or our existence would have been infinite. But opposite is the case here, our existence is finite (16 billion years ago), meaning that an entity capable of originating but not itself originated (exists outside the realm of been created) started this whole process, and that is why we are here. Something had to start this whole process and that something should exist outside the realm of that process and not subjected to the law of such process

Interesting !
I don't know how to play my cards now cos I have so many
The problem with the intelligent design argument is that you guys contradict youselves. If humans are too complex to exist spontaneously how come the designer who is far more complex than humans came into the picture spontaneously. The argument for an intelligent designer is basically hinged on our complexity so the more complex an entity or system is the more unlikely that it started existing spontaneously so if that applies to humans it should also apply to the intelligent designer who is far more complex,the presence of the infinite regression like you pointed out is the flaw in your argument how you expect me to dismiss it is ridiculous,if you base your argument for God on the complexity thing I have the right to apply the same argument for your God
But even if I agree that a first cause was responsible for the existence of the universe,the first cause can be an infinite number of things,it could be something devoid of emotion or feelings,it could be something that humans can not comprehend,it could be DEAD !

P.s. Your reason for dismissing the obvious flaw in your argument ; infinite regression is to avoid ending in infinity but that is exactly what the first cause is an infinity with no beginning or end,does infinity make sense to you,but you accept it nonetheless

BanevsJoker:
How did the baby get there in the first place?

The answer is obvious
But my point is if a woman doesn't want to bear a baby till term she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy especially if it is still at the early stages,and the reason is simple I rate the comfort and welfare of a grown woman above the life of an unwanted 1 month foetus

Kobojunkie:
Where and where?

In the minds of Christians

ChristineC:
the foetus didn't ask to be conceived.
it's a very simple solution, you don't want a kid don't conceive. that way nobody infringes on the rights of the other.

The woman didn't ask the foetus to enter her body either