@sirithova your opinion of homosexuality is relevant to this discussion. It's clearly a standpoint that affects how you talk about homosexuality including any objective statements about it.
@pamount well, since the meaning of words (and, particularly, usage of sarcasm) seems to be the problem. It doesn't matter what is my opinion on homosexuality - facts are, it used to be described as a disease and now it's more or less accepted.
@pamount oh for gods sake, im not confused about objective evidence! I meant that I'm sure doctors and scientists used to presents "evidence" that was suppoused to be "objective" about homosexuality being a deasise. You must remember that in terms of empirical science methodology there isn't actually such thing as OBJECTIVE.
About second hand smoking: it might be dangerous, but Fran Lebowitz doesn't believe so and that's her opinion. About evidence being objective: look above.
@sirithova What's your point about second had smoking? There is evidence it can lead to problems.
You are confused about the nature of objective evidence. If homosexuality was objectively bad it should still be illegal. Homosexuality doesn't cause cancer like second hand smoke can.
@pamount She's talking about second hand smoking. also, i'm sure they had loads ofOBJECTIVE EVIDENCE against homosexuality back in days it was illegal.
Did you seriously go through every Fran Lebowitz video to drop a hot metaphorical turd of idiocy on each? Because that sort of labor speaks less of actual bigotry and more of a gibbering, snotty-nosed cry for attention. The least you could do is expand the repertoire. Just saying.
@sirithova your opinion of homosexuality is relevant to this discussion. It's clearly a standpoint that affects how you talk about homosexuality including any objective statements about it.
pamount 1 month ago
@pamount well, since the meaning of words (and, particularly, usage of sarcasm) seems to be the problem. It doesn't matter what is my opinion on homosexuality - facts are, it used to be described as a disease and now it's more or less accepted.
sirithova 1 month ago
@sirithova is this an argument about the meaning of words? What's your opinion on homosexuality? I'm straight myself by the way.
pamount 1 month ago
@pamount oh for gods sake, im not confused about objective evidence! I meant that I'm sure doctors and scientists used to presents "evidence" that was suppoused to be "objective" about homosexuality being a deasise. You must remember that in terms of empirical science methodology there isn't actually such thing as OBJECTIVE.
About second hand smoking: it might be dangerous, but Fran Lebowitz doesn't believe so and that's her opinion. About evidence being objective: look above.
sirithova 1 month ago
@sirithova What's your point about second had smoking? There is evidence it can lead to problems.
You are confused about the nature of objective evidence. If homosexuality was objectively bad it should still be illegal. Homosexuality doesn't cause cancer like second hand smoke can.
pamount 1 month ago
@pamount She's talking about second hand smoking. also, i'm sure they had loads ofOBJECTIVE EVIDENCE against homosexuality back in days it was illegal.
sirithova 1 month ago
We have objective evidence saying smoking is bad for you. Homosexuality has no such evidence attached to it. So I can't agree with her on this point.
pamount 2 months ago
@mistax2k man that's a dude!
jerzeezfinezt 3 months ago
she is right
mistax2k 4 months ago
Did you seriously go through every Fran Lebowitz video to drop a hot metaphorical turd of idiocy on each? Because that sort of labor speaks less of actual bigotry and more of a gibbering, snotty-nosed cry for attention. The least you could do is expand the repertoire. Just saying.
boyanatomy 5 months ago 2