The relationship b/w Antimony and Kat

[Aris Katsaris]

So you're determined to see hordes of homophobes lurking in the darkness, ready to backstab you, the true defendor by procuration of the homosexual cause, as soon as you show a sign of weakness~

You're trying to provoke me, but your argument has become too ridiculous for me to be interested in logical refutation, mate. So I"ll just stick out my tongue at you.

:-P

[bonestheheretic]

Ah, please no one beat on me if I am being stupid - this thread is scary - but

Jun 11, 2010 20:25:21 GMT Casey said:

The relationships that ARE in the subtext? Or the relationships that ARE READ INTO the subtext? Because that's very different, and goes right to the heart of what I was saying: The degree to which the author explicitly goes into the subtext is good enough. If you extrapolate from there, you are bringing your own perceptions into the equation, and thereby (more or less) perturbing the canon of what the author has written. If for example Tom has only hinted at the nature of the relationship between Zimmy and Gamma, then it is not for us to decide what Tom means by what he said; we can draw our own conclusions, but we can't offer those conclusions as genuine subtext. It's self-promotional and prone to error.

(Emphasis mine)

You say you have a problem with shipping because we shouldn't put our own perceptions onto/into the relationships directly spelled out by the author?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.... As violet said - we are doing exactly that with Willie and Janet. Sure, there is more subtext there, but still nothing is explicit. Do we ever see them kiss? Or express their attraction towards each other? I don't recall any instance of either (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, it is subtext.

Also - speculation. Tell me how speculation about plot is different from speculation about the current/future relationships between characters?

Sorry if I'm not making sense, or overlooking the obvious - I'm a bit rushed.

[Casey]

Jun 12, 2010 3:58:59 GMT bonestheheretic said:

You say you have a problem with shipping because we shouldn't put our own perceptions onto/into the relationships directly spelled out by the author?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if JK Rowling wanted Harry and Hermione to end up together, then she would have written them that way, and for someone to later say "well I really think Harry should have ended up with Hermione" and then writing fanfiction that reinterprets various scenes from the books that, in their mind, indicate that Harry and Hermione really did like each other in that way, when clearly the author says they didn't, I find that disrespectful to the author and their intent with their own creative work.

Fan art or fiction that celebrates a known canonical relationship, such as Janet and Willie's, is ace in my book, because it's not contradicting the author's explicit intent. (However fan fiction that extends the relationship farther than the author has shown himself is just as bad IMO... c.f. my example regarding J&W's sexuality.)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.... As violet said - we are doing exactly that with Willie and Janet. Sure, there is more subtext there, but still nothing is explicit. Do we ever see them kiss? Or express their attraction towards each other? I don't recall any instance of either (correct me if I'm wrong). Therefore, it is subtext.

On this page we see them about to kiss, or at least their eyes are closed like they're going to kiss;

Here they come out of hiding disheveled, the author's implication being that they were making out;

and here they are seen (by the reader only) to be displaying affection and closeness, though they turn away from each other which affirms that they're hiding their relationship from the others.

So I'm not sure what you're saying. The author has directly shown or implied the message that we are intended to get: that Janet and Willie like each other and are involved in a young, sweet, innocent relationship. That's altogether different from what I said above, where a person is reinterpreting events in a story as if they were meant to imply something that the author didn't intend, in order to advance a relationship idea that is non-canon.

Also - speculation. Tell me how speculation about plot is different from speculation about the current/future relationships between characters?

It's not. But I'm not really talking about speculation, which is wondering aloud whether X is meant to imply Y. I'm talking about actively promoting the notion that X implies Y even though the author has either already said that X implies Z, or the author has deliberately avoided implying anything about X at all, but shippers are reading "evidence" where there is none and claiming that it "proves" that X implies Y.

[Casey]

And BTW, that's a good response to something Violet said: my second link above("We weren't doing anything!") is a good example of explicit subtext. Tom didn't show Janet and Willie kissing, but he didn't have to; he directly implied it. Which is totally different from a fan collecting details and deciding themselves that those details "imply" something that the author never explicitly implied, or intended.

And yes I realize the odd juxtaposition that the term "explicit implication" becomes, but it's a legitimate term and I can't think of a better term for what I'm talking about.

[cheddarius]

Jun 11, 2010 15:50:59 GMT violet said:

That's not the sort of reaction that Aris is talking about.

Okay, then, what is? Outrage? Derision? Seriously, it doesn't matter. Just because someone dislikes a certain homosexual relationship does not imply that he or she dislikes all certain homosexual relationships [that is, that he or she is a homophobe]. You might as well say "Look, this dude dislikes Kat and Annie as a potential couple; clearly he hates the letters K and A together!"

Basically (and if you're making a response, please address this as well, not just that top part), this is what I'm saying: How do you know people are homophobic? Disliking/hating/being-outraged-by/whatever a relationship, which happens to be homosexual, doesn't mean that you are homophobic, just as disliking/hating/being-outraged-by/whatever Kobe Bryant, who happens to be African-American, does not mean that you are racist.

A note: Nor would it be correct to say that "My friend likes Adam Morrison, Luke Walton, and Pau Gasol, who are white, but dislikes Kevin Garnett, who is black. My friend is racist." You must prove, definitively, that there can be no other reason to dislike Kevin Garnett and like the others other than their race (in this case, it is because the former are on the Lakers and the latter is on the Celtics, but that is not relevant to my point).

[Afalstein]

I... probably shouldn't get involved in this argument, but it looks to be going a bit out of control at this point, so I'd like to hear some ideas.

I can understand the subtext some people read into this. I also think, however, that that's largely a result of our oversexed culture in general. People tend to think any kind of "friendship" is sexual, even platonic relationships are seen as simply repressed urges. Heck, some read ANIMAL/human relationships as sexual, which really seems wrong. (not referencing anything with Reynardine, by the way, as he has the ability to become human)

On a lot of levels, the Kat/Antimony shipping doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and most of them have to do with Kat. Kat is very obviously attracted to boys. Eglamore, Muut, the one bird-boy she met (forget his name)... take your pick. She very obviously likes boys and is attracted to them. She's a very close friend of Annie's, I'm not disputing that. But I doubt she sees Annie in that way, or really could be brought around to do so.

Annie seems too emotionally distant at this point to really consider a relationship with anyone. In any case, she encouraged Kat's relationship with bird-boy, and definitely smiles on a relationship such as Parley/Smit (though that may have no bearing on this).

And while it's not a direct stroke one way or the other, there's nothing in the strip to suggest such a relationship would contribute to the story in any way. All the canon pairings so far are heterosexual, no comments have been made about the "restraints of society" or "following your own passions." If Tom is setting up a lesbian romance, he's not tying it in with the plot's themes very well.

Tom's aware of the possible subtext--heck, with how much we bring it up, he'd be hard-pressed NOT to--but hasn't offered anything definitive. The closest we may get to an answer is Kat's question whether Reynardine is setting up one of his "lewd jokes" when he notes how good of friends Kat and Annie are. So it's up in the air.

But in my opinion, it doesn't fit with what we know of Kat, Annie, or the comic in general, and I really doubt it.

[Aris Katsaris]

Okay, then, what is? Outrage? Derision?

Implying people are perverts for shipping young people of the same-sex, while never doing the same in the case of shipping young people of different sexes.

Disliking/hating/being-outraged-by/whatever a relationship, which happens to be homosexual, doesn't mean that you are homophobic,

No, it doesn't. I never said it did. I never called people homophobic for disliking/hating/being-outraged-by/whatever a relationship which just happened to be homosexual. I called them homophobic for disliking/hating/being-outraged-by/whatever a relationship BECAUSE it was homosexual.

You're gonna claim again that I don't know that was their reason, and I'm gonna respond again that is their reason as I've deduced it.

[cheddarius]

How have you deduced it, then? Do you have some incredible powers of empathy that we others lack? Do you, in fact, have any hard evidence that they disliked it because it solely was homophobic?

Also please see the Note up above. I'm not saying that you'll use that line of argument, just a precaution.

[Aris Katsaris]

All the canon pairings so far are heterosexual,

Amusingly enough the only pairing that has *canonically* declared their love for each other is Gamma/Zimmy. None of the heterosexual pairings have done the same.

(Andrew has mentioned Parley is "hot", but not that he loves her; Anja called Donald "handsome" but we didn't see her telling him she loves him either.)

[Aris Katsaris]

Jun 12, 2010 5:59:45 GMT cheddarius said:

How have you deduced it, then?

I've given my arguments a dozen times already. If you're not convinced by them so be it, but don't pretend I've not given them.

[cheddarius]

I have not read some of the thread. Can you link to them? Help out a poor reader who does not want to read six pages of massive debates.

I have looked at some of your posts. I'm on page 4 right now.

Nevermind, I got them. They are addressed here.
Reply #82: People are extremely angry and claim that Annie/Kat is perverse. They dislike a homosexual relationship.
Well... do you have a link or something? If this is right, then you would be correct, and it would be very sad. But I'd like to see the comments, first.
Reply #94 and 97: Straight relationships are treated well, Annie/Kat is not.
See the Note, above.
Some other stuff later: This is about Ally and stuff, so I'm just skipping this. It also goes to something about the semantics of sexuality which really doesn't have much to do with what I'm saying.
Reply #136: Some people hate Kat/Annie but are fine with the hetero ones.
Again, see Note.

Have I missed anything? Could you sum it up?

[Casey]

Aris made a claim that there were specific people who have become enraged at the idea of a homosexual relationship being shown in the comic, but who never became enraged at the heterosezual relationships shown in the comic.

Aris said that he concluded based on evidence that their outrage was not due to the characters' age, and not due to specific pairings, and not due to disliking the focus on relationships in general in the comic, but specifically because the relationships were homosexual.

Cheddarius asked what evidence Aris had for claiming that he knew that was the specific and sole reason. Aris replied by saying he had already given that evidence a dozen times in this thread.

So, to make things simple, I went back and copied each of Aris's posts that directly relate to this specific issue: of their being certain people who specifically railed against the general idea of homosexual relationships in this comic, for no reason other than they were homosexual:



"t was the those fans OPPOSED to Kat & Annie shipping that mainly kept seeing lesbian subtext in the "Residential" chapter. Did you ever see the comments under the comic, back then? People HORRIFIED, thinking that Kat calling Annie "babe" meant that Tom was gonna lez the two of them up.

It was horror at the very idea of a homosexual relationship in the comic. I don't know how you missed it, or whether you really missed it, but it was very clearly there. And as I said it was the rabid homophobes that mainly saw the subtext back then.

Even in this very thread we saw people reacting as if the idea of gay kissing in that age group is something utterly perverse, when they never showed the same reaction at the explicit (Kat-Allie) or implicit kissing of young different-sex couples.

see how *differently* (with much greater acceptance) depicted straight young relationships are treated by the very same people. [... I]t seems to me that it's the gayness of such a relationship that'd fill them with horror, not the relationship by itself.

So, yeah, if people gonna imply that shipping a gay young relationship makes people perverts (while shipping straight ones never does), I'm gonna exply that they're being homophobic.

I'm claiming that several of the people who objected to gay shipping (or young gay relationship in the comic) never seemed to object to straight shipping (or young straight relationships we've seen in the comic). This inconsistency indicates that it's not the youth of the characters (or atleast not their youth ALONE) that's their real reason."


If I have missed or misconstrued a quote, it is not by intent and please correct me. All I've done is copy and paste and take out parts that aren't directly germane to the question and rebuttal being discussed.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think Aris's posts are 'evidence' at all that anyone could point to and say definitively that any enraged outcry was specifically due to the relationship being homosexual in nature and nothing else. All I see is Aris's claim that the posts exists, and Aris's interpretation of what the poster must have meant by their outrage. If I've overlooked something please do let me know. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to clearly delineate the difference between objective evidence and subjective interpretation.

[cheddarius]

A very large quantity of these posts seem to be about being okay with heterosexual relationships but not with the homosexual relationship. It is addressed here:

Nor would it be correct to say that "My friend likes Adam Morrison, Luke Walton, and Pau Gasol, who are white, but dislikes Kevin Garnett, who is black. My friend is racist." You must prove, definitively, that there can be no other reason to dislike Kevin Garnett and like the others other than their race (in this case, it is because the former are on the Lakers and the latter is on the Celtics, but that is not relevant to my point).

If we were to see the posts mentioned, I think, discussion would end quickly. At least for me.
But we have not.

[Casey]

To address something Aris said about kissing:

Even in this very thread we saw people reacting as if the idea of gay kissing in that age group is something utterly perverse, when they never showed the same reaction at the explicit (Kat-Allie) or implicit kissing of young different-sex couples.

I went back and read the posts that you're talking about, and I think it was incredibly clear that the poster in question was a) appalled at the idea based on age, not orientation, and b) talking about a different kind of kissing altogether.

For myself, if Tom showed two characters smooching, at that age, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And he's already done it twice: once with a hetero pairing (Kat and Aly... unless someone wants to claim that was a bestial pairing *eyeroll*) and also with a same-sex pairing (Zimmy and Gamma). In both cases, the kiss was an innocent peck on the forehead.

However on the other hand, even with a hetero pairing, I would NOT want to see Willie and Janet giving each other the tongue and running their hands all over each other. Honestly, I wouldn't even want to see that with Parley and Smitty, and they're what, like 16? Because for one, ICK, they are KIDS, and for two, it would completely and totally detract from the story. That's not what GC is about.

Generally speaking, I don't think it's ever so easy for one person to know exactly why another person says or does or thinks any given thing. Specifically speaking, in this issue, being as multifaceted as it is, and there being so many different reasons for the same end conclusion of not wanting to see such things in GC, I find it nigh impossible for any one person to say that they know another person's reasons for thinking a certain way about it... unless that person directly and specifically comes out and says "I hate this because I hate lesbian relationships... it's not because they're young, it's not because this is distracting from the story, it is and only is because I do not want to see depictions of gay relationships, anywhere."

Until someone says that, explicitly, you're guessing.

[violet]

Jun 12, 2010 4:43:50 GMT Casey said:

And BTW, that's a good response to something Violet said: my second link above("We weren't doing anything!") is a good example of explicit subtext.

Okay, that's fair. I wouldn't actually call that subtext (since it's, ah, textual and all), but I can certainly see why you would, and I get your meaning.

Clarifications:

1. I don't think there's a strong case for an extant-yet-somehow-offscreen A/K romance. I do think you can read suggestions that something along those lines might be eventually developing (Reynardine's comment, frex), and I don't think it's wacky to read them that way.

2. I do think there's a strong case for an extant G/Z romance. I think the relationship as portrayed between them is how I would expect a romantic relationship to be portrayed between those characters. I don't think it's insane or homophobic to think otherwise. I do think insisting that a romantic reading is wrong (which, I think, you have not done) would evince underlying heteronormative assumptions (which, I mean, everyone has, although gay people probably learn to check ours to a greater degree, overall).

Jun 12, 2010 5:13:34 GMT cheddarius said:

Okay, then, what is? Outrage? Derision?

It's stuff like this and this. Bluemotion seems to be assuming that, rather than asking if other people see this slash, the first poster is asking Tom to make child porn. Bandit seems to be assuming that, rather than asking if other people see this slash, the first poster is asking Tom for greater visibility and acceptance of lesbian relationships.

Why would they make those assumptions? They just seem odd, as the first poster makes no normative claims whatsoever. They also—I'm sure purely by coincidence—happen to map very cleanly to the homophobic memes that (1) gay relationships are more sexual and less “innocent” than straight relationships, and (2) gay people are damaging the world by asking for acceptance.

It's just the substance of these words I find problematic. I don't know what is in these men's hearts, nor would I claim to see with any clarity motes in their eyes.

(Note also that their words do not say: “I don't get it,” or “I don't agree,” or even, “that reading seems insane and without evidence”. Casey is making those arguments about A/K, and while I think they're incorrect and his conceptualization of slash is off, I don't think they're homophobic.)

[cheddarius]

Okay, so you're looking at a post saying "I don't understand why you want 12/13-year-olds to kiss" and interpreting it as "I am against all homophobic relationships"? I'm sorry, but I just can't view this as conclusive evidence of homophobia.

You can say that the responses map to homophobic memes, but that's just saying "That's exactly what a homophobe would say!" We have already addressed this. You cannot just say "That's exactly what a homophobe would say"; you must prove "Nobody other than a homophobe would ever say this".

Suppose I were to say the following: "A friend of mine said that 'Kobe Bryant sucks.' This maps cleanly to the racist meme that African-Americans are inferior. Coincidence... or something more?"
That would clearly be spurious. If you think that the mapping thing was just a coincidence, why are you calling them homophobes?

[Aris Katsaris]

Okay, so you're looking at a post saying "I don't understand why you want 12/13-year-olds to kiss" and interpreting it as "I am against all homosexual relationships"?

If person A says "Anyone believes immigrants are a big part of our economy?" and person B non-jokingly replies "I don't understand why you want us to be murdered in our beds.", the *best* suggestion is that B is an anti-immigration dude who can't abide a single non-negative mention of immigrants without bringing in his own anti-immigrant baggage with it.

There are other possibilities ofcourse. Person B may be a troll. Person B might be insane. The idea that he's just being anti-murder doesn't work though, because his anti-murder feelings only came up when foreigners were being discussed.

So when in this forum, person A said "Anyone thinks there's romantic subtext between K and A?" and person B (B for bluemotion) says "I don't understand why you want 12/13-year-olds to kiss. I just... just don't understand", obviously implying that person A is a pervert, then the BEST suggestion is that person B is a homophobe who thinks that seeing romantic subtext means wanting to see pics of 12/13-year olds kissing.

As you say, it is not proven. Person B may be insane instead. Or trolling. I think those possibilities are less likely actually, and they're even less flattering than genuine homophobia. The idea he's just anti-young-people-kissing doesn't work though, because this attitude of his NEVER CAME UP when straight relationship in the comic were discussed.

you must prove "Nobody other than a homophobe would ever say this".

No, it's just that I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and homophobes is the best of the possibilities I came up with.

[violet]

Jun 13, 2010 0:01:45 GMT cheddarius said:

Okay, so you're looking at a post saying "I don't understand why you want 12/13-year-olds to kiss" and interpreting it as "I am against all homophobic relationships"?

I'm just saying it's an odd inference, based on where the conversation was at.

You can say that the responses map to homophobic memes, but that's just saying "That's exactly what a homophobe would say!" We have already addressed this. You cannot just say "That's exactly what a homophobe would say"; you must prove "Nobody other than a homophobe would ever say this".

Dude, it's a discussion, not a trial. If I say, “you know, that statement sounds kindof homophobic,” and you reply, “you can't prove I'm a homophobe!” …well, you're right, I can't, but that was never the point to begin with.

[Casey]

Jun 13, 2010 1:58:54 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

So when in this forum, person A said "Anyone thinks there's romantic subtext between K and A?" and person B (B for bluemotion) says "I don't understand why you want 12/13-year-olds to kiss. I just... just don't understand", obviously implying that person A is a pervert, then the BEST suggestion is that person B is a homophobe who thinks that seeing romantic subtext means wanting to see pics of 12/13-year olds kissing.

As you say, it is not proven. Person B may be insane instead. Or trolling. I think those possibilities are less likely actually, and they're even less flattering than genuine homophobia. The idea he's just anti-young-people-kissing doesn't work though, because this attitude of his NEVER CAME UP when straight relationship in the comic were discussed.

Have straight relationships ever been discussed here though? With the same depth and intensity as gay relationships? I doubt they have... because as Violet points out, there isn't as much point in doing so.

And if they had ever been brought up, I would say there as I said here, that I for one don't want to see or hear the gruesome details about 13-year-old kissing and making out, regardless of what orientation they are. Don't you imagine there's a reason why Tom has only ever implied such things, and never actually drawn it? (With the exception, as I've already mentioned, of the innocent forehead-pecks... and in that regard, as I've also already mentioned, he gave equal time to both orientations.)

[cheddarius]

Jun 13, 2010 1:58:54 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

No, it's just that I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and homophobes is the best of the possibilities I came up with.

Your post doesn't really make anything different. It just expands the possibilities. You say that people being homophobes is the best possibility that "you came up with" - but that's not the only possibility.
I can't say, for example, "Hmmm, my friend doesn't like Kobe Bryant. I can come up with two possibilities: He is racist, or he is a serial killer that hates Kobe Bryant for no reason. I'm going to assume that he is racist, the better of the two options." The very phrase "came up with" shows that you don't know there are no other possibilities, but only that you assume there are none. You can't assume that someone's homophobic just because it's the only case you managed to think of, and you can't assume that someone' homophobic just because it's the best of the three cases you managed to think of, either.

Jun 13, 2010 2:17:46 GMT violet said:

I'm just saying it's an odd inference, based on where the conversation was at.

Yeah, it was kind of weird. But in no way does that imply homophobia. There could be a thousand different reasons. He could have had a bad day. He could be frustrated at all the Annie/Kat boards. He could have wanted to make a strawman just to end the thread early. And you know what? Even if I wasn't able to think of a single other reason than homophobia, you still wouldn't be able to say he's homophobic, because you don't know for sure, or even probably, that there are no other reasons. Homophobia is... "an odd inference" to make from this reply.

Jun 13, 2010 2:17:46 GMT violet said:

Dude, it's a discussion, not a trial. If I say, “you know, that statement sounds kindof homophobic,” and you reply, “you can't prove I'm a homophobe!” …well, you're right, I can't, but that was never the point to begin with.

Hey, yeah. I agree that a homophobe could say something like that statement in that situation. See above for why I do not believe it implies homophobia.
But... are you stopping at that? It's not a trial, of course, but you do not get to insult people and call them homophobes based on them saying something that could, possibly, have been said by a homophobe. It is not generally good to insult people if you don't have very strong evidence. In fact, it is not generally good to insult people at all (e.g. even if I knew that someone was diagnosed with autism it would not be good to call him/her a "retard").
For example, a while ago, in the Henry Louis Gates incident, Obama made statements that a racist may have also made in that situation. Glenn Beck proceeded to call Obama a racist. I'm sure you realize that this is uncalled for. Ignoring your opinion of Glenn Beck, clearly he did not have strong enough evidence to come out with such a strong insult. It is, I think, similar with your case.

[Aris Katsaris]

And if they had ever been brought up, I would say there as I said here, that I for one don't want to see or hear the gruesome details about 13-year-old kissing and making out, regardless of what orientation they are.

Except our very point (mine and violet's) is that NOBODY in this thread said they wanted to see or hear such "gruesome details", before bluemotion CLAIMED they wanted to.

Nobody in this thread mentioned a wish for any level of "gruesomeness" bigger than we've seen already with e.g. Willie/Janet; except the people who projected such wishes on others.

The very phrase "came up with" shows that you don't know there are no other possibilities, but only that you assume there are none.

Yes, when discussing ANY human behaviour, there are no mathematical equations that prove via exclusion about what a particular behaviour means. I can't mathematically prove Gandhi was a pacifist, nor can I prove the Pope believes in Catholicism.

It is not generally good to insult people if you don't have very strong evidence.

Except when they insult other people with even less evidence first. The implicit accusations of perversion came before I accused people of homophobia. If they don't want to be insulted, let them not insult others first.

[legion]

So, here's what happened:

Person1: "what do you think of the Annie/Kat ship?"

ONE WILD INTERPRETATION LATER

Person2: "ewwwwwwwww childporn"

TWO WILD INTERPRETATIONS LATER

Person3: "gosh golly YOU HOMOPHOBE"


Possibilities:
—Person3 doesn't realise he's doing the same thing as person2.
—Person3 does realise it, and did it to teach person2 a lesson.
—Person3 does realise it, and did it because he feels right doing so ("If they don't want to be insulted, let them not insult others first")
—Person3 does realise it, and did it because he's a troll.
—Person3 does realise it, and did it to make a demonstration to the crowd.
—Person3 does realise it, but still think person2 is a homophobe.
—Person3 is a robot.
—Person3 is a ghost.
—Person3 is a collective hallucination.
—Person3 isn't a number.
—Person3 only exists in our heart.
—Person3 is Jack.
—Person3 is the dreamed product of moral panick and mass hysteria.
—Person3 comes from the future.
—Person3 is a small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden.
—Person3 is meant to be sacrified to our Sun God.
—Person3 is a self-hating heterosexual.
—Person3 is a platypus pretending to be human.
—Person3 is a human pretending to be a platypus.
—Person3: p=16 e=5 r=18 s=19 o=15 n=14 3=3; 16-3=13, 5*18=450, 4+5+0=9, 9=6+2+1, 19-6=13, 15-2=13, 14-1=13; 13+13+13+13=52, which is the 5th Bell bumber.
—Person3 is composed of 95% of cyclohexyl methylphosphonofluoridate and of 5% of saccharose.
—Person3 votes for Ralph Nader.
—Person3 thinks strawberries are inferior fruit beings.
—Person3 is Coyote.
—Person3 is an anthropomorphic Turing test.
—Person3 was conceived through parthenogenesis.
—Person3 actually belongs to the kingdom fungi (which is not the same as Mushroom Kingdom).
—Person3 is a colony of archaea that have developped collective counciousness.
—Person3 is a Chaldean Christian.
—Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Person3 R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
—Person3: Person3!
—Person3 could escape the velocity of Earth by producing only 20% of his weight in wing flapping energy.
—Person3 thinks heterotrophic organisms are homophobes.
—Permason3 ranmadomly adds the syllamable "ma" in words.
—Person3 doesn't like long lists related to Person3.

[guyy]

Jun 13, 2010 11:38:25 GMT legion said:

—Person3 is a small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden.

Oh no! This must be the fabled Invasion of the Disgruntled Central European Midget Traffic Wardens! Quickly: we must all run to the nearest aqueduct, then clog it with unripe grapefruits and woodworking textbooks! Otherwise there will be a hailstorm of ice dodecahedrons, and rabbits will turn into tiny cheetahs that can only eat leprechauns!

Though, to be fair, being a midget traffic warden is probably pretty stressful.

[Casey]

If the two of you are attempting to demonstrate the overall ridiculousness that this thread has become through the use of pointed satire, I would say you've succeeded.

[cheddarius]

Jun 13, 2010 9:37:19 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

Yes, when discussing ANY human behaviour, there are no mathematical equations that prove via exclusion about what a particular behaviour means. I can't mathematically prove Gandhi was a pacifist, nor can I prove the Pope believes in Catholicism.

I did not mention mathematics at all. I have not mentioned mathematics anywhere in this thread. I am not asking you to prove it mathematically. I am only asking you to prove it, in any form. What is the alternative? Examine this dialogue:
John: My friend says that he hates Kobe Bryant. I can think of a few reasons why: He's either racist, or an alien sent to destroy all life, or a serial killer bent on killing everyone on earth one by one, randomly starting with Kobe Bryant. Well, of course, I'd like to give him a benefit of the doubt. So he's a racist.
Raul: Well, how do you know he's any one of those things? He could be something totally different. [Suppose Raul doesn't know that Kobe is a basketball player on the Lakers] I can't think of any reasons right now, but there could be a lot of other ones.
John: Well, I can't mathematically prove that he's definitely one of those things, just as I can't mathematically prove that the Pope is Catholic. [implication: I just know]

You are making the claim, that bluemotion/the bandit are being homophobic. You must back it up with evidence, you cannot merely assert that they must be either a homophobe or this or that. Surely you have some evidence?

Jun 13, 2010 9:37:19 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

Except when they insult other people with even less evidence first. The implicit accusations of perversion came before I accused people of homophobia. If they don't want to be insulted, let them not insult others first.

Okay, so bluemotion made the accusation of pedophilia in a kind of sideways manner. That's bad. Bluemotion should, I think, apologize and/or explain that he misinterpreted the statement.
Doesn't mean you get to insult him back. That's... not how it goes. You see this everywhere. If someone steals your car, you cannot steal his/her car. "less evidence", or degree, doesn't matter here - if someone steals your car, you can't steal his/her television, either, or even his/her wallet with $20 in it. Oh, and he didn't even insult you. So this is basically like saying "Hey, Bob stole Mark's car. I am justified in stealing Bob's television, because he stole from other people even more valuable objects first."
If you see someone being insulted, don't insult the insulter. That's just starting a flame war. Ask the insulter to apologize or confront him/her or something, but don't just insult him/her back... that doesn't make sense to me at all. Examine this conversation by highlighting it (some mature language):
Mary: Hey guys! Isn't Pokemon fun?
Jim: Haha you fag
Eve: He's not a fag. Go back to your mother's basement and jack off to child porn, you cocksucker.
Jim is definitely not justified in insulting Mary.
Neither is Eve justified in insulting Jim, though. And again, degree doesn't matter, it just illustrates the principle more clearly in this instance.

(note that most of the uses of "cannot" really mean "cannot legally/morally". Of course you could theoretically steal someone's wallet)

[Aris Katsaris]

What is the alternative?

The alternative is that you accept it as my deduced belief that bluemotion (and others) were acting homophobically, and that I accept it as your belief that there may exist other likely explanations.

Surely you have some evidence?

I stated the "evidence". You even gathered those sentences up I think. You didn't find said evidence sufficient. I did. Are you suffering from some sort of memory loss? Why do you keep asking this again? Why are you going in circles over and over again? I GET IT, YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED. Why should I bother to convince you? I stated my belief, and I explained (several times) why I held it. Feel free not to hold it too.

The responses have become overly long, didn't bother to read most of the rest of your post I'm afraid. So I'll bow out of this thread.

[Casey]

Boys, boys, boys. Can I interject something here?

As I understand it, Aris insulted bluemotion because he thought bluemotion insulted... the general population... by (in Aris's mind) accusing them of pedophilia... which somehow makes bluemotion a homophobe. But I'm not here to get into why that's just ridiculous on its face.

What I am here to get into is that then cheddarius defends bluemotion to Aris, and Aris starts arguing with cheddarius about how his statement... about bluemotion... was accurate, and how he was justified in his counterattack...again, against bluemotion.

So my question is... Aris, why are you arguing with cheddarius, and not with bluemotion? Cheddarius, why are you defending bluemotion, instead of bluemotion defending himself?

I mean, sure, I don't like witnessing one person insulting another person for "no good reason" (though the first person seems to honestly believe they have good reason) but, it seems this is getting nowhere, and this is really something that should be between bluemotion and Aris. If bluemotion doesn't give a flip about what Aris thinks about him, enough to be motivated to argue back, then why should we?

Don't take up other people's causes, and conversely, don't redirect your ire from your target to the person fending for that target. I've been there, it's pointless. If bluemotion and Aris want to rumble, let them do it themselves. Preferably in PMs, where it isn't a big ego show for the rest of us.

[violet]

Jun 13, 2010 5:14:18 GMT cheddarius said:

It's not a trial, of course, but you do not get to insult people and call them homophobes based on them saying something that could, possibly, have been said by a homophobe.

Saying a statement is homophobic isn't a commentary on the person who said it. I say homophobic things. Everyone says homophobic things. It's part of the world we live in. Personally, I like being called on it. So I can, y'know, not do that.

[cheddarius]

Jun 13, 2010 18:38:50 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

The alternative is that you accept it as my deduced belief that bluemotion (and others) were acting homophobically, and that I accept it as your belief that there may exist other likely explanations.

I accept your belief that bluemotion acted homophobically. I can live with that.
However, I cannot accept insulting bluemotion based on your belief. If you wish to insult someone, you should have some proof of that insult other than your own conviction. Suppose a forumgoer called William makes his first post, "Hi guys!". Surely you can see that it would be unacceptable if I were to immediately call him "an immature ten-year-old", and when confronted, to say "Well, I deduced that William was acting like an immature ten-year-old from his post. I am justified in calling him an immature ten-year-old, even if I cannot produce a single scrap of evidence showing that he is an immature ten-year-old, other than the fact that he said something that, under certain circumstances, an immature ten-year-old might also say".

Jun 13, 2010 18:38:50 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

Are you suffering from some sort of memory loss?

No.

Jun 13, 2010 18:38:50 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

Why do you keep asking this again? Why are you going in circles over and over again? I GET IT, YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED. Why should I bother to convince you? I stated my belief, and I explained (several times) why I held it. Feel free not to hold it too.

Why do you keep saying this again? Why are you going in circles over and over again? I GET IT, YOU ARE CONVINCED that bluemotion made homophobic statements. Why should I bother to convince you that he didn't? I stated my belief, and I explained (several times) why I did not hold yours. Feel free to hold your beliefs. Just don't insult people based on a belief if you don't have any actual evidence.

Jun 13, 2010 18:38:50 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

The responses have become overly long, didn't bother to read most of the rest of your post I'm afraid. So I'll bow out of this thread.

That's probably for the best. You can't really ignore most of someone's argument and expect to have a good debate.

Jun 13, 2010 19:01:11 GMT Casey said:

Cheddarius, why are you defending bluemotion, instead of bluemotion defending himself?

I mean, sure, I don't like witnessing one person insulting another person for "no good reason" (though the first person seems to honestly believe they have good reason) but, it seems this is getting nowhere, and this is really something that should be between bluemotion and Aris. If bluemotion doesn't give a flip about what Aris thinks about him, enough to be motivated to argue back, then why should we?

I am upset because I feel that bluemotion was baselessly insulted. I don't like that.
It does appear to be getting nowhere, but I think that it could go somewhere. 1) Aris could show evidence that bluemotion's post implies homophobia, and I would concede, or 2) Aris could show a post where bluemotion was homophobic (with evidence other than "I think it is"), and I would concede, or 3) I would make some argument that would sway Aris, and he would concede, or 4) some other thing would happen.
Really, regardless of who it is between, I still would like to defend bluemotion. He did seem to insult people (whether intentionally or not), and I think he should apologize. But I would also like Aris to apologize. For example, if you see someone being attacked in an alleyway, then you want to help, right? It's the same feeling here. Whether or not bluemotion cares does not concern me; I care.
In any case, Aris seems to have decided to have a last word and leave, so it doesn't much matter.

Jun 13, 2010 20:53:37 GMT violet said:

Saying a statement is homophobic isn't a commentary on the person who said it. I say homophobic things. Everyone says homophobic things. It's part of the world we live in. Personally, I like being called on it. So I can, y'know, not do that.

That's not what Aris said. Aris said, specifically, that he was calling people homophobic. That is an insult.

[Casey]

Jun 14, 2010 5:40:20 GMT cheddarius said:

For example, if you see someone being attacked in an alleyway, then you want to help, right? It's the same feeling here.

Not really. A person being physically attacked is most likely being physically hurt. A person being verbally assaulted might just not give a crap, and ignore it.

I get the notion of defending those who can't defend themselves. But I'm guessing that bluemotion is probably well able to defend himself, if he felt like he really needed to... which, it seems, he doesn't.