well, did you?. . did you know? In "1955, Hugh Hefner agreed to publish in Playboy a short story about straight men being persecuted in a world where homosexual well did you? you know? In "1955 Hugh Hefner agreed to publish in Playboy a short story about straight men being persecuted world where homosexual
Upload
Login or register

well, did you?

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
did you know?
In "1955, Hugh Hefner agreed to publish in
Playboy a short story about straight men being
persecuted in a world where homosexuality was
the norm. In response to the criticism, Hefner
replied, ''If it was wrong to persecute
heterosexuals in a homosexual society then the
reverse was wrong, too."
teru/ p/ tont
moo ook.
...
+1034
Views: 37950 Submitted: 02/13/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (189)
[ 189 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - tyrson
Reply +72 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
Just because something's wrong, doesn't mean the reverse is wrong. A bit of an illogical deduction, but humorous none the less.
User avatar #3 to #1 - odinshomeboy
Reply -21 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
You're an idiot. This is a logical example of showing that when roles are reversed there is a completely different opinion.
Group A Discriminates against Group B - Seen as Perfectly fine by Group A since Group B is different.
Then we reverse the roles
Group B Discriminates against Group A - Seen as an offensive suggestion and told that's not how the world works by Group A.
Throughout History we can find examples of both Groups
Group A
Nazi's
White People
Men
Homophobic People
Racists
Women
Black People
Coloured People

Group B (Not exactly in the same order as their Oppressors)
Jews
Women
Black People
Coloured People
White People
Homosexuals
And yes, Men are discriminated against nowadays, same with White people, basically as a consequence of what we were doing before and everyone getting scared when someone cries Racism. Getting off point though.
It's completely logical and it follows a structure that can be applied to similar situations.
User avatar #5 to #3 - tyrson
Reply +91 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Officers put convicts behind bars. This is ok.
Convicts put officers behind bars. This is not ok.
It may work in HH's example, but it's not a general rule valid in every argument.
User avatar #108 to #5 - perform
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I think the point is, the two are on equal levels. Kind of like saying, a man is put in jail, it's okay. A woman is put in jail, it should be okay too.
User avatar #107 to #5 - feffog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
man shoots guy in face, put in jail, officer goes insane murdering convict, they have no right to put him behind bars


k
User avatar #84 to #5 - ragingcacti
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Theres a difference between discrimination for no reason, and putting a dude who deserves it in jail
User avatar #88 to #84 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
But they have a reason for their discrimination. I'm not saying it's right, but they have a reason. If the rules of their society say that it's a punishable offence, then it's not discrimination.
I, for one, don't think gambling or prostitution should be crimes. But in many places they are. In certain cultures, homosexuality is a crime. In this hypothetical society, heterosexuality isn't accepted.
The fact remains that you can't just switch the roles in an argument to make a new argument. That's all I was trying to say. Heff's statement leaves just enough room for interpretation for someone to draw the incorrect assumption that a role-reversed situation is a good litmus test for the normal situation, which it's not.
There is an illogical fallacy here, which happens to work with Heff's argument, and a few others. But it is not universally true.
His argument is: "If A treats B a certain way and that's bad, then B treating A that same way is also bad."
This is not always true.
User avatar #91 to #88 - ragingcacti
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
well, I dont think that it has any room for interpretation in Hugh's statement. Its only one situation. If he had used variables(a,b, etc), then of course there is, but he doesnt.
User avatar #94 to #91 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Fair enough. It seemed to me that he was using a bit of logic to make his argument, not that he was presenting a specific case for consideration. Many rules of logic are written in terminology such as "If A is true, then B is true" and that's the same basic format as his argument, so I was pointing out that taking his argument and using the same deductions elsewhere isn't always right.
User avatar #95 to #94 - ragingcacti
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Yeah. Situations change. Though I might actually go as far as to say this kind of logic covers anything that cannot be helped. Genetics, place of birth, etc.
User avatar #110 to #95 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Well, I was reading the other day that sperm banks often won't accept jizz from minorities, gingers, or short people. This is a perfectly acceptable discrimination based on genetic material.
But, for the most part, I agree with you.
User avatar #178 to #110 - ragingcacti
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Thats just marketing. Theyre buying it from you to sell to other people. Women want tall, dark, and handsome.
User avatar #182 to #178 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
Semantics. But I've already stated that I agree with you, I was just posting a counter-point.
User avatar #185 to #182 - ragingcacti
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
If you say so.
#73 to #5 - TurtleOnItsBack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
But HH wasn't stating is as a general rule. With the words quoted, he made it clear it was being applied to only the situation he described.
User avatar #75 to #73 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Fair enough. Then there's no argument.
I've mentioned that it works fine in his example, I just felt like pointing out that this was not a safe argument for many other situations.
User avatar #23 to #5 - Hokago
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Actually, it's because of the definition of the words.
Imagine a parallel world where being a criminal is the norm and people accept that. Then the guys being "just" in our opinion wouldn't be right in that parallel world, so then they would be put behind bars in that situation.
Kind of a nit-pick and nothing offensive, but just giving some insight, and I might be wrong, so don't go nuts on my comment.
#22 to #5 - anon id: de8e0af1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
but, homo = straight ( i mean orientation of an individual doesnt matter), right? so "doing an equation" and reversing objects, should give us the same result, right? eventually, you are implying that one of the orientation is better. in that case i call you a massive ******* faggot or monkey-faced *********** ignorant.

btw. i think we should wipe out ignorance and teach equality instead of promoting two wieners system, because homos are as ****** as regular people.
#17 to #5 - lolqueen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Actully there are some officer that deserve to be behind bars more then these convicts so it depends on who it is not just the generel consept (bad spelling all day)
User avatar #79 to #17 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Granted, but that's just another specific example. To disprove the general rule that "If a situation is wrong, reversing the roles is still wrong," I only have to prove that it breaks down under certain circumstances.
Proving that in a small portion of the failed circumstances it is in fact not broken, doesn't hurt my argument (or anyone else's) much at all.
Still, a good point to raise.
#81 to #79 - lolqueen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Meh i guess you are right in that consept sorry for commenting
User avatar #13 to #5 - odinshomeboy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
That is not an example of Discrimination, so it would not fall under the logic presented.
The logic followed applies to Discrimination, as I stated with "Group A Discriminates against Group B". You have shown an example where logic does not apply.
Group B breaks the Law, Group A enforces the law and Arrests Group B - Group B is then put in front of a judge and convicted.

How could this logic be reversed? It really can't.
Your path of logic does not work, and the roles you've stated cannot be reversed because of their definitions.

Officers - Meaning a Police Officer - Someone who Enforces the Law put forth by whatever Jurisdiction they reside in.
Convict - a person found guilty of a criminal offense and serving a sentence of imprisonment.

Doesn't make sense for those two to be reversed does it? But then looking at an example of discrimination the roles can be reversed, as with White people and Black people the only real difference is colour of skin, Homosexual and Heterosexual is the sexual preference of the people.
I agree that it doesn't work in all arguments, I never said that. This line of Logic works in cases of Discrimination, not some outlandish example that you happen to think of where the roles being reversed have completely opposite descriptions.
User avatar #54 to #13 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I'm not arguing that arresting officers and letting convicts go free is a valid option. I'm arguing that reversing roles in a given situation yields different results.
For homos and heteros, it shouldn't. We should be treated equally, without discrimination or prejudice.
For criminals and convicts, it should. They are different classes of people (for the most part) and are treated as such.
For men and women, it shouldn't in most cases. In regards to the vast majority of situations, they should be treated equally.
For adults and children, the opposite is true.

Some statements are still valid with reversed roles (see Heff's argument), while others are not.
User avatar #62 to #54 - odinshomeboy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Heff's Argument applies to DISCRIMINATION Situations. Your two points of

"For men and women, it shouldn't in most cases. In regards to the vast majority of situations, they should be treated equally"
"For homos and heteros, it shouldn't. We should be treated equally, without discrimination or prejudice"

Shows that this is correct since both are instances of Discrimination. Picking two roles and reversing them does not follow a logical path. Doing this with Instances of Discrimination to show that it's wrong to do it one way if it's not right to be done the other way proves it is logical.
Of course Criminals and Convict role reversal doesn't work. Their roles are clearly defined.
With Adults and Children this logic can actually be applied to some situations dealing with discrimination if you include Young People in the definition of Children. Ageism exists The Discrimination of a person based on their age so applying this logic to an instance of this, either against the old or against the young, that is not an illegal situation such as liquor, works.
"I'm arguing that reversing roles in a given situation yields different results. "
I'll repeat again, as you seem to be missing it, This line of Logic applies to situations of Discrimination. Sexism, Ageism, Racism, whatever ism you want to use. I agree it won't work in every situation, to say it works with everything is illogical.

Group A Discriminates against Group B - Seen as Perfectly fine by Group A since Group B is different.
Then we reverse the roles
Group B Discriminates against Group A - Seen as an offensive suggestion and told that's not how the world works by

If you can find an instance related to discrimination where a Group A and a Group B doesn't work with this Logic Formula then I'll agree with you. Keyword is Discrimination. Until then I'll take the red thumbs on my misinterpreted initial comment.
User avatar #82 to #62 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
And Heff's argument is (for the most part) valid in situations of discrimination based on sexual preference. But in arguments not related to discrimination of social preferences, the logic isn't as usable.
I've said this half a dozen times, but I'm not arguing with Heff. I'm pointing out that the argument he used doesn't work 100% of the time, though it does work for his example.

So, I guess I didn't phrase my argument adequately. I didn't realize it would cause this level of debate, so I didn't describe my argument in its entirety.
I'm a little hung over right now, so no successful arguments for the "pro-discrimination" side are coming to mind. I like to play the devil's advocate, but I'm drawing a blank today.
User avatar #7 to #5 - hellomynameisbill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
It's not meant to be used in every argument. If the Officers happened to be commiting the same crimes as the convicts, then it would be a fair justice.
User avatar #129 to #5 - YllekNayr
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Nobody is born a felon.
User avatar #131 to #129 - tyrson
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Adults tell kids what to do. This is ok.
Kids tell adults what to do. This is not ok.

Fixed it.
User avatar #133 to #131 - YllekNayr
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
That's simply another age of the same group of people. Nobody stays a child all their life.
User avatar #135 to #133 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Nobody stays a criminal all their life.
Some people don't stay gay or straight all their life.

We're not evaluating people on what they could be, or were, but rather what they are for the sake of the argument.
User avatar #140 to #135 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Criminal isn't a good argument. That's a result of their poor actions. And children are not a group unto their own. I think we can both understand what Heffner meant when he said that. People who would otherwise be equal, being discriminated against. All cultures have parents having control over children because a child's mind isn't as developed. In the case of say, a different skin color or sexuality, they would be equal, WERE IT NOT for the prejudice. That's the difference.
User avatar #150 to #140 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
And I've expressed several times that the flawed logic works when used in that argument. That doesn't make it any less flawed.
User avatar #176 to #150 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
The dude is not a philosopher, so his word choice isn't airtight, but we both know what he meant. Why try to disseminate it based on semantics? His point is pretty ****** clear.
#130 to #129 - tyrson
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #132 to #130 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
These are 2 qualities innate in a human being, like skin color. Human beings are equal UNTIL they take actions that violate another's right, and then they stop being equal.
User avatar #134 to #132 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
(I deleted my argument in favor of a more concise one, but we can continue)
It still doesn't make my argument completely invalid. The fact remains that there's still a situation where A can treat B differently than B treats A, and everyone's ok with it.
So, demonstrating that a role reversal is bad doesn't prove that the original roles and their relationships were bad.
User avatar #137 to #134 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Point being that child/adult isn't really a separate group. It's just an earlier stage of the same group.
User avatar #141 to #137 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Boss / Employee, then. Or Teacher / Student. Judge / Civilian.
You want to make the point that the argument is valid with regard to sexual orientation, and I've already said (quite often) that I agree. But the argument isn't universally valid.
User avatar #175 to #141 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
That's an occupation. The dude is obviously talking about human rights inherent in a being, not something you gain after birth.
User avatar #112 to #5 - mistafishy
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
the dfference is that gays aren't all criminals.
User avatar #122 to #112 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
...That has no impact on the validity of my argument. To disprove the fallacy that I'm trying to disprove, I need a situation where "The way A treats B is wrong, but when B treats A that way, its ok."
Which my point accomplishes, as best I can tell. I'm not evaluating the criminals or officers on their secondary data, but only on their qualities as an upholder of the law, or a breaker of the law.
Also, in some societies, gays are criminals. See old testament hebrew law.
#67 to #5 - kez
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
this is really stupid. what you just said isnt equal to what HH said.

Thats why it doesnt work...
User avatar #70 to #67 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I understand that it's a different situation, because it has a different group of people.
But, what I'm saying is, "If something's wrong, switching the roles doesn't automatically make the new situation wrong, or right, or anything. Each situation needs to be judged individually, with no concern for how a role-reversed situation would be judged."
I think that's as clear as I can make it. In HH's example, this fallacy works. Gays should be treated like straight people. If it's wrong for gays to persecute straight people, then the reverse is wrong as well.
But if you try and say that that logic (reversing a wrong situation is still wrong) is usable in every other argument, then you're mistaken.
#72 to #70 - kez
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#68 to #67 - kez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
an equal statement including cops and robbers would be

criminals beat policemen, this is not ok
officers beat criminals, this is not ok.
User avatar #71 to #68 - tyrson
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
But see, now you're choosing specific situations in which the fallacy holds up.
I'll admit that there are arguments that work this way. HH's is one, yours in another.
But there are situations where this fallacy doesn't work.
Just because something happens to be true for one argument, or for similar arguments, doesn't mean that it's true for all arguments.
#74 to #71 - kez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
What i mean is, you are reversing the action. This isnt what HH did. he reversed/swapped the subjects of the REASON for the action.

In your example, the action reversed, but the reason got changed/didnt make sense. this is not what HH did

Cops put criminals behind bars for being bad.
Robbers but officers behind bars for no reason (doesnt make sense)

Your example of a reverse situation isnt what HH did.
User avatar #77 to #74 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Heterosexuals persecute homosexuals because their sexuality is an abomination.
Homosexuals persecute heterosexuals because...

People can come up with dozens, if not hundreds of different excuses for their beliefs and actions. But it's the result of those actions we should evaluate logically.
Perhaps the criminals wish to create anarchy, and they feel the officers are repressing their rights and voices? There, now they have a valid reason for locking the officers up, so it's an equal situation, right?
#78 to #77 - kez
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
No because the reason has changed...

You're not getting this at all.

No worries. Take it easy mate. All the best.
#2 to #1 - shallowandpedantic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/13/2014) [-]
It's not the reverse though. It's the same thing. The reverse would be gays worshiping the straight guys.
User avatar #6 to #2 - tyrson
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
He reversed the roles, but not the situation. I feel there's an important semantic difference here
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to support homophobia. I'm just pointing out that Heff's statement isn't valid on a wider scale. It may work in this situation (reversing the roles shouldn't change the outcome) but there are plenty of situations where reversing roles should change the outcome.
I think our conversation is about reversing the roles, not the situation they find themselves in.
User avatar #12 to #6 - Nonada
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
But he was specific about the whole thing. He said "if it was wrong to persecute heterosexuals in a homosexual society, then the reverse was wrong too." So it's only heteros and homos in a reversed situation, he's not attributing it to anything else.
User avatar #53 to #12 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I think that's obviously the most correct interpretation, but I feel like his statement could be interpreted in other ways, such as (as someone was saying earlier) homos worshiping heteros. It would still be a "reversal," and I think there's just enough vagueness in his statement to allow it.
But, this is a semantics argument, so rather pointless at best. The underlying theme of "Heteros shouldn't pursecute Homos because we wouldn't want them to do it to us" is entirely valid.
#8 to #1 - anon id: 4bd28c4d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
And just because something's wrong doesn't mean the reverse is right, either.
#9 to #1 - anon id: 245f0eed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
you mean just because something is wrong, doesnt mean the reverse is right.
#52 to #9 - anon id: c3e7ad88
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
No, he means what he said. Read the content.
User avatar #10 to #1 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
If we are all equals, then no group should be treated differently.
User avatar #55 to #10 - tyrson
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
But we're not all equals. Criminals and officers aren't equal. Children and adults aren't equal.
In some ways, we are all equal. In others, we have different standings and privileges. I'm making the point that in many situations, you can't reverse the roles without changing the validity of the argument.
#89 to #55 - durkadurka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
>If we are all equals
>If
>If

It's been established over and over again that homosexuality is not lesser to heterosexuality. On this basis, treatment and opinion should not differ in a scenario where the groups were switched. It's that simple. What you're arguing isn't really relevant to the topic; We're talking about apples and you're reminding us that not all fruit are apples. We know.
User avatar #92 to #89 - tyrson
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Well, it's been established in many parts of our culture, but in many other cultures the topic is still up for debate. And I know my opening statement was tangential; I wasn't trying to argue with Heff, I was pointing out that his logic isn't usable in some situations other than the one he described. The way his quote was presented, it was possible to infer that he believes that the statement "If A treats B a certain way and that's bad, then B treating A that same way is also bad." is universally applicable, which it's not.
You, at least, seem to realize that I'm not at odds with his argument, I'm just pointing out that that argument doesn't always work elsewhere. You know, but the other people I've been arguing/debating with don't. They seem to think I disagree with his premise. I don't, but I disagree with the argument from a logical standpoint.

I agree, that when it comes to qualities which should be considered equal, this logical fallacy works just fine. But when comparing qualities which aren't equal, it doesn't work at all.
The argument over which qualities are "equal" is a separate one entirely.
#98 to #92 - anon id: 56faf2aa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
In the future, if you can't explain something succinctly, then it isn't worth it. Your argument is so jumbled and almost rambling. You should not have criticized the premise because it is valid in this argument.
User avatar #111 to #98 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I thought my opening statement was pretty clear, but people seemed to be misunderstanding me regardless. So I'm not sure who's at fault... I suppose it's just a difference in the ways that we process information and arguments.
#159 to #111 - innocentbabies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
The thing people had a problem with was that you didn't make it clear that you weren't disagreeing with his conclusion.
User avatar #181 to #159 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
So I gathered. I think it's pretty clear now.
User avatar #100 to #55 - sweetbutteryjesus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Does that mean that all are equal, but some are more equal than others?
User avatar #113 to #100 - tyrson
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
No. That doesn't even make since.
If it needs to be broken down, then I'll put it like this.
No two people are equal. However, some people possess equal or equivalent qualities. When assessing people by such "equal qualities" (such as sexual orientation, hair color, or name) we should treat them as equals. However, when assessing people by "non-equivalent qualities" (such as age, athleticism, intellectual capacity, or criminal background) we are often justified in treating people as if they are not equal.
User avatar #115 to #113 - tyrson
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
*sense

God, how did I mess that up?
User avatar #138 to #115 - sweetbutteryjesus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Thank you for explaining. I also worded it that way as a reference to George Orwell's Animal Farm.
But seriously, thank you for clarifying your point.
User avatar #142 to #138 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
No prob. And I've never actually read that book. I was homeschooled, so I got away with creative writing classes and Tarzan novels (and the Bible) rather than most required reading.
What's it about?
User avatar #155 to #142 - sweetbutteryjesus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
It's basically if communistic movement happened on a farm and the animals take over.
User avatar #149 to #113 - hydraetis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
That line does make sense, you just have to know the idea behind it and what it's supposed to mean.
User avatar #151 to #149 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
The line in itself is fine, but has nothing to do with my argument.
So it doesn't make sense in that context.
User avatar #146 to #1 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
To clarify, I'm not arguing with Heff. His statement sounds like a logical deduction ("If A is wrong then B is wrong") but it is not. He is expressing an opinion, which I share, and my point is that he's not using a sound logical argument for this purpose.
He is using a flawed logical argument which holds up when applied to cases of discrimination for what are (for the most part) equivalent traits. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are socially equivalent, or at least should be in our society. So reversing their roles to illuminate how twisted our treatment of each other can be is valid.
But, no one should be under the impression that this logic (If the way A treats B is bad, then B treating A the same way is bad) is universally true. It HAPPENS to be true for many traits (sexuality, race, gender, etc.) but isn't true with some groups (criminals/officers, children/adults, bosses/employees).

That's my point. Sorry for the *********.
User avatar #153 to #146 - tyrson
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Also, for clarification...
No two people are equal. However, some people possess equal or equivalent qualities. When assessing people by "equivalent qualities" (such as sexual orientation, hair color, or name) we should treat them as equals. However, when assessing people by "non-equivalent qualities" (such as age, athleticism, intellectual capacity, or criminal background) we are often justified in treating people as if they are not equal.
#26 to #1 - stalini
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Always glad to see someone using brain on FJ
User avatar #28 - asmodeu
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I imagine a world where psychopaths persecute those who have never killed a single person, before skinning them alive and taking pictures of their penis wrapped in all the skin.
#48 to #28 - vaticancameos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Why can't people just think?
User avatar #184 to #48 - asmodeu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
> English syntax error (not my primary language anyway)
> "Why can't people just think"

That's like punishing your kid with one week in the dungeon and 50 flails for accidentally breaking a plate.
User avatar #186 to #184 - vaticancameos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/15/2014) [-]
English syntax error?

That is what you are blaming for the message that your comment so blatantly broadcasted to the FunnyJunk community?

I daresay that it is not simply a language difference that is to blame here, but nice try.
Perhaps to a certain extent, however not fully. I very much doubt that.
User avatar #187 to #186 - asmodeu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
"I daresay" stop being such a pompous douchebag and acknowledge that language difference matters a lot here.
Still you did understand what I was Trying to say, yet you chose to cling to the grammar nazi inside.
#188 to #187 - vaticancameos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
Obviously, you have failed to realise that my issue was not with your grammer or lack of punctuation. (which is dreadful, since you did bring the matter up)   
   
No, instead, I find the message within your comment to be distasteful and completely incomparable to the topic featured in the content above.   
   
And as for 'being a pompous douchebag', if using the english language as a person well-educated with it is a problem for you, then I can only allude that to your possibly being jealous that you fail to use it correctly.   
   
Lastly, since I shan't be replying to any more of your ridiculous comments (I fear my IQ has been dropping as I read them), I bid you good day.   
Kindly shove your head up your arse.
Obviously, you have failed to realise that my issue was not with your grammer or lack of punctuation. (which is dreadful, since you did bring the matter up)

No, instead, I find the message within your comment to be distasteful and completely incomparable to the topic featured in the content above.

And as for 'being a pompous douchebag', if using the english language as a person well-educated with it is a problem for you, then I can only allude that to your possibly being jealous that you fail to use it correctly.

Lastly, since I shan't be replying to any more of your ridiculous comments (I fear my IQ has been dropping as I read them), I bid you good day.
Kindly shove your head up your arse.
#189 to #188 - asmodeu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2014) [-]
I would shove my head up my ass, but then we'd be on the same page and I don't like having anything in common with people whose IQ matches their age, other than the fact that we both have a face.

If you were actually a well-educated person (which I honestly doubt), then you would have known that linguistic skills don't make you an "educated person". Also, by saying it out loud "I AM A WELL EDUCATED PERSON" makes you look like more like a pompous douchebag. Following that with a bunch of insults just screams "Pompous douchebag". Our little conversation has inspired me to test my photoshop skills. I made a portrait of yourself. Feel free to use it as you want - frame it, show it to your friends.

I would advise you to take some time off from whatever it is you're doing and meditate on the idea of "having an education" and where would that fit in an internet fight.
#57 to #28 - willindor
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#30 to #28 - motorbreakfast
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
what the...   
did you even think what you wrote there, faggot?   
   
"I imagined a world where murderers murder people"
what the...
did you even think what you wrote there, faggot?

"I imagined a world where murderers murder people"
User avatar #143 to #30 - asmodeu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Since when does persecuting someone mean killing them ?
User avatar #154 to #143 - festiveorc
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Most people won't survive being skinned alive.
#76 - BwainPhreeze
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
#139 - tmdarby
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I hope this doesn't start a religious debate!!!
User avatar #145 to #139 - chrisel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I didn't know there were gay black Jewish klansmen
User avatar #147 to #145 - tmdarby
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
They are rare.
User avatar #148 to #147 - chrisel
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Oh, hey did you also noticed the Patrick star towel and tv with Spongebob on the right background
#11 - AnonymousDonor
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
ive actually thought about this a lot   
   
its a book i more or less intended to write when i finally developed the wisdom and experience so as not to be a terrible excuse for a writer, but its a short lil sci fi flick about a male astronaut who, in taking a trip to some distant planet or whatever prior to the development of the FTL drive, returns from his cryogenic century long voyage to find that lesbians have literally taken over the world   
--that is, once human cloning and genetic splicing were perfected, all the neo feminists decided (more or less truthfully, i often fear) that men were so terrible and in some cases useless that they would literally be better off by killing them all off and mixing their genes among clones in order to reproduce asexually and/or homosexually   
   
so when this guy finally returns home with hope of a new world, he is immediately enslaved, falls in love with his jailor - who has never known the sight of a man - breaks free with her help and are continuously hunted by the lesbian oppressors until....well i never quite knew how to end it XD id like to think their love ends up showing them some sort of error in their ways but if i wrote something like that nowadays i'd probably be called a homophobe or something   
   
plus i think star trek already did this story decades before i even conceived of it
ive actually thought about this a lot

its a book i more or less intended to write when i finally developed the wisdom and experience so as not to be a terrible excuse for a writer, but its a short lil sci fi flick about a male astronaut who, in taking a trip to some distant planet or whatever prior to the development of the FTL drive, returns from his cryogenic century long voyage to find that lesbians have literally taken over the world
--that is, once human cloning and genetic splicing were perfected, all the neo feminists decided (more or less truthfully, i often fear) that men were so terrible and in some cases useless that they would literally be better off by killing them all off and mixing their genes among clones in order to reproduce asexually and/or homosexually

so when this guy finally returns home with hope of a new world, he is immediately enslaved, falls in love with his jailor - who has never known the sight of a man - breaks free with her help and are continuously hunted by the lesbian oppressors until....well i never quite knew how to end it XD id like to think their love ends up showing them some sort of error in their ways but if i wrote something like that nowadays i'd probably be called a homophobe or something

plus i think star trek already did this story decades before i even conceived of it
User avatar #25 to #11 - vorarephilia
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
You need to login to view this link

kinda similar to what you are thinking of. emphasis on the "kinda" part because your story didn't seem to focus on *******.
#41 to #25 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
that...is the most ridiculous thing i've ever seen

but yes! its actually surprisingly close
User avatar #29 to #11 - nimba
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
So you want to write planet of the apes but replaces apes with lesbians?
Try and make it less cliched
#127 to #29 - meatygoodness
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
****, I'd watch/read it
#42 to #29 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
hey gimme a break i was 12 when the idea came to me
User avatar #43 to #42 - nimba
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Even more reason to not bother
#45 to #43 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
precisely why i said id only go through with it if and/or when i developed enough wisdom and experience to rewrite the whole plot into a better scenario
User avatar #46 to #45 - nimba
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
There's a lot of literature on this from the mid 20th century, I seriously wouldn't bother because it's not really a possibility that actual scientists would allow, aside from the fact that human cloning is a technology that may never be attempted on ethical grounds.
This was interesting idea maybe 35 years ago, but it's pulp these days.
Nothing personal, mind, just trying to stop you wasting your time on an outdated idea.
#47 to #46 - AnonymousDonor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
well i appreciate the concern but you overestimate my stock in this - i have like a hundred such daydreams from my childhood all of them fairly preposterous

so when i say rewrite the whole plot i mean that in the 1% chance that i use my knowledge of science (im a chemical physicist btw) to write a novel then it will necessarily most likely be completely unrecognizable from this one
#103 - freedombirdman
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Every individual should have the freedom to marry/have relations with whomever they choose, as long as consent is mutual. Everyone must also learn to respect the views and beliefs of others, so long as people do not use their beliefs to directly violate the natural rights of others. The basis of liberty is respect for others and willingness to accept differences in opinion, within the framework of representative, democratic law.
#158 to #103 - anon id: 84151215
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
okay, I want to mary my 13 year old brother.

oh wait, not so tolerant now huh?

so basically, people should mary whoever they want as long as you're okay with it. okay. but who draws that line? where do we draw it? what If I wanted to mary my cat? or my car?
User avatar #171 to #158 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
you want to marry weird ****, jump on a boat, sail to international waters and get the captain of the boat to marry you
its legal
User avatar #165 to #158 - freedombirdman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
-Your brother is not of legal age to offer consent
-Your cat is not sentient and therefore cannot offer consent (legal age would still apply as well)
-A car is neither sentient, alive, nor a legal entity, so your argument is invalid. You could 'marry' your car if you want, but the union wouldn't be recognized by the state, and good luck finding a church/denomination that would be willing to perform such a ceremony.
User avatar #160 to #158 - niggasaurus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
You draw your own line
User avatar #170 to #103 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
/\ this /\
is well said
User avatar #14 - dakkenly
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
If we could breed by homosexuality, then we'd basically have 2 different species. Nobody ever thinks bestiality is fine.
#15 to #14 - icefried
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
So i just looked up beastiality porn.
Long story short, you're very very wrong...
User avatar #16 to #15 - dakkenly
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Go talk to someone on the street about it. Go on tv and talk about it.
#18 to #16 - icefried
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Well.. go back in time 30-40 years and talk about homosexuality on tv/the street.   
You'd get about the same reaction.
Well.. go back in time 30-40 years and talk about homosexuality on tv/the street.
You'd get about the same reaction.
User avatar #19 to #18 - dakkenly
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
What's your point in both posts? lol

You're basically agreeing with me
#20 to #19 - icefried
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Crap, you're right.
Crap, you're right.
User avatar #21 to #20 - dakkenly
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
<3
User avatar #136 to #18 - StickyTissueLoLz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Go back 50-70 years and talk about women wearing short shorts

Go back 300+ years and tell British Soldiers to take cover when being shot at

Go back to cave man times and tell the other ungabungas that berry is more good for tummy then meat




...I'm not trying to make a point here. I just saw your comment and my brain went into idea mode.
#85 - smellmyfaceforswag
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #86 to #85 - lotengo [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Yea thats banworthy
#87 to #86 - smellmyfaceforswag
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Thanks, anyway What if we don't care?
Thanks, anyway What if we don't care?
User avatar #90 to #87 - lotengo [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
skip or thumb down and move on without bitching plz
User avatar #93 to #90 - smellmyfaceforswag
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
No, ya must've misunderstood. What I mean is what would it be like if no one persecuted anyone? No bitching, arguing or any kind of aggression. I actually like this post.
#109 - spidahridah
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
******* Liberal hippie propoganda. If you don't like freedom, then gtfo out of America.
******* Liberal hippie propoganda. If you don't like freedom, then gtfo out of America.
#162 to #109 - redfacekid
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#116 to #109 - weirddark
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#117 to #109 - anon id: d37d75da
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I hear New Zealand is pretty nice
User avatar #169 to #117 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
the people in new zealand are stupid to a level comparable with the rednecks of americas southern states
User avatar #168 to #109 - konradkurze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
correction:
if you WANT freedom then get out of amrica
User avatar #119 to #109 - spidahridah
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I'm getting kinda worried, looking at the people who thumbed me up.
User avatar #24 - timmity
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
No one talks about bi pan or a sexuality, what would happen to them in this universe?
#58 to #24 - douthit
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
User avatar #59 to #58 - timmity
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
No, you`re an asshole, it means sexual attraction to not just penis, ass, boobs and pussy but dicks+boobs, cunt+no boobs. I`m bisexual myself, but it`s a real sexuality you inconsiderate twat.
User avatar #61 to #59 - douthit
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
ad hominem
User avatar #64 to #61 - timmity
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
also, **** latin, its almost as obsolete as irish.
User avatar #63 to #61 - timmity
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I`m not using your traits against you. I am stating that 1. you are an asshole. and 2. Pan and bi are seperate sexualities. I am not saying you are wrong because you are an asshole, but you are an asshole because you`re wrong.
User avatar #27 to #24 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
As if anybody cares
User avatar #31 to #27 - toastedspikes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I do.
User avatar #32 to #31 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Well they'd probably all get killed for their special snowflake sexualitys
User avatar #49 to #32 - Shiny
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
>five generally accepted categories
>special snowflake
User avatar #50 to #49 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
exactly
User avatar #51 to #50 - Shiny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Or maybe you're just a pissant?
User avatar #33 to #32 - toastedspikes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
What's a special snowflake sexuality?
User avatar #34 to #33 - nimba
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Fascinating that you can dislike something you don't understand
User avatar #35 to #34 - toastedspikes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
What's a special snowflake sexuality?
User avatar #36 to #35 - nimba
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Fascinating that you can dislike something you don't understand
It's a sexuality, right, that makes you a special little unique person that nobody else understands. Are you still following me? I know it's hard to imagine but promise me you'll try.
User avatar #37 to #36 - toastedspikes
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I don't see how your sexuality makes you in any way special or unique. Sure it's part of who you are, and who you are is unique, everyone is in a sense. But your sexuality doesn't make you unique in and of itself, right?
User avatar #38 to #37 - nimba
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Of course sexualitys are unique.
User avatar #39 to #38 - toastedspikes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure there's more than one person who's straight, gay, bi, pan or whatever-sexual. Correct me if I'm wrong.
User avatar #40 to #39 - nimba
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
Okay, sexualitys are always spectral in nature in terms of gender, age, height, mass, clothes, hair style/colour, eyes, personality, location, circumstance.
Because these factors are products of experience there will never be two people who agree exactly on the perfect mate.
Point being sexuality is always unique and most labels are pointless because they are just people with more emphasised preferences for one thing or another but otherwise are standard. Labels are, then, pointless.
User avatar #44 to #24 - Wumbologist
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/14/2014) [-]
They'd probably be misunderstood and perceived as sluts just like they already are.