• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slander in Politics

If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?

  • Yes. If they call you a homophobe you should be able to comment on their morals/etc.

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • No, they shouldn't return fire because they deserve it.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Simply ignore the smears and continue debating.

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • How about we show some respect and NOT smear eachother?

    Votes: 14 51.9%

  • Don't know/Other

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • Total voters
    27
Wake said:
I have a few questions.

I notice that there are people who are more socially-liberal who, continuously, insult the more socially-conservative for their stances on social issues.

This is what I ask: If a liberal slanders a Christian by calling him/her a "homophobe/whatever," why should that person not turn around and insult the person's degenerate moral character?

What do we do about this? Why is it that those more on the left are allowed to smear people with epithets of "racist/homophobe/bigot/etc?"

Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?

Or, better yet, why can't we seem to get people [all people] to stop smearing/insulting eachother?
Click to expand...
It's not Christ-like to return insults. Better to just testify of the Savior and move on.
 
This "smearing occurs on both sides, and it disgusts me and others.
The sensationalists media helps not. I am with Newt Gingrich on this one ! That so-called newsman deserved to be chewed out !
I'd say that many of our people and our media have a lot of growing up to do.
 
Ockham said:
No we do not, but 99% of people don't know what etymology is, or a neologism. They are served because the assumption is the majority of people are ignorant - therefore if there is any way to stir them and get them to move to your side, or conversely to move them away from someone else by using inappropriate and even incorrect language or even styles of language, then it's an effective tactic.
Click to expand...
I couldn't quite work out whether you agree or disagree with Wessexman's restriction of the use of the word to its original psychoanalytic meaning.

One can use the word(s) beginning 'homophob-' in its original, psychoanalytical sense, of course. A statement such as: "According to the psychiatric report on the accused, his violent behaviour may be related to his deep seated homophobia. The victim, he says, made sexual advances and he reacted in an inappropriately violent manner." The wider and more common use of the word in the modern vernacular, and attested to by its modern and universal dictionary definitions, suggests that the meaning has changed.
 
Andalublue said:
I couldn't quite work out whether you agree or disagree with Wessexman's restriction of the use of the word to its original psychoanalytic meaning.

One can use the word(s) beginning 'homophob-' in its original, psychoanalytical sense, of course. A statement such as: "According to the psychiatric report on the accused, his violent behaviour may be related to his deep seated homophobia. The victim, he says, made sexual advances and he reacted in an inappropriately violent manner." The wider and more common use of the word in the modern vernacular, and attested to by its modern and universal dictionary definitions, suggests that the meaning has changed.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to show my agreement or disagreement in this case - but the larger focus isn't about the psychoanalytical meaning - that's a red herring. The majority of people use a modern vernacular colloquially, not via a definition. Rap music, local cultural norms, television, popular culture.... all of these meanings and sub-meaning and slangs have much more to do with how we process language than the actual etymology of words. Even highly educated and professional are ignorant of their own language beyond what they learned in schools. I think we're looking at the issue the wrong way. We should be looking at how these words are used culturally and socially to understand the meaning and not in the modern dictionary definitions.
 
If I am not mistaken, the original typical usage of homophobia was a person who internally feared himself being gay or having desire for gay sex and then lashing out against homosexuality as a self defense/self denial. This then shifted towards people who openly expressed hatred of gays.
 
Ockham said:
I didn't want to show my agreement or disagreement in this case - but the larger focus isn't about the psychoanalytical meaning - that's a red herring. The majority of people use a modern vernacular colloquially, not via a definition. Rap music, local cultural norms, television, popular culture.... all of these meanings and sub-meaning and slangs have much more to do with how we process language than the actual etymology of words. Even highly educated and professional are ignorant of their own language beyond what they learned in schools. I think we're looking at the issue the wrong way. We should be looking at how these words are used culturally and socially to understand the meaning and not in the modern dictionary definitions.
Click to expand...
I can't find anything to disagree with in your post. Dictionary definitions do tend to be a snapshot in time of perceived meaning. As soon as a word is published its meaning may have changed in popular social and cultural understanding.

Coincidentally, as I'm rwriting this I'm listening to a BBC Radio 4 programme about the evolution of words. That is sooo weird! Pure coincidence, it just followed on from the midday news. They are discussing the etymology of the word 'stroke'. At the moment they are explaining that in early English the word derived from the idea of being struck by the hand of God. Interesting stuff. Check it out, you can listen to it here....
 
joko104 said:
If I am not mistaken, the original typical usage of homophobia was a person who internally feared himself being gay or having desire for gay sex and then lashing out against homosexuality as a self defense/self denial. This then shifted towards people who openly expressed hatred of gays.
Click to expand...
Yes, more or less. That what I'm arguing.
 
Andalublue said:
Yes, more or less. That what I'm arguing.
Click to expand...
But , in the grand scheme of things, the homosexuals are but small potatoes (LE 10% of the population).
But, I think that hatred and fear are major problems in our society.
This, we must work on.
Not so long ago, "gay" meant happy, carefree.
BTW, not so long ago, I was but a child...and we would insult/abase/abuse our opponent....part of immaturity.
Obviously, some never "grow up"...
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?
Click to expand...
Our society is moving towards a direction where morality isn't dictated by bronze age texts. Some are happy with that, others not so happy, but overall telling someone they are a moral degenerate because they don't follow strictly your views doesn't fly and would be ignored by the majority of people.
 
earthworm said:
But , in the grand scheme of things, the homosexuals are but small potatoes (LE 10% of the population).
But, I think that hatred and fear are major problems in our society.
Click to expand...
That's part of why homophobia is recognised to be the irrational hatred of homosexuals. It probably stems from the myth that someone can be 'recruited' to be gay, can be persuaded, against their orientation, to abandon 'normality'.
 
A couple of things. Some on the left (as with any group) will take it too far and hurl undeserving insults. However, the religious right has brought this upon themselves by spewing forth a plethora of bigoted statements over the years and have even gone as far to use the government to deny gay people the same rights as heterosexual.

Should you seek retribution? Given that you are a Christian, I find this is an extremely odd question to ask. I would have figured that you were familiar with the Bible, especially the versus found within Matthew 5:38-42 and Luke 6:27-31.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
I have a few questions.

I notice that there are people who are more socially-liberal who, continuously, insult the more socially-conservative for their stances on social issues.

This is what I ask: If a liberal slanders a Christian by calling him/her a "homophobe/whatever," why should that person not turn around and insult the person's degenerate moral character?

What do we do about this? Why is it that those more on the left are allowed to smear people with epithets of "racist/homophobe/bigot/etc?"

Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?

Or, better yet, why can't we seem to get people [all people] to stop smearing/insulting eachother?
Click to expand...
You made a basic error in your thinking. Not all Christians are homophobes. Therefore, when one calls a Christian a homophobe that person is describing a particular character of the other. (Now, if you think that to be a real Christian you must be a homophobe, your poll has yet another problem; and, you too.
 
Higgins86 said:
Christians have been judging people by their own standards for about 2000 years so I think they can handle it...
Click to expand...
And, I'd say that one out of a thousand is worthy of being a judge., if that many.....
Tolerance to replace judgementalism ( a new word ??)
 
OhIsee.Then said:
You made a basic error in your thinking. Not all Christians are homophobes. Therefore, when one calls a Christian a homophobe that person is describing a particular character of the other. (Now, if you think that to be a real Christian you must be a homophobe, your poll has yet another problem; and, you too.
Click to expand...
I t think so. To be homophobic, you must have an "irrational fear," as well as a hatred for homosexuals. I see this schism is from a result of bias. A Christian who follows the scriptures, and does not vote to advance encroaching homosexuality in our nation, is neither hateful nor afraid. Do you also look at the Christian who is against fornication/whatever, and call him/her afraid? Granted, there are many people in this world who call themselves Christians, from liberals to conservatives. The true Christian is not to hate. The socially-liberal is more inclined to view the Christian's hatred of sin as, unfortunately, the hatred of sinner, which is untrue. A real Christian is neither homophobe nor ignorer of scriptures. The problem is that some liberals have twisted the meanings of words to smear Christians. The Christians dislike immortality, so call 'em irrational prudes, Jesus freaks, ignorant and bigoted, etc. A Christian doesn't have to accept the sin of homosexuality in order to not be a homophobe.
 
earthworm said:
And, I'd say that one out of a thousand is worthy of being a judge., if that many.....
Tolerance to replace judgementalism ( a new word ??)
Click to expand...
That's a wind that blows both ways, right?

As I said in a previous post, it's best to be circumspect about calling someone an out-and-out homophobe, but that's a slightly different issue to identifying statements and insults as homophobic.
 
Question: If from the socially-liberal pov it's acceptable to call names like "homophobe" because it's "true," then from the target's pov, wouldn't his/her insults be true as well? To me, I'd rather we be able to discuss Christianity and morals and verses without name-calling/targeting the person. My cousin's gay, yet somehow we manage to have respectful and interesting discussions about it and other morals in society. :shrug:
 
Wake said:
Question: If from the socially-liberal pov it's acceptable to call names like "homophobe" because it's "true," then from the target's pov, wouldn't his/her insults be true as well? To me, I'd rather we be able to discuss Christianity and morals and verses without name-calling/targeting the person. My cousin's gay, yet somehow we manage to have respectful and interesting discussions about it and other morals in society. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Well, I'm sure if you refrain from judging him an immoral, damned abomination, I'm sure he'll refrain from calling you a homophobe. Win-win, no?
 
Andalublue said:
Well, I'm sure if you refrain from judging him an immoral, damned abomination, I'm sure he'll refrain from calling you a homophobe. Win-win, no?
Click to expand...

This is actually funny because it's very true. When people make posts that call homosexuals an abomination, immoral and other bad things they act amazed that people take offense to it.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, I'm sure if you refrain from judging him an immoral, damned abomination, I'm sure he'll refrain from calling you a homophobe. Win-win, no?
Click to expand...
Well, he's that one word tolerant liberals should be: "understanding." He understands my pov, and doesn't get pissed off/malicious over it. In fact, he's respectful, too, and doesn't resort to insults. :shrug:
 
Wake said:
Well, he's that one word tolerant liberals should be: "understanding." He understands my pov, and doesn't get pissed off/malicious over it. In fact, he's respectful, too, and doesn't resort to insults. :shrug:
Click to expand...

He's probably understanding because he knows you and can weigh that into any debate. On a political debate board if you call someone an abomination or an act they perform an abomination they do not know you and take that statement at face value. That you are calling them an abomination.
 
iliveonramen said:
He's probably understanding because he knows you and can weigh that into any debate. On a political debate board if you call someone an abomination or an act they perform an abomination they do not know you and take that statement at face value. That you are calling them an abomination.
Click to expand...
That part may be true, but it's a bit bigger than that. He understands traditional Christianity and understands that pov on homosexuality. However, he doesn't care because he doesn't have a religion. Just as I try to give respect to people with sharply differing views and TRY to not insult them, my cousin does the same to me, thus I respect him even more. It is because of him that I try to respect every ideologue here.
 
Wake said:
That part may be true, but it's a bit bigger than that. He understands traditional Christianity and understands that pov on homosexuality. However, he doesn't care because he doesn't have a religion. Just as I try to give respect to people with sharply differing views and TRY to not insult them, my cousin does the same to me, thus I respect him even more. It is because of him that I try to respect every ideologue here.
Click to expand...

If I called you narrowminded and say that your adherence to bronze age religion is irrational would you be offended? If that was my view and I stated it would you just consider it a personal view or would you consider it an attack on something fundamental and important to you?
 
Wake said:
Question: If from the socially-liberal pov it's acceptable to call names like "homophobe" because it's "true," then from the target's pov, wouldn't his/her insults be true as well? To me, I'd rather we be able to discuss Christianity and morals and verses without name-calling/targeting the person. My cousin's gay, yet somehow we manage to have respectful and interesting discussions about it and other morals in society. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not really, seeing as judgments about morality and immorality are subjective in this case.

I mean, you could respond and call them immoral, but as it is opinion that's not based upon any objective fact, it really doesn't hold a lot of weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom