2 Men banned from BGE

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:24 PM
What other insults? He said:

The guys look like idiots, and are probably in love with each other... Probably they kept trying to drop something behind the mechanism to prevent the harnesses from opening automatically upon completion of the cycle... Reguardless, these clowns are bad news, and will bring bad luck to the ride. Busch is better without them.

The debatable "in love" comment aside, I don't see how any of the other comments can be construed as insults. They're idiotic clowns that Busch is better off without.

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:25 PM
matt.'s avatar Even if he came into the thread and said "I didn't mean it as a gay/straight thing, I meant is as a 'people in love do dumb stuff' thing" the logic is still based on assumptions that may or may not be true...and even if they were lovers the idea still doesn't work.

I guess my next question is if we're already assuming they're gay, that takes one (large) leap of faith based on assumptions but then...are we basing their being lovers on even *more* assumptions? I mean even if we knew within a shadow of a doubt that they are both gay, and flirting with each other, that still doesn't mean they're romantically involved, last time I checked. Because if we're working with

They're gay + they're flirting = they're lovers

that's just stupid as can be. But if we're working with

They're gay + they're flirting + they tamper with roller coasters = they're lovers

I mean come 'on guys. It's just silly. Gay, straight, whatever, the thought process is just laughable.

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:28 PM
matt.'s avatar

Rob Ascough said:
I don't see how any of the other comments can be construed as insults.

You don't see how saying someone looks like an idiot and calling them a clown could be construed as an insult? I mean truthful or not (in this case it may be) saying "These guys look like idiots" is still what I would call "insulting." Calling someone an idiot is calling someone an idiot. *** Edited 9/12/2007 5:30:06 PM UTC by matt.***

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:34 PM
And if someone is acting like an idiot, it's not considered an insult, it's considered appropriate based on their actions. I tend to think an insult is something tossed at someone that isn't entirely true.
+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:40 PM
matt.'s avatar http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insult

^According to that what an "insult" is has no qualifier for how valid the statement is.

Not to mention that even if there were, what's "entirely true" in this case isn't really quantifiable. I can call Noam Chomsky and idiot but whether that's true or not is completely debatable. But it's still an insult. You're working here with the idea of what an "insult" is that I don't think other people would really agree on. *** Edited 9/12/2007 5:41:33 PM UTC by matt.***

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:44 PM
rollergator's avatar Nonetheless, "insulting" someone by calling them gay, or female, or addressing someone with a name intended to imply they're gay, or with the name of a female body part...that to me is JUST about the equivalent of tossing out the 'N' word...

It's degrading to everyone, especially the speaker, and it brings the level of discourse down about a hundred notches or so...

Can we grow up just a LITTLE? Please?
*** Edited 9/12/2007 5:45:25 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:51 PM
Agreed, and that's all I was trying to point out.

(Not to detract from matt's point about what a bizarre argument it is to make in the first place).

-Nate (who would also consider "idiot" and "clown" a definite insult)

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:37 PM
eightdotthree's avatar

rollergator said:
Nonetheless, "insulting" someone by calling them gay, or female, or addressing someone with a name intended to imply they're gay, or with the name of a female body part...that to me is JUST about the equivalent of tossing out the 'N' word...

He didn't say, "The guys look like idiots, they are obviously gay."

He said they were in love. Gay, straight, bi, it doesn't matter here, all that matters is what Rob said earlier. You do stupid things when you are in love and trying to impress the other person.


+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:42 PM
eightdotthree's avatar Or, its a dig like when two friends are goofing off and annoying you. You say things like, "Would you two just get it over with and make out." It applies to two men, or a man and a woman. It doesn't matter, all that matters is that you are implying that the two have a crush, not that its bad to be gay, or in love with the other person.
+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:54 PM

eightdotthree said:
He didn't say, "The guys look like idiots, they are obviously gay."

Actually, that's almost exactly what he said. He said "they're obviously in love," which very easily translates to "they're gay" (or at least involved in a homosexual relationship). This has nothing to do with people in love doing stupid things; matt has already pointed out the ridiculousness of that argument. It has everything to do with calling two guys in love as a form of insult.

-Nate

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:59 PM
matt.'s avatar

eightdotthree said:
You do stupid things when you are in love and trying to impress the other person.

Which we're assuming is what happened here because they might be gay, they might have been flirting with each other, they might be in love, and they might have tampered with a roller coaster. *** Edited 9/12/2007 7:00:01 PM UTC by matt.***

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:12 PM
eightdotthree's avatar But why does it matter that they are gay? They are just two people in love, who cares that they are two men! Thats my point. I don't care that their gay, just that one of them did something stupid to try and impress his crush.

Thats my take anyway.


+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:16 PM
I can't believe we're all debating at such great length what a person meant by a comment they made... a person that hasn't posted in this thread since the very first page... still...


coasterdude318 said:
Actually, that's almost exactly what he said. He said "they're obviously in love," which very easily translates to "they're gay" (or at least involved in a homosexual relationship). This has nothing to do with people in love doing stupid things; matt has already pointed out the ridiculousness of that argument. It has everything to do with calling two guys in love as a form of insult.

I don't find it a ridiculous argument at all. It's totally valid.

Okay, he said the two guys were obviously in love. Of course that suggests they're gay- no one is going to debate that. But the comment about the guys being idiots had nothing at all to do with the assumption that they might be gay, and the people complaining about the comment made are doing more to connect being idiotic to being gay than the original comment. "They're idiots, and obviously in love with each other" is not the same as saying, "They're in love with each other and therefore are idiots."

I think a bigger deal is being made over this than should be, that's all. No wonder why the FCC censors everything.. do something as simple as pronoucing someone's name wrong might get you sued.

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:17 PM

matt. said:
Which we're assuming is what happened here because they might be gay, they might have been flirting with each other, they might be in love, and they might have tampered with a roller coaster.

You're the one that connected all those things together... not myself, not eightdotthree, and not Agent Johnson.

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:29 PM
No, you're the one making all of these bizarre connections and leaps of faith. Where does this "in love" thing come from anyway? There's absolutely no evidence of that. That's the bizarre and pointless connection that you (and others) are making.

My point was (and is) that his comment was NOT saying they were "blinded by love", but that "they're obviously in love" was yet another insult in the list. And that, my friends, is ignorant.

-Nate

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:31 PM
rollergator's avatar

eightdotthree said:

rollergator said:Nonetheless, "insulting" someone by calling them gay, or female, or addressing someone with a name intended to imply they're gay, or with the name of a female body part...that to me is JUST about the equivalent of tossing out the 'N' word...
He didn't say, "The guys look like idiots, they are obviously gay."

Perhaps you took my comments the wrong way, 8.3 (then again, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, LOL). I wasn't even THINKING about the original post that brought on this argument, the conversation/thread had kinda shifted by the time I posted my comment re: insults.

I *cannot* traffic in what someone I don't even know MIGHT have meant by whatever they said in a message board (the ideal breeding ground for misunderstanding). Whatever AJ meant, at this point, considering he hasn't posted back, is bordering on irrelevant IMO.

What I can say is that intolerance is simply unacceptable. After the conversation had gone in that direction, I felt *compelled* to say simply this: Black, Jew, female, gay, Muslim, doesn't matter, EVERYONE deserves simple respect.

I don't think I should have even felt the need to say it...but I did. Personally, I find it almost absurd that sexual preference has ANYTHING to do with stupidity that *at the very least* borders on criminal.

*** Edited 9/12/2007 7:37:39 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:36 PM
I thought some big break happened in this story since there are about 50 new posts since I last viewed the thread.

It's usually just the posts about wheels and brakes that go over my head. But since I never shy away from putting my two cents into a discussion, here goes...

IMO, the original reference about them probably being in love was intended to be a putdown. It was in the same sentence as the "they look like idiots" comment, so it really couldn't be taken any other way.

I do think they're idiots-- but since it was decided that was also an insult, should I just say their behavior was idiotic, thus referring to the behavior and not the person?

I have no idea whether they're gay, in love, just plain horny or what. Maybe being stuck in an OTSR gives you the same look as being in love. Like the discussions about coaster parts, I'll leave that to the experts on gay flirtation who already spoke up. And no matter what their sexual orientation, it's neither an excuse nor an explanation for what they did. The idea that the whole stunt was done to impress his crush is pretty lame.

The upshot: the romantic status of the participants had no bearing on their actions, and therefore has no part in this discussion. I'm done.

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:41 PM
As I think we should all be, as everyone seems to have stated their opinion. Well, except for the person that made the comment, of course.

So... how about Griffon, eh? Anyone still miss Drachen Fire?

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:52 PM
rollergator's avatar ^Griffon kicks butt in a serious way...

I'd rather get locked onto that ride than SheiKra, ANY day... ;)

+0
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:46 PM
I also wondered why this thread had jumped to four pages since the last time I checked it. Leave it to the gay topics to get the most posts. LOL!!

I noticed the original comment when I first read this thread and decided not to call him out because I knew the resulting banter would turn out just as it has. The comment was dumb, uncalled for and says a lot about the person that made it. But, I've just realized there will always be people like that in the world and sometimes it is just easier to ignore them - because they're never going to change.

+0

Closed topic.

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...