h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, I was thinking of 'outing'. If someone hasn't come out of their own accord, then they must have a reason. So, 'outing' is defamatory.

More than defamatory you could argue it was malicious. I think if somebody wanted to they could sue someone for emotional distress

That is true ... although proving emotional distress in a court of law is not an easy matter, I think you could still have a case for malice (I'm no lawyer, but that seems easier to identify in a libel court) if someone deliberately "outs" you.

Yeah I was gonna say that but I wasn't sure if malice is actually a crime

I think you could describe it as "intent to harm", so I think it could be classed as one (or at least grounds for compensation).

>>hetero women have a man to drive for them?>>
What a bizarre assumption!

DELLA if your read what I actually posted...

Percentages can be deceiving. Maybe there is also a higher percentage of lesbian drivers and hetero women have a man to drive for them?

Even you should be able to understand that the word "Maybe" and the fact that I put a question mark at the end means that I am wondering, making an enquiry, inviting others to think a little deeper, asking a question, trying to find an answer.

I WAS NOT MAKING AN ASSUMPTION.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assumption
3: The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.

4: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition:

Most active 'anti-abortionists' *are* women.

(Really, who did this bit of research?)

Many perfectly reasonable people, some (gasp) neither religious nor fundamentalist, regard abortion *on demand*, as frivolous murder.

(How many do you regard as many 4, 5, 100, you sound so sure IM ASSUMING from the way you post that you do know and arent just making it up as you go along. Im also assuming that you have checked that these people arent just lying about their absence of belief in supernatural Gods and that they really are reasonable and not secretly religious. While we are on the subject Im also going to assume you checked they were reasonable as you assert and were'nt closet paedophiles, tax cheats, hypocrites, animal abusers, drug dealers....etc...You did do all those things, you would'nt just post an assumption as fact would you?)

...obviously I was wrong.

(now there's something Im not going to question.)

It does seem that forcibly 'outing' someone against their wishes could be nothing but malicious. I cannot see any other motive for doing something like that.

Would it were that it didn't matter. I have previously been called a 'homophile' (whatever that means) on another thread because I continue to stick up for homosexual rights in our society. But you see, for me it isn't even important that the person is homosexual, it's the fact that someone is being unfairly judged and criticized and subject to nastiness from bigots. I'd stick up for anybody under those circumstances, and I think most of us here would too.

az

I agree az, it doesn't matter whether you are gay, African, female etc. However I will extend on this, that it is not the words themselves that are the cause of the distress, but the context in which they are used that is the cause of the distress, not the words themselves.

Xander

Sorry for the repeating of myself there, but you know what I mean.

Xander

hi Xander,

Yes well, if I were working one day at my job and someone burst in and suddenly accused me of 'being a woman!' this would hardly come as a surprise to my co-workers or my boss.

However, if someone burst in and said (for example) I was an atheist (and say, for example, I was teaching at a Catholic school) this would be quite upsetting and would probably put my job in jeopardy. Regardless of whether I was an excellent teacher or not.

It is to say that (for example) atheists cannot teach mathematics or history well in a Catholic school, and they would somehow teach better someplace else? Where is the logic there? And so the same thing goes if one is homosexual and in a working situtation where they think coming 'out' might jeopardize their work situation, which has nothing at all to do with their sexual orientation and should only have to do with how well they can do their job.

I did grow up with a smittance of racial bigotry thrown my way because I am part Canadian Indian, but not nearly as much as my friends and neighbours who were full-blood Cree. I was 'white enough' to pass social inspection, yet this always left me feeling quite angry towards those who put down my friends.

I also sometimes found that being a woman hindered my career prospects, though not terribly. It turned out that I seldom came across a man in charge who had more balls than me! The few times someone tried to put me down for being a woman . . . well, you can just imagine what happened.

But you see, I am a fighter. And I won't put up with crap from anybody. Yet I know many people who are not as feisty as I am and they let themselves be 'told' how they should think of themselves. And I find myself fighting for them. Somehow. Does that make any sense?

So for me it's the same thing. Whether someone is being put down for being homosexual or a woman or black, asian, or handicapped etc - I get so up in arms about this. Because it is just so totally unfair. Not to mention totally stupid.

Phew! Okay, rant over . . .

az

I do agree with you, although not being a woman myself, I cannot truely understand what it is like for you, sometimes I feel that I have it easy being that I'm bi-sexual, I mean how many times do people ask, or accuse someone of being 'bi', and therefore avoid any bigotry that may end up coming in my direction, however I do stick up for those, who I feel are being 'picked on', purely because of who they are. I say to those people, 'how would you like it, if someone was picking on you because you have a big nose, crooked teeth or are short', some of them reply with, 'but it's not the same thing', to which I say, 'but it's who you are and therefore is the same thing'.

I do have an aunt, who used to be a managing director of a large ink producing company back in the 70's & 80's, and she has told me of the struggle that she had to get to where she did, what really annoys me, is that since then, very little has changed within many working environments.

I'm stopping now, as I too am getting into rant mode..

Xander

Xander,

I have a personal theory, which I have proposed on other threads, that most humans (if they were not afraid of admitting to it) are probably or at least possibly bi-sexual.

I reckon we are not unlike dolphins or other 'big brained' animals, in that we use sexual activity for pleasure as well as the simple act of procreation. Which is a 'sin' to most fundamentalists as they believe sex should only be about procreating.

The 'test' was never something that could be considered statistically valid, however . . . in my experience it came down to this. If you asked any ten women or any ten men whether they would ever consider a same-sex sexual experience, most of the women would say 'well, I guess it would depend on the person' and most of the men would say 'no way! I'm not a poof!'

I have done this test quite a few times, just out of interest, with usually the same results. Though I recently got a mostly negative response on a thread having to do with God.

Really, the point of the test is to see how people view this sort of thing. And it is probably not surprising that men find this concept threatening somehow. Women tend to say it would depend but they tend to never totally rule it out as a possibility. But they seldom go - 'ick, blech, no way!' - like men tend to do. I wonder why?

I've never had a same-sex sexual experience myself, but the idea of it doesn't upset me. I never feel naturally sexually attracted to women at all, yet I cannot ever rule out the notion that one day this might happen.

The whole point being, what does it matter even a little who one is sexually attracted to and how they live their personal lives? As long as sexual activity is amongst consenting adults.

az

BB, you went on the attack as I assumed you'd do - oh, it's such a burden being right all the time. Sigh.
You made the statement about hetero women having some man to drive for them. You were implying (a) women are bad drivers. (b)lesbians drive themselves so they have more accidents (C) Hetero women are all little old ladies or Miss Daisy, get driven by men therefore have fewer accidents. I just wondered why you made such a bizarre assumption. (You can't wriggle out of it with talk of question marks, you know what you meant.
>>Im also assuming that you have checked that these people arent just lying about their absence of belief in supernatural Gods and that they really are reasonable and not secretly religious. <
Oh, you really let your prejudice show there, BB. People who are secretly religious might lie about being so, and be thought to be reasonable. For someone who bleats about being the victim of bigotry all the time, you don't try hard to hide your *own*, do you?
Of course I have proof that most active anti-abortionists are women, *and* that most pro-abortionists are men (other than my own experience.
Meanwhile, I'll point out azahar's (characteristic) double standard - when she raised the question of abortion again, then leapt down my throat for raising it (which I hadn't). But I'd rather get this thread back on topic, for fear of her distortions again.

Della the cat woman...Just to extend on the women and driving, and as a few people here like to use statistics. Statistics actually have shown that women are better drivers than men, just a small, if perhaps insignificant point, as I'm not normally one for the loving of statistics.

And lets see how many of you can disprove that statistic...sorry for the sarcasm there.

Xander

Della,

<>

Just listen to yourself. My 'characteristic' double standard?

First of all, a few pages back I made a brief comparison about narrow-minded opinions towards sexual orientation being similar to the many fundamentalists in the US who are trying to get abortion laws reversed. I said many things before that and after that. And yet you chose this one sentence of mine to comment on. I merely pointed this out, which is hardly leaping down your throat, now is it?

Chill out. Have a And please stop insulting me. Thank you.

az

Just one thing more, Della,

<>

Oh, would this be statistics? Someone else cited some statistics earlier on to back up a ridiculous point, so I'm sure you could find some too. This won't make what you say fact, however.

<>

Now you see, Della, you keep doing this. You open or re-open a topic and start off by saying 'oh, I'm going to be attacked for saying this' and then when someone tries to debate your point you say a whole bunch of other nasty stuff to them and then close the debate by saying you no longer wish to discuss the matter. I might say something about this being a characteristic double standard, but that would be impolite.

az

Oh dear...

Azahar, I'm going to try and get BB in a hold - you sedate Della in the meantime - and we might just keep this in hand.

- Jordan

Guys this is treading awfully close to a flame war. I miss the good old days when it was me and az vs Reddy, with our polite, yet deeply cutting replies

hi Jordan,

Well, I have already offered Della a . Do you think I should spike it?

Good luck with blicky - have you seen how big he is???

az

Iago,

Hey! I'm still being polite!

az