From: stu5s14@bcrka287.bnr.ca (James Cherry)
Subject: K. Cochran & homophobia
Followup-To: alt.flame
Originator: stu5s14@bcrka287
Keywords: homophobe, homophobia, Keith Cochran
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
            <1992Aug8.211228.6510@rotag.mi.org>,
            <1992Aug12.015507.4422@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
            <1992Aug21.003643.3975@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:53:20 GMT


Keith,

   In article <1992Aug5.233416.17391@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, you wrote to
Steve Franklin:

>Let me guess:  it's the same type of verbal music you make when Kevin's
>trying to find his miniscule penis so that he can put it into your anus,
>right?

Then in article <1992Aug8.211228.6510@rotag.mi.org> Kevin Darcy responded
with:

>Just what we need... another damned homophobe crawling out from under his
>rock... sheesh, where do these neanderthals come from anyway?

Which you responded to in <1992Aug12.015507.4422@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>:

>Um, Kevin.  Go find your mother, and ask her to explain what the word
>"homosexual" means.  I'll even give you a *FREE* clue.  I don't hate
>myself.

Kevin Darcy then responded in <1992Aug14.070559.4635@rotag.mi.org>:

>Then why do you spew homophobic shit that ranks with the Artimus Pages and
>Phil Stromers and Danny Karneses of the world?

To which you submitted article <1992Aug21.003643.3975@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>:

>I love it.  I make a half-assed description of anal sex, Kevin calls me a
>homophobe, and rather then admitting his mistake attempts to equate me with
>Artimus, Phil, and Danny.


   I submit that it is ENTIRELY REASONABLE from your posts to accuse you of
being homophobic, as Kevin Darcy contended, because:

1. Your first message about Kevin performing anal sex on Steve was intended
   as an insult.  A person who insults another by suggesting they perform
   a certain action implies that the insulter considers the action bad or
   undesirable.  You insult Kevin by implying he partakes in homosexual
   anal sex; therefore, you consider homosexual anal sex tasteless, dis-
   gusting, bad, or whatever.

2. This implies you have a dislike for or a "problem with" homosexuals as a
   whole, because:

      Suppose you did NOT dislike homosexuals.  That is, suppose you were
   comfortable with the idea of homosexuality.  Then you'd be able to say,
   "For homosexuals, anal sex is their prerogative, and although I would
   not do it myself, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals doing it."

      This is an "IF a THEN b" statement, where 'a' is "homosexuality is OK"
   and 'b' is "homosexual anal sex is OK".  If the assertion "IF a THEN b"
   is true, then its contrapositive "IF NOT b THEN NOT a" is also true.
   From (1.) above, you believe "NOT b", that is, "homosexual anal sex is
   NOT OK".  Hence, assuming the truth of the "IF a THEN b" assertion, then
   for you "NOT a" must also be true.  That is, you believe that "homo-
   sexuality is NOT OK".

3. "Homophobic" is taken literally to mean "an irrational fear of homo-
   sexuals".  However, it is often true that a dislike of something and a
   fear of something occur together.  For this reason, "homophobic" is now
   used to indicate a dislike (often an irrational one) of homosexuals
   and/or homosexuality.

      You demonstrate a dislike for homosexuality; furthermore, you have
   not given a rationale for disliking homosexuality.  So, one may conclude
   you have an irrational dislike of homosexuality.  Hence, you are homo-
   phobic.  Even if you do have reasons for disliking homosexuality, you
   still dislike it.  Thus, given the general usage of the word "homophobe",
   it is still reasonable to tie you with this epithet.


   To sum up the chain of reasoning that might lead one to conclude that
you, Keith Cochran, are a homophobe:

       You use homosexual anal sex in an insult
   ==> You think anal sex is bad
   ==> You think homosexuality is bad
   ==> You (irrationally) dislike homosexuality
   ==> You are a homophobe.

I didn't see the whole of the original post which your second quotation
above comes from, so it may be out of context.  However, you say, "I don't
hate myself," as though it proves you are not a homophobe: "I don't hate
myself [therefore I cannot be homophobic]."  Whether you hate yourself or
not is irrelevant; you can still be homophobic.

   Moreover, in your third quotation above, you describe your original post
as "a half-assed description of anal sex".  Play on words, Mr. Cochran?
Your use of the term "half-assed" seemed wrong to me here, so I looked it
up.  According to my dictionary (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate), "half-
assed" can mean "lacking significance, adequacy, or completeness".  Your
reference to anal sex was certainly significant and complete.  The second
meaning of "half-assed" is given as "lacking intelligence, character, or
effectiveness", a meaning of which I was not really aware.  Aha! I said.
THIS must have been your intended meaning of "half-assed", since your
description certainly lacked intelligence and effectiveness.  Thank God
for dictionaries!  Furthermore, using anal sex as an insult does demon-
strate a certain lack of character on your part, but to be fair to you,
you only referred to your description of anal sex as half-assed, not your-
self as half-assed.

   Finally, you say, "Kevin calls me a homophobe, and rather then [sic]
admitting his mistake attempts to equate me with Artimus, Phil, and
Danny."  You are assuming that Kevin is mistaken to call you a homophobe,
which he might not be.  Although, I think Kevin was not quite justified
in equating you to Artimus and Phil, since their tone is far more
vitriolic than yours.  Still, you have given some indication that you are
indeed, as Kevin calls you, a homophobe.

-- 
James A. Cherry         Bell Northern Research Inc.        (613)763-3019
Newsgroups: alt.flame