Mortai Gravesend said:
I am over it and into dealing with it. You point it out when they're wrong and you don't let up. You give them a hard time for holding backwards views and you make it clear you don't find it acceptable. Ostracize them.
Considering you brushed over that and seemed to find no problem with the idea of using homophobic slurs to push his son to fit one of those gender roles I thought it was an easy enough inference. You seemed to think trying to get him to fit into one was a decent enough excuse for his behavior. I think it shows that his goals are bad ones, contributing to the image of him being a poor parent. And there's no reason for me to not talk about this guy as well as worse ones. It's not as if I'm going to run out of words.
Considering how often people use that kind of stupid argument seriously...
Why would it need to be grim to comment? You seem to be under the misapprehension that posting big scary words against something is only fit for the most horrible of crimes. I'd rather think it's applicable to just about anything. Words are cheap.
Maybe overall he isn't too bad. But his attitude is a bad one to show.
You're really a terrible confused person. I'm against him trying to instill homophobic and sexist attitudes in his kids.
Again and again, I must say. It is not that I view his comments overall "acceptable" or politically correct. What I am saying is that these comments do not define him overall as a father. You are taking one moment in history, where a father calls his son names, and you are taking this and blowing it up to such a degree that you have concluded that this man is not "worthy" of fathering this child. By not worthy I mean you don't see him as an agreeable level. AKA BAD.
What I am saying is that this is most likely taken out of context. Who is to say this father ACTUALLY believes homosexuals are inferior? Maybe he had an off day and was stressed out. Maybe this was a singular event. This single event shouldn't be the defining moment where we should grade this man's performance as a father.
Also, this doesn't even show that his goals are bad ones.
Just because someone would LIKE to see someone become an iconic figure in their eyes doesn't make them have bad intentions. I'm sure you'd want your kids to be something. You wouldn't want them to be serial murderers. You'd stray them away from that. You'd probably want your kids to be open minded individuals who are successful and happy. But that would be your opinion. His father was raised in a different era. Even though times change, this doesn't necessarily mean the people change with it. And iconic image for a son to a father would be a masculine, successful one. This doesn't make him a bad father. He has good intentions for his son. They may not meet with the current generation's opinions of gender roles, but he as a father wants to see his son successful (most likely). Not everyone is as flexible as others when it comes to the changing times. That's why there are so many old racist people. It's just something that IS. We can't really change it, so we just have to live with it. They aren't necessarily bad people, but just have lived in a different period. I mean, do you think that the majority of the people in the 50's were horrible people? It was common norm for them to think that women had their place and men had their own.
For the argument you're making, I'd imagine the subject to be much more grim, yes. You are jumping to such a far conclusion that I would only imagine that the subject would match how vast your conclusion would be. The father called his kid names. The worst thing I would think was that maybe he's a grumpy old man, not necessarily a bad father.
In the end of it all, it seems you have a problem with name calling. That seems to be the theme of your argument at least.
Did you know that the words "idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" are all derived from low IQ levels, and thus denote that of mental retardation? So in a sense if you're saying "don't be a moron" you're telling them to not be a person with an IQ between 51 through 70. Which can mean don't be mentally handicapped...which some people can't help...which can be offensive. My point is that all sources of name calling come from some negative denotation that can relate back to some sort of ethnic or possibly crippled group.
If you believe name-calling in anyway, shape, or form is bad, then okay. Your argument is valid in my book.
If you believe that SOME name calling is okay, then your argument will forever fall flat to me, because when it boils down to it all, this all seems to revolve around the issue of name-calling and their references. Whether these names can hurt someone's feeling or not.