The definition of creepy

Post Reply New Topic

A poem I wrote:

Creepy.
What is creepy?
The word is used so often these days, it’s hard to tell.
Everyone agrees that a pervert looking to have sex with children is creepy, but soon even this will be a thing of the past.
Political agendas.
Wait, the two don’t intersect.
But I say that they do.
Is it creepy when the gay couple stand in front of children’s eyes on the tv screen encouraging an attraction that is wrong by nature.
Or is it creepy when we see the piles of dead animals littering nature’s landscapes and their skins lining store walls because of the economical shot that mortally wounded them.
Is it creepy when we see the ultrasound of a living, breathing human being erased as their soul and life are taken out with a dose from a needle.
Or is it creepy when we see the dirt that consumes a family’s bodies as they try to extract water from the cracked ground, being denied an essential human right brought to you by Pepsi.
It all is creepy.
It all is wrong.
This world is creepy.
Democrats and republicans, liberal and conservative, left and right alike are creepy.
As I ponder this, and look at my 4 year-old cousin’s eyes.
So carefree, so hopeful, so kind….I think.
Why does she have to grow up in a world that is so creepy.

Well, one would not have written it at least not that way but one gets it.

Best available answer - there is no place devoid of humans for a human to grow up in.

Personally, I find poems that contain bigotry to be creepy. I guess we all have that thing that bothers us.

The point I am trying to emphasize is that there is passitivety to evil and that both sides of the political parties have their good points and their bad. And how is that Bigotry if I think that promoting gay couples and a liberal agenda on tv shouldn't be the only thing that children see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders and religion or spirituality. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

You didn't say "promoting gay couples and a liberal agenda on tv shouldn't be the only thing that children see" (which is a terrible thing to say, and a ridiculous lie). You said "Is it creepy when the gay couple stand in front of children’s eyes on the tv screen encouraging an attraction that is wrong by nature."

a) gay people are allowed to be on TV
b) gay couples, too
c) gay couples, in real life or TV, are not generally "encouraging an attraction that is wrong by nature". In fact, they're not generally encouraging/promoting homosexuality at all - simply displaying it, much like Lucy and Desi, the Brady's, and even the Flinstones have displayed hetrosexuality (without any noise from the gays, I might add.)
d) homosexuality itself is not 'wrong by nature'

I'd go on, but my instincts tell me that you're not going to hear me anyway.

@dionysian

Let me be a little bit clearer on that...I don't believe that tv should be completely liberal, I think it should not be dominated by any one party, but shared between people of different races (check), religions (kinda) , genders (yup), and political persuasions (not at all).
With the gay thing, I was trying to show that liberals are dominating this means of entertainment and information distribution, which is hardly equal.

Maybe it should be a show displaying graphic sexual content, to young children....little people who should not be watching anything of that sort.

@mox

I understand that I didn't say that specific thing, I was trying to make the words sharp, because that was the tone of the poem...I was trying to be precise.

But why is that a lie? Both parties should get equal representation on tv, and in all media

a) I understand, but I think that it is confusing for a child to think about that, especially at the younger ages
b) same argument
c) When someone is displaying an action, they are usually promoting it. It is almost as if they are wearing an invisible brand
d) You know what, you are 50% right on that, because everyone at some point or another has probably had a thought or two gone awry...the difference between someone who is sinning and someone who has a problem is action it is gay people acting on those thoughts which the action is against nature otherwise gay people would be able to reproduce, it is simple science.

Why did you underline "person"? Yes, we know a bigot is a person. You can't just go around making saying the kind of stuff you've been saying, and then not expect to be called a bigot. That's kind of how it works. Say bigoted stuff, you get accused of bigotry.

I know, life's hard...

When one serves Jehovah and the other serves secular humanism, there are two codes of morality and reasoning and the only thing that both sides care about is the answer to their question - not realizing that their value system doesn't really care about answering the opponents concerns. Objectivity from one ethical transcendent source = one morality.

Evil is ruled out in the case of animals lined on store walls or at the meat department of your grocery store, but if man is above animals and we are not equals, then its fare game. That doesn't excuse stupidity like over-fishing our oceans or depleting wild populations for game, as they and this earth are our inheritance, but only when one morally equates humans and animals does is your account evil.

If you don't approve of what's on, turn off the tv and do something else, it isn't healthy for kids to watch a lot of t.v. period! And Faux news (also known as "Fox") does all the conservativly-biased coverage, maybe you should tune into them instead of writing bad poetry.

dionysian:

the def you chose to quote began:


A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

If I say "I feel it is wrong to allow poodles to mate with pit bulls" I havde EXPRESSED an opinion. I may later demonstrate that I am intolerantly devoted to this opinion or that I have any animosity towards those who breed pitoodles or whatever they would be called - BUT so far there is no evidence that I am bigotted under this definition.

It is, in fact, the act of a bigot to define any deviant opinion on certain subjects as an instance of bigotry, in the absence of any demonstration of intolerance or animosity.

So now we're equating homosexuality to bestiality? What are you trying to accomplish here?

Be it theist or atheist, tolerant or intolerant, right or left, or however you want to morally divide the world, the larger philosophical point I believe being made still lives on in spirit, even if one doesn't replace the gay example.

You all at least acknowledge that beyond your tolerant selves, some people think it is evil... and that is the larger point here: Looking at the state of the world, seeing it is the world that you will pass on to the next generation, and the things that are viewed as evil by whatever definition and you have of the word.

Thank you MarketAndChurch!! !

That was exactly what I was trying to say!

A. I have said NOTHING about homosexuality. It never occurred to me yo say anything about homosexuality.

B. Equating the breeding of canines with bestiality is a stretch beyond the normal snappy comeback.

C. I am not expecting to ACCOMPLISH anything - not around here. Never did accomplish ,much in the land of Binkides.

D. If you read you will see I am pointing out that the definition you chose to give us cannot be stretched to label an expression of opinion "bigotry"

A: Seems I skipped right over "to allow poodles". Whoops.

B: I am ashamed.

C: Fair enough.

D: The opinion that "homosexual relationships are wrong by nature" is a bigoted one. The next sentence in the explanation of the word "bigot" states that modern English usage of the word is often in reference to sexual orientation. Is there some linguistic theory that finds the predominant usage of the word to be irrelevant here? Because to me that means that somebody intolerant of a sexual orientation is a bigot.