Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
353 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ramoss, Theodoric (4 members, 349 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,804 Year: 21,840/19,786 Month: 403/1,834 Week: 403/315 Day: 81/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4155 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 76 of 168 (364944)
11-20-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
11-20-2006 2:55 PM


Re: maturity
I do, however, think it's a bit naive to be surprised that nobody would think that putting open mouths (that appeared to me like a woman's with red lipstick on) over men's urinals would be off-putting to many.

I just told you they accept explicitly male figures (no question on this) into which you stick garbage as well as used toilet brushes. In that atmosphere there would be no naivety in expecting a nonnegative reaction to a questionably feminine mouth for a urinal.

And it would be suprising when someone identifies as something it IS NOT (the artist made it so she should know what it is), as well as ascribes a political meaning to it that is alien to one's own outlook. As it stands how many people were off-put by it?

Clearly whoever bought them, installed them (both of which may have included women), and used them without complaining were not off-put by them.

I mean, there are many companies devoted to selling nothing but rude, degrading sexist, racist, and gay-hating t-shirts, for example.

Uhhhhh... they have that here to be sure. Oh man maybe I should take some pix of the t-shirts they sell around here. Whole shops of rude, degrading, sexist, racist... though I'm not sure of gay hating... t-shirts... for example.

Of course there might be a difference in opinion on what counts as rude, sexist, degrading, etc.

In the end this really is just an issue of how you view bathroom activities. Can it be humorous? As well as assignment of political meaning to such acts based purely on content of visual imagery.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 2:55 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 6:09 PM Silent H has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5863
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 77 of 168 (364948)
11-20-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by berberry
11-19-2006 7:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I would never ask you to apologize for it. It's your belief and you should live by it. Here's a thought: how 'bout let's allow me and all other law-abiding gays and lesbians to live our lives in peace, with all the same rights, priviliges and responsibilities that are available to you and any other law-abiding straight person?

You can. There is nothing stopping from doing everything the same. I;m going to go out on a limb and assume you are referring to marriage, in which case, is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

If you want something along those lines, try a civil union. I have no ojections to that.

That way you truly get to hold to and abide by your beliefs, and I get to do the same with mine. Fair enough?

Absolutely.

quote:
Its also unfair to stigmatize homosexuality as being worse than any other type of sin.

Just as it's unfair to stigmatize christianity as being worse than any other type of mental incapacity. Yeah, I hear ya!

You're doing no favors for your cause by demonizing Christians.

Ah, so I'm perfectly free to pursue love and happiness so long as it's on your terms?

You can do whatever you want. If you're interested in hearing why I think homosexuality is not in your best interests, I'd be happy to share that with you. If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Since you seem to be at such great pains to present yourself as fair-minded (and I can see why that would be such an important thing to do since you're passing judgement on people you've never heard of and making important decisions about what will constitute happiness for them) are you thus willing to live your life according to the whims and dictates of some arbitrary, judgemental moron who might feel that he or she knows what's best for you and what forms of happiness you will be allowed to pursue? I mean, since you're being so fair and all.

I feel that homosexuality is wrong. And going by inference from what I've seen, living in sin does not produce happiness. It produces moments of fleeting joy, as does all sin, but I don't believe that a long, lasting peace can be found in it. You can call that me "judging you," or you can look at it realistically as me simply not agreeing with your lifestyle. I think you'd prefer that I hate you in order to feel sufficiently martyred, but I don't Berb.

Passing judgement on the lives of perfect strangers and forcing them to live according to your dictates isn't sufficiently intoxicating for you? You just can't resist the urge to hurl baseless insults as well?

How am I 'forcing' you to do anything? And what actual insult have I hurled at you? I've done neither.

[quote]Children? No. Are you a child? What did you mean by that statement?[/qs]

I'm afraid you might've closed your mind too long ago to understand this, but I'll give it a try. It's pretty widely known that homosexual kids are about four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. But since, in the wonderful world of your small mind, homosexual kids don't exist, this obviously won't concern you.

Why wouldn't that concern me? Of course that concerns me. You know, the whole thing that gay kids kill themselves more often than their counterparts because of pressure is closing up. Everyday, homosexuality is more and more accepted, especially by the younger generation. Actually, you're now considered weird if you merely don't support homosexuality. Now, if you simply disagree with homosexuality, you're leveled by the sweeping allegation of being a 'homophobe.' Again, this is the intolerant face tolerance.

I don't see any need in carrying this charade of a debate any further. According to your beliefs, I'm hopelessly lost somewhere and doomed to a dreary life of sin.

No, you aren't hopeless.

According to my assessments, you're a narrow-minded, ignorant dolt on a power trip. You can scarcely string two sentences together without including an insult. I'd just as soon have nothing to do with you because you disgust me.

Look, Berberry, you are easily insulted if what I've said insulted you. I don't have to believe that homosexuality is a-okay. I'm afforded that right. I don't have to be politically correct just in case I might hurt your delicate feelings. I think I've been more than fair in my assessment and I've been nothing but kind to you. If you want to have a normal conversation and find out why I believe as I do, then let me know. As of now, its been YOU that is slinging the ad hom, not me. So, when your pity party is ends, let me know, and we can start over and have a nice conversation, even if we disagree.


Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 7:02 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 4:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2006 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 83 by berberry, posted 11-20-2006 8:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 88 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 3:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 168 (364954)
11-20-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 4:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
quote:
And going by inference from what I've seen, living in sin does not produce happiness. It produces moments of fleeting joy, as does all sin, but I don't believe that a long, lasting peace can be found in it.

Er, by your definition, I've been living in big sin for about 20 years, since I don't accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

And yet, I have just celebrated 14 years of marriage, I've found and enjoyed a fulfilling career for almost as long, I continue to learn new things and enjoy good health and a great deal of happiness. I want for nothing, and nothing is missing in my life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 168 (364966)
11-20-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 4:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I don't have to believe that homosexuality is a-okay. I'm afforded that right. I don't have to be politically correct just in case I might hurt your delicate feelings. I think I've been more than fair in my assessment and I've been nothing but kind to you. If you want to have a normal conversation and find out why I believe as I do, then let me know.

I don't believe that a reasonable person can be a Christian. I think if you're a Christian, then there's some kind of blockage between the world as we live in it, and your reasoning faculties. For most people I think that blockage is self-imposed and I can't imagine how anybody could choose to do that or be happy living that way.

But, hey, that's just my opinion. Maybe you find it upsetting; maybe you find that it's based on a premise you'd like to argue with. I'm sure you don't question my right to hold that opinion, but maybe, just maybe, you find it an opinion that makes you mad, maybe hurts your feelings a little bit; hits you like a total stranger just called you an idiot out of the blue.

If that's true, I apologize. Doubly so, because that's my honest opinion phrased as frankly as I could muster with the explicit purpose of being upsetting to Christians. I've done this for an educational purpose, though. If you found my remarks upsetting, then you might want to cut Berb a little slack when he finds your remarks, which I'm sure you must believe are a totally reasonable position, to be insulting.

Just as I understand how you probably found my remakrs insulting just now, and I apologize for having to have made them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by berberry, posted 11-20-2006 8:21 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 1:52 PM crashfrog has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 168 (364982)
11-20-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
11-20-2006 3:52 PM


Re: maturity
I get everything you are saying, but look at it this way; in the US, violence against oppressed groups is the norm. Maybe in the Netherlands, people can wear T-shirts like this:

and nobody thinks they are offensive, but here in America, it's a terrible reminder that crimes literally exactly like this happen with regularity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 3:52 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 6:44 PM nator has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4155 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 81 of 168 (364992)
11-20-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
11-20-2006 6:09 PM


Re: maturity
Maybe in the Netherlands, people can wear T-shirts like this:

Heheheh... yeah shirts exactly like that.

but here in America, it's a terrible reminder that crimes literally exactly like this happen with regularity

Remember I come from america too. That t-shirt doesn't say that to me, and it wouldn't have looooooong before I came to europe. Oh its rude and crude (derogatory), but it doesn't say anything about crimes against anyone. Its humor. Not everything has to be taken with a political perspective, and certainly not everyone in america does.

I totally understand that you may personally take it that way. I can see how a person can be offended in that way. It's just that not everyone does and the meaning is not inherent.

Regarding the subthread subject, I would agree that regardless of political meaning its wearer would show a lack of maturity ala that other pic you posted of a guy in similar t-shirt.

However, my disagreement would still stand for the toilet, because that requires a drastic reinterpretation to get to rude, crude, or derogatory. And I would note that the reinterpretation appears to have led to biased commentary on which gender is connected to its existence. It had nothing to do with men, other than they get to piss in it.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 6:09 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by riVeRraT, posted 11-21-2006 5:55 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM Silent H has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 168 (365002)
11-20-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Thugpreacha
11-20-2006 12:13 PM


OT: W.W.E.D.
Phat asks me:

quote:
By the way, what does WWED mean?

What would Eddie do?

(That's the head of the beast he's holding.)


W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-20-2006 12:13 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 168 (365022)
11-20-2006 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 4:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
nemesis_juggernaut lies to me:

quote:
You can. There is nothing stopping from doing everything the same. I;m going to go out on a limb and assume you are referring to marriage...

Of course I'm talking about marriage, you congenital dolt. A typical pre-schooler would have been able to figure that out. But you? You have to "go out on a limb"!

Narcissistic nitwit.

quote:
If you want something along those lines, try a civil union.

Why not let me decide for myself what I want? Why the fuck am I expected to clear my wants, dreams and desires with some cretin deluded with visions of paternal granduer such as yourself?

quote:
You're doing no favors for your cause by demonizing Christians.

Then why would you think that you're doing any favors for yourself by demonizing gays?

quote:
If you're interested in hearing why I think homosexuality is not in your best interests, I'd be happy to share that with you.

If I had a question about aircraft engineering, I wouldn't go to the produce man at Kroger for the answer. So why on earth would I come to you with questions about homosexuality?

Besides, there's yet another inherent lie here. What the hell is the word 'if' doing there? There's no 'if'. You don't care whether I'm "interested" in hearing what you think. I made it quite clear in my last post to you that I'm not at all interested, yet here you are, telling me all over again. Just what part of "I'd just as soon have nothing to do with you because you disgust me" are you having difficulty understanding?

quote:
I feel that homosexuality is wrong.

Gee, who'da thought? So why don't you refrain from it?

quote:
And going by inference from what I've seen, living in sin does not produce happiness. It produces moments of fleeting joy, as does all sin, but I don't believe that a long, lasting peace can be found in it. You can call that me "judging you," or you can look at it realistically as me simply not agreeing with your lifestyle.

Let me try this once again: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER YOU "AGREE" WITH MY "LIFESTYLE!" The ONLY thing I want to hear from you is an explanation of why you think you should be able to make my "lifestyle" choices for me? Who gets to make your "lifesyle" choices for you?

Again, I don't see any point in reading further in your post because you're never going to do anything but dance around the real question. You've well established that you don't approve of homosexuality. What you haven't done is explain why you feel that I should have to seek approval from you. Try doing that and we may get somewhere. And if you're not going to do that then as far as I'm concerned you can go to hell.


W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AdminModulous, posted 11-21-2006 1:26 AM berberry has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 11-21-2006 1:46 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 168 (365026)
11-20-2006 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
11-20-2006 5:06 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
crashfrog writes nemjug:

quote:
I don't believe that a reasonable person can be a Christian.

I disagree with that, but I don't care to take the issue up just now. But did it occur to you that, by nemjug's narcissistic standards, you should be able to decide whether or not he's allowed to become a christian?


W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2006 5:06 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 440 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 85 of 168 (365058)
11-21-2006 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by berberry
11-20-2006 8:17 PM


Not here, thanks
...you congenital dolt...Narcissistic nitwit...some cretin deluded with visions of paternal granduer

Entirely unwarranted response. I understand why the position held by NJ can be upsetting, but that is not an excuse to be disrespectful on the boards. If you want to flame someone who holds a position similar to NJ, there are plenty of places on the internet to let off the appropriate steam.

You've been given a 24 hour suspension. Any discussion with regards to this admin action may be taken to the appropriate thread in my signature.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Thread Style Guides for EvC and Thread Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by berberry, posted 11-20-2006 8:17 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1627 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 86 of 168 (365060)
11-21-2006 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by berberry
11-20-2006 8:17 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I, too, feel as strongly toward NJ about his attitude, which is why I decided to stop conversing with him before I lose control.


Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

The thread about this map can be found here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by berberry, posted 11-20-2006 8:17 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 3:43 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3326 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 87 of 168 (365071)
11-21-2006 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taz
11-21-2006 1:46 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
[deleted - wrong recipient]

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 11-21-2006 1:46 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3326 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 88 of 168 (365072)
11-21-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 4:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
nj writes:

You can. There is nothing stopping from doing everything the same. I;m going to go out on a limb and assume you are referring to marriage, in which case, is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Not in Websters dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/marriage

nj writes:

If you want something along those lines, try a civil union. I have no ojections to that.

But "civil unions" are just "marriage" by another name! They are entirely equivalent in legal terms. The denial of legal status to gay couples is the crux of the argument.

So, with all this in mind, what exactly are you arguing against? If you accept gay "civil unions" then you accept gay "marriage". What's the difference? If this is a religious question, then how do you explain your acceptance of registry office, Hindu or Muslim marriages?

Oh, and by the way, are you purposefully avoiding your great debate with Jazzns?

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 5:19 AM RickJB has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4155 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 168 (365082)
11-21-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by RickJB
11-21-2006 3:45 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Not that I agree with NJ's opinion on homosexuality or homosexual marriage, but when we get to the issue of definitions of marriage...

Not in Websters dictionary.

What are you talking about? The very first definition listed at your link is...

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

If you are addressing the second entry then you are missing that his point is made there too...

(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

The use of marriage to cover same-sex unions is NEW. It is RECENT. It is NONTRADITIONAL. And furthermore it isn't even accepted across the globe or the US.

It certainly isn't defined that way in the law which is even more important than what Websters has to say.

They are entirely equivalent in legal terms. The denial of legal status to gay couples is the crux of the argument.

Ahem. If they are entirely equivalent in legal terms then how can using them be a denial of legal status to gay couples?

For those that allow for legal unions, this is an issue of preserving a concept as it is, not necessarily a denial of others the same right. Unless you consider use of a legal term to describe onesself a "right".

That latter point is more significant than it seems. If we decide to set precedent that people should be able to avail themselves to whatever term, or classification, they want, that it is their RIGHT then we open a pandora's box.

Yes I have not actually served in the official US military, but I do belong to my local militia, and I have the right to be considered a "U.S. veteran" and "U.S. military personnel". Yes I have a penis but I have the right to be legally defined as a woman with all rights/restrictions that come with that identity (for example not having to serve in the armed forces, or getting grants).

Now we might be willing to create new boxes for these people to check, and give them the legal coverage they are seeking, but it seems strange to broaden longstanding legal definitions every time someone comes up with something new.

This is not to argue homosexuals should not be able to use that term legally. My own personal opinion is who cares, and if marriage is a religious institution then perhaps it shouldn't exist in law at all (everyone gets civil unions). But that does not mean what they are arguing has no merit at all.

Up until the last few decades marriage has pretty much been universally defined as a union between opposite sexes. While numbers and ages of partners in such unions have varied across the globe, the opposite sex part has not varied. This is especially true for western civilization where our legal and social traditions largely derive.

It feels disingenuous to me everytime people play dumb with this. And I don't understand why it is necessary. The founding fathers were proud that they were trying to institute something new. That's part of what made it exciting. Why can't we admit that the concept of homosexual marriage is new? It is a radical change based on a slowly changing concept of love, relationships, and families.

I'd rather lose trying to institute something new, honestly, than win by creating some revisionist history.

Sorry, didn't mean to blow my cork but this is a particular pet peeve of mine.

Edited by holmes, : their there


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 3:45 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 8:28 AM Silent H has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 256 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 90 of 168 (365084)
11-21-2006 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
11-20-2006 2:55 PM


Re: maturity
I do, however, think it's a bit naive to be surprised that nobody would think that putting open mouths (that appeared to me like a woman's with red lipstick on) over men's urinals would be off-putting to many.

Well you probably wouldn't find one in a church, lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 2:55 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019