Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
341 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, Faith, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Taq (7 members, 334 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,403 Year: 1,151/23,288 Month: 1,151/1,851 Week: 275/320 Day: 47/87 Hour: 2/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 168 (364692)
11-19-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by berberry
11-19-2006 3:53 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
I can't see how anyone who isn't stupid could look at the Haggard scandal and believe it demonstrates gasby's (2). {homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage.}

This isn't about studity, it is about a totally different worldview or value system. Thus your overall argument seems to be a strawman.

You are correct that homosexuality does not destroy marriage any more or less than heterosexuality... when the underlying issue is adultery. But you seem to miss the point. The people that don't like homosexuality also don't like adultery, and many are even against heterosexual sex if it is outside of marriage. They use the EXACT same argument above against sexually graphic materials, even if they are straight. Thus homosexuality is not, and never has been, the sole focus of their wrath... even if you may feel like that since that is where they hit you.

In their worldview sex itself is sinful unless contained within a specific type of relationship, preferably sanctioned in marriage. SIN is more important than "destroys marriage". The latter result is simply evidence for the effects of sin. It would be bad regardless.

Homosexuality is certainly considered more sinful than most sexual activities, but not necessarily all sexual activities. And the activity is more important than the inclination, which is why people like Haggard can get away by blaming the "sin" and their weakness.

If they had their preference many more things would be against the law, including for straights. They simply have been fighting a losing battle over time on those laws, and homosexuality is one of the latest fronts, but not the only one regarding sex.

With regard to marriage they believe that it is (or should only be) about a single man and woman, preferably leading toward a family. That does make homosexuality an issue for any person trying to "live right" as it offers an added temptation. Just like an interest in hookers or porn.

The problem is those who've willfully made themselves incapable of even the simplist critical thinking.

Right and wrong cannot be derived from simple facts and logic. It takes a moral sentiment, which is ALWAYS irrational. Once one starts with their basic moral sentiment as an assumed truth, critical thinking would arguably result in the same conclusions they make. That's the underlying problem.

And it should be noted Abrahamic code beliefs are not the only moral sentiments which find homosexuality repulsive or "detrimental" in some vaguely indeterminate way. There are other religious types and even atheists who don't like gays. Starting with those same feelings, they generate the same conclusions... quite logically.

I think most decent people are beginning to catch on to the sophistry and double standards these religious dolts use to condemn anyone they don't like.

Ahem... who is decent? Them? You? Who makes that call?

Everyone who condemns another for feeling and acting "wrongly", while maintaining their feelings and actions are "right", are generally engaged in some level of sophistry and double standards. Make sure you understand that that isn't just a slap at you.

Different systems of belief generally have no ultimate (objective) criteria for truth. And they will generally deliver conflicting results with another system. It is inaccurate to condemn the followers of another system with stupidity just because they view the world differently.

Oh it makes you antagonists, but does not mark anyone as inherently less intelligent, or decent. And anyway name-calling of this kind isn't going to solve the problem.

Have gay organizations tried to reach out to Haggard to see if he can come to grips with his homosexuality from a different perspective. To see it as less a "curse" than a simple fact of his nature, which need not be harmful? It might be interesting if he was able to switch sides and then perhaps help other evangelists look at it differently (especially all the OTHER closet cases).

Edited by holmes, : clarity


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 33 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 3:53 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 9:22 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 1:19 PM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 38 of 168 (364714)
11-19-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by berberry
11-19-2006 9:22 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
but they deliberately avoid blaming adultery when there's another "sin" involved

First of all they don't let adultery off the hook. I'm not sure where you see that happening. Second, that they mention homosexuality more than heterosexuality when the adultery is of a homosexual nature sort of makes sense. If the person had not had inclinations toward someone of the same sex they would have been less likely to have strayed from their partner.

not blaming heterosexuality for the breakup of others where a straight affair was involved when in both types of cases adultery is the real problem is what misses the point.

Well they do blame heterosexuality that leads to affairs, it is called lust, as defined separately from love which is proper heterosexuality.

Stop patronizing me, holmes.

I like you berb and I am not trying to patronize you, and I am sorry for saying something that could be taken that way. I was trying to make an argument which I appear not to have made clearly enough. As I didn't know exactly what you know or feel I stated "IF you may feel like that since that is where they hit you". IF YOU DIDN'T then it shouldn't matter.

The main point I was trying to make (in that part of my post) is that they use that form of argument against anything sexual that they do not like. The key is not what it actually does to a marriage, but rather the SIN of doing it at all. They use how any particular sin has effected a specific relationship as the sign of the "wages of sin."

I'm gay, holmes. The activism of these people against gays is my prmiary concern. Once that's been dealt with in our favor I will more often speak about their other bullshit beliefs.

I was trying to drive at the idea that what you are is irrelevant. Dealing with their comments/position in a piecemeal fashion (as it effects you) is both inaccurate as well as not very useful.

I just don't see the need to bring all that up when I'm making a brief comment about one particular specious statement.

Right, I'm not asking you to include everything in any specific case. But what you did was make an inaccurate statement about their position. They do blame heterosexuality as much as homosexuality in as much as both involve lust. The only thing they do not attack is appropriate sexual activity which is devoid of lust.

Heterosexuality is thought to be capable of being more than lust, when it is confined to a specific arena. Specifically within marriage it is capable of being love. Homosexuality is thought incapable of being more than just lustful... namely because it has no chance to do anything beyond supply physical gratification.

Of course I could add that for some ascetics heterosexual sex is thought lustful even within marriage and so to be avoided except only for procreation, and even then not often.

In this case homosexuality was involved. Adultery is a given, since he was married, and he mentioned it. Obviously for him, his homosexual desires would have been a cause for straying. If it had been with a woman then it would have been hetero lust.

You have a firm grasp of the obvious, holmes. I'm arguing against one particular bit of sophistry, I don't generally feel the need to drag in every other example of sophistry I can think of. Sorry, but I'm not likely to change on that.

You claimed that decent people as well as people that are not stupid could see through their sophistry and double standards. I don't see why you would make that statement if you felt that pretty much everyone engaging in moral statements are engaged in sophistry and double standards.

In any case, you do not seem to have addressed my overall argument which is that it is not stupidity which leads to their conclusion, but rather a wholly different set of values.


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 35 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 9:22 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 11:38 AM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 168 (364776)
11-19-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by berberry
11-19-2006 11:38 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
...I was responding to: "homosexuality is sinful and destroys marriage"?... I regard it as a condemnation of homosexuality. You?

Okay I see that I misread the extent of what you were discussing.

That particular statement by Gasby is a condemnation of homosexuality to be sure, but I'm not certain I see it as the same kind of condemnation you are suggesting. I take it as a lesson derived from this particular instance about homosexuality as it causes more problems.

And that does seem coherent given their worldview. Here's a guy that was married and trying to live right, but all along he was consumed with sin... in this case homosexuality... which drove him to commit adultery... in this case homosexual adultery.

Adultery itself being a sin is a given, the lesson is about the more fundamental sin which drove him to it. After all adultery is rarely engaged in just for its own sake, there is usually another sinful urge which causes it. Do you see what I am driving at?

If it had been hetero adultery they'd likely have looked for other possible sins that drove him to it (porn, intoxication, etc). In the absence of anything else they'd simply say unbridled lust.

So yeah this one is being used to learn the lessons of homosexuality, but not at the expense of learning a lesson regarding adultery.

Along the lines I think you are driving at, I see more evident duplicity when they suggest gay marriage must be disallowed because it will destroy marriage, yet allow divorce, and do not argue for punishments for (at least not as vigorously) for adultery in general. Clearly as you have suggested heterosexual urges have had much greater effect in ending marriages than homosexuality ever could. Why not chase them first, rather than worrying about the effects of homosexuality at all?

Edited by holmes, : quote fix


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 39 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 11:38 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 7:31 PM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 168 (364778)
11-19-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
11-19-2006 1:19 PM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
the current apparent injustice is undoubtedly one committed against gay people.

Eh, I don't see this particular case as much of anything, much less an injustice. While they have lost against sexual rights for homosexuals, and are in a pitched battle over homosexual marriage rights, they are currently engaged in a winning campaign against sexual expression as well as hedonism.

They have gotten laws passed, or stretched enforcement policies, to harass, arrest, and otherwise destroy the lives of people engaged in open sexual expression. Rights in the US are incredibly curtailed at this point. Large companies remain relatively unaffected and so most people may not have noticed a change, but from inside the industry everything has changed.

They have also begun pursuing ways hedonists might get together for alternative sexual pursuits. For example raiding porn theaters and couples clubs. Ironically in this case homosexual venues have been LESS targeted than hetero ones.

Sex is the target and always will be. There is simply more noise regarding homosexual issues.


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 42 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 1:19 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 168 (364825)
11-20-2006 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by berberry
11-19-2006 7:31 PM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
It might have been, if gasby intended to strictly limit the context of the statement to the Haggard case.

Whoops I think I should have been more clear in my statement. I did mean to say that the lesson was about homosexuality in general, just derived from the lessons of this particular case (that's what I meant by "particular instance"). I am in full agreement that it is meant as a criticism of homosexuality as a whole as of course that is what they are looking for.

The more important part was what followed in that it is SOP for any sin that "causes" adultery.

except for the fact that you're attempting to use logic to understand illogical and capricious notions of sin. I've been there and done that.

Heheheh... Well remember to me ALL moral systems are illogical and capricious. They have to be because they are always founded on some arbitrary illogical belief. My only concern is understanding how internally consistent they are. On this point I think they are usually (but not always) consistent.

Maybe its a difference in experience. Not sure if southern evangelicals (and other Xians) are different than northern ones. But I was raised around it and spent many formative years within evangelical central. They seemed to be consistent in the attitude and so had some logical structure for their conclusions, once you assume some initial ideas are true.

Of course we all know about assumption, making an etc etc...

Great question; the one at the very heart of the matter.

This is of course where are positions completely join up. Morally and legally the obsession with homosexuality seems out of proportion to its possible "threat". Okay they don't like it and it is one of the latest fronts they are fighting (have been pushed back to defend), but really I'm not quite sure why ostracism wouldn't be more the solution than virulent attacks, given that more things have to be impacting them more readily.

Of course my advocating that only pushes them more onto my back, as they are currently winning their battles against sexual expression and hedonism, and if they turned full force on my "kind", blech! This is why I try to treat this issue in a more generalized way. I mean I am essentially bi so I get nailed on their homosexual rants, and also get hit on everything else they hate sexually. Piecemeal efforts relieve pressure in one area only to find it reapplied harder elsewhere.


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 50 by berberry, posted 11-19-2006 7:31 PM berberry has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 54 of 168 (364830)
11-20-2006 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 5:18 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Can you identify who "you people" incorporate? Who exactly is "you people," and what exactly makes me one of these people?

I think the main thrust of the argument is against those who support legislation which prevent homosexuals from living in the same way that heterosexuals can. I can't remember what you said your position was regarding homosexual sex or marriage in a legal sense.

Of course there is also the problem of enabling those who do the same thing simply by being a moralist against homosexuals and creating false arguments against homosexuality in general. Frankly I have no concern about the moralists but would against the people creating false arguments. Others may be criticizing both of these.

It appears you are at the very least a moralist, but I'm not completely certain about the latter case. To me, so far you seem to be sitting on a line between false arguments and simply viewing something from a different perspective.

the more realize about the homosexual movement, you'll come to realize that marriage isn't the central issue. I want to conduct a little test. Feel free to follow up for corroboration.

Skip the test, you are correct. The homosexual movement's central issue is not marriage. That is simply one of the issues among many. They (I suppose I should say "we") just won the right to have sex (less than 5 years ago). They/we still have no RIGHT to serve in the armed forces like anyone who is 100% straight. They/we still face violence on a disproportionate scale to other minorities with the exception of pedophiles (ironically enough whom many gays would like to treat with the same unreasoned hatred as Xians do gays).

Now lets talk about your test. What do websites turning up using "gay" as a search term suggest about what gays consider a central issue?

I would note that the gay.com site is actually pretty diverse in nature. It has different sections. The news section is not sexual, unless by that you mean focused on issues effecting homosexuals.

homosexuality is all about sexuality which we should expect and almost about nothing else, completely different from their heterosexual counterparts.

??? You typed in "gay" not homosexual. Tell us what the returns are on that one. Also try heterosexual. I come up with about the same mishmash of stuff.

You would be correct in stating that homosexuality is about sexuality, but so is heterosexuality. From experience I will say that homosexuals are generally MORE openly sexual in nature (even if that is confined to homosexual "safe" areas), but that would make sense given the fact that they have had to deal with their sexuality and may feel more comfortable about expressing it. In fact in the process of accepting their nature they have generally had to throw off a lot of the sexual baggage promoted by religion.

So what? That does not mean that they have no other issues, or no other important issues in their lives. And your response doesn't address gasby's point which is that it is claimed that gays will not be happy, while laws are passed to guarantee they can't be.

Nowhere in your post do you show why gays are unlikely to be happy if they are given the freedom to live as heteros are.

I also don't understand gay pride parades,... Why, then, would that instill a sense of pride? I don't get it.

As opposed to St.Patrick's day parades to celebrate the pride of being Irish? 4th of July parades to celebrate the pride of being an American? This seems like a pretty simple concept and one used by most groups.

The only reason why overtly sexual groups haven't used them in the past is due to cultural heritage against open displays/emphasis of sexuality. Though of course that is not completely accurate. Many parades include beauty queens and other hetero "arousing" elements. And there always was Carnival or Mardi Gras.

I do wish there would be general sexual pride parades where every stripe could be celebrated as basic to human nature. But my guess that isn't coming any time soon.

I should note that in A'dam we have had yearly gay pride boat parades. They have gotten smaller in time, having both to do with already established rights as well as an increase in prudishness by the dutch. But the celebrations are large and it is interesting to see the number of families that attend them... I guess I should point out "straight" families.

Despite being flagrantly sexual, and promoting homosexuality, it is just like any other parade. Why not?

Many homosexuals identity is literally wrapped in considering themselves to be gay, and this self-identity seems to supersede anything else. I find that odd,

Yeah I agree, just like Xians, Jews, and Muslims who do the same thing. Once self identity becomes about one issue, to the extent of stereotyping themselves to prove it, it gets a tad silly. At least the gay ones aren't going on rampages killing people.


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 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 5:18 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 12:50 PM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 56 of 168 (364865)
11-20-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
11-20-2006 8:47 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
How dare you complain about gaybashing when there are also anti-porn sentiments in existence?

Hahahahahah... cough cough cough... blah.

My position was NOT as he took it at the time. The miscommunication has already been dealt with between berb and I and so why you have decided to extend it I dunno.

I might also point out that I am essentially bi, I do have sex with guys, and so Xian criticism of homosexual behavior, or gaybashing in its more physical sense, hits me equally (unless they made exceptions for people that like girls too? Heheheh... the King David clause I suppose). I'm certainly not trying to switch or broaden debate because anti-porn tirades effect me more, if that is what you were trying to imply.

If you are going to pop up just to insult me, at least get the subject matter right.


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 55 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 8:47 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 9:49 AM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 60 of 168 (364878)
11-20-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by nator
11-20-2006 9:49 AM


Re: stupid or less than stupid? (neither?)
you do seem to try to include porn and/or sex into every topic possible, no matter how tangentially related it might be.

Yeah, I see how it could seem that way (and maybe its true).

But in this case the subject was about sex, and the only point I had been making is that they attack all sorts of underlying causes for adultery. I wasn't trying to harp on porn in specific, or get berb to address that as well, it just happens that porn is certainly one of their equally big "sin" factors so I used it in explanation. I believe I even mentioned intoxication as another one they go after.

As a sidenote I once lived in an area which had a pretty active Xian coalition squad. We had known gay hangouts as well as a couple of porn bookstores. They spent all of their resources on attacking those bookstores. Oh what a time it was. See to them sexual material was the seed for deviancy which would lead to things like homosexuality. Clean up one and you would get the other (as well as all the OTHER perversions porn leads to).

This was their argument... not mine. And I guess it does have precedent in the Bible where it suggests lustiness leads to such "strange" desires. It is errant to view their position as homosexuality being the root cause of all problems, but rather its a manifestation which in turn may cause other probems.

Just a little tease.

I wasn't really insulted. Its fine to needle me. Its just in this particular case the "issue" was over (resolved satisfactorily), it had been a miscommunication which I personally wanted to avoid, and I was sensitive about it being rebooted in the public arena as if I was trying to broaden debate.

A call for higher quality teasing, if you will.


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 57 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 9:49 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 10:47 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 168 (364882)
11-20-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by berberry
11-20-2006 10:28 AM


Re: When Religion Loses Its Credibility
if we're ever to win any converts from among the anti-gay bigots then we're going to have to show them what they could lose in this fight.

Nice point and I think it may be argued they can lose more than just their credibility in this fight.

I do find it interesting that the minister admitted religion's only real commodity is moral authority. One wonders what his stance is on EvC.


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 59 by berberry, posted 11-20-2006 10:28 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 67 of 168 (364900)
11-20-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Thugpreacha
11-20-2006 11:16 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I will get a lot of flak for saying this

Incoming.

many of the men involved in the gay pride movements are emotionally immature.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that many people involved in every and all kind of movements are emotionally immature.

Who isn't immature? What is your measure? How do you know what people are like in the gay pride movement vs everywhere else?

I remember Tal trying to paint all Iraq War protestors with the picture of the guy in a clown outfit. Is that the kind of experience you have with knowing the people in the entire gay pride movement?

As a contrast explain the maturity level expressed by "Kiss me I'm Irish", or "We don't celebrate Halloween because we're good Xians".

And finally, why are only men in those movements immature?

They defend their right to express their inborn gayness as much as a 17 year old would argue with his Father to be allowed to stay out after midnite to express his heterosexual urges.

I find that analogy rather revealing and not so hot for you.

Otherwise, your post was quite mature. Heheheh.

Edited by holmes, : gay pride


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 65 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-20-2006 11:16 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 168 (364901)
11-20-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 11:12 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I'm not really seeing the adversity

He said they were celebrating their survival of oppression and adversity. Your linked images are of the survivors.

You want some images of people that were beaten and killed?


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 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 168 (364928)
11-20-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
11-20-2006 12:29 PM


maturity
First, I saw the fluffer joke above. Heheheh... nice.

As for your post to phat, I was also having a good laugh until I reached the picture of the urinal and this comment...

Or the man whi installed these urinals, and the hundreds of men who used them and didn't say a word about them?

Now I guess I could tease you about your tendency to bring in feminist/prudism no matter the subject, but I'm going to skip it to try and put this particular myth to rest.

The inventor of the mouth urinal was a WOMAN. She is a dutch artist, and I believe (though I could be wrong) she might be gay. While I am not going to argue that pissing into such a urinal is mature, what is mature about pissing into any other toilet?

In holland, if not across europe, they seem to take bathrooms with a sense of humor. There are all sorts of goofy toiletseats or other toilet paraphenalia. There simply are no inherent political or derogatory meanings to such things. I remember recently seeing a toilet brush holder where you placed the brush in the mouth of a man (think of the potential political ramifications of that). And all over a popular them park you have to put garbage into the mouths of male beings.

In any case the dutch artist of the toilet thought it was a funny kitsch thing in the same vein as all the rest. She does not even view it as a female looking mouth. And I sort of agree it reminds me more of a "mick jagger" mouth. It is cartoonish. A joke. Humor.

She was suprised when there was suddenly an uproar about them, and thought the people who complained were rather immature. Very U.S. This certainly raises the question of if people saying nothing about them were the ones who were immature.

Edited by holmes, : certain


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 70 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 12:29 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 2:55 PM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 73 of 168 (364930)
11-20-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
11-20-2006 12:56 PM


Re: here's some images of "adversity" for you
I thought about posting pics of adversity too.

One of those people pictured was beaten right nearby where I live. When it happened I had to think it could just as well have been me. I can't say it made me scared but it was spooky.

On the day of the gay pride parade I was confronted by a guy clearly looking to pick a fight with gays. Ironically he chose me as a "fag" despite the fact that I was walking with my gf. Maybe he had bidar.

A transexual two blocks from me was murdered.

And this in an extremely gay friendly city.


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 71 by nator, posted 11-20-2006 12:56 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4203 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020