Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 1:13 PM
56 online now:
edge, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (7 members, 49 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,591 Year: 3,628/19,786 Month: 623/1,087 Week: 213/212 Day: 28/27 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 91 of 168 (365085)
11-21-2006 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Silent H
11-20-2006 6:44 PM


Re: maturity
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.

Kind of anal to think so too. Reminds me of a black guy I got stuck working with a while back in Harlem. Every other word out of his mouth was, "well the white man says, or the black man says". He had a reputation for that, and after about two weeks of working with him I had to tell him to stfu because, I never had no slaves, my daddy didn't have any slaves, and my grandfather never had a slave, and I think if you go back far enough we were probably slaves at one point.

It was so bad his racism that it was a long running joke at our job. If the boss asked us to paint a register white, or even mention the color black or white, we would ask, "whys it gotta be white?" "why cants it be black?" Both white and black people participated in this long running joke. I think it's been over twenty years now, and it still goes on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 6:44 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 168 (365090)
11-21-2006 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Silent H
11-20-2006 6:44 PM


Re: maturity
quote:
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.

The meaning is not inherent?

A male figure is literally throwing away a female figure, head first, into a garbage can.

How does that not allude to a crime?

quote:
However, my disagreement would still stand for the toilet, because that requires a drastic reinterpretation to get to rude, crude, or derogatory

Er, I don't find it drastic at all to get to an interpretation of "crude, rude, and derogatory" from pretending that you are urinating into someone's mouth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 6:44 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 8:57 AM nator has responded
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2006 10:44 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 1:42 PM nator has responded
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 11-21-2006 1:48 PM nator has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 93 of 168 (365105)
11-21-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
11-21-2006 5:19 AM


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

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.

So what? The term "gay" used to mean "joyous" after all. Meanings, like culture, change with the times.

Holmes writes:

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

You misread what I was trying to say. I didn't say civil unions were a denial of rights, I said the the denial of legal rights is the most pressing issue for homosexual couples.

In the U.S. the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) attempted to prevent the judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex couples or other "unmarried" persons. In 20 states even civil unions are disallowed.

Holmes writes:

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.

Exactly - that's my point! The difference in practice lies only in the use of a single word/concept. However, if one accepts gay civil unions then one, in legal and practical terms, also accepts gay marriage. As I asked NJ, what's the difference?

The only conclusion that I can come to is that the difference lies in the religious connotations held by some with regard to the term "marriage". This gets us down the the REAL cause of the argument, most especially when one considers the fact that many Christians in the US believe that legal rights must flow from their own doctrines.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 5:19 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 9:13 AM RickJB has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3897 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 168 (365110)
11-21-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


Re: maturity
A male figure is literally throwing away a female figure, head first, into a garbage can. How does that not allude to a crime?

??? I said I could see how someone could see that. Its just not inherent. I'd turn your question right back at you...

Why does the image of a male figure throwing a female figure into a garbage can (head first or otherwise), inherently allude to a crime? That is especially with the giant words Hump&Dump above it.

Is it not possible to view the image in an entirely metaphorical context? I honestly did not see any "crime" being hinted at. I saw a statement that whoever this is is joking about using girls for sex in a rather callous manner. Love 'em & Leave 'em = Hump 'em & Dump 'em = Hump&Dump.

To me that was obvious, and I don't see why that would be errant.

I don't find it drastic at all to get to an interpretation of "crude, rude, and derogatory" from pretending that you are urinating into someone's mouth.

You aren't pissing into someone's mouth. The toilet has a mouth. You are pissing into IT's mouth. That's part of the humorous quality.

In any case, assuming it is supposed to be someone's mouth, how is that a statement of people wanting to treat others badly? The thing is smiling and happy. It apparently always likes it.

That is different than the tshirt which does not suggest treating the other person well, or that the other person likes 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 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:47 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3897 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 95 of 168 (365114)
11-21-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RickJB
11-21-2006 8:28 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
So what? The term "gay" used to mean "joyous" after all. Meanings, like culture, change with the times.

Uhhh... I thought my post agreed and addressed this very issue. But I guess I'll disagree with one aspect. Marriage as a legal institution has a much different history than the use of "gay" to mean joyous or homosexual.

I didn't say civil unions were a denial of rights, I said the the denial of legal rights is the most pressing issue for homosexual couples.

Okay, I wasn't quite clear, because NJ had already stated he was for civil unions, just not the use of the name marriage.

However, if one accepts gay civil unions then one, in legal and practical terms, also accepts gay marriage. As I asked NJ, what's the difference?

Yes, then I did get you right in that aspect. I simply turned the question around. If they are equal, there is no difference, then why can't gays accept civil unions instead of marriages?

To argue that those who want to preserve the current and longstanding legal definition of marriage must be biased, because there is no practical difference, begs the question. Why aren't gays to be viewed as the ones being biased in trying to enforce their religious/philosophical viewpoint on others?

I might add that one does not have to be a Xian to view marriage as between opposite sexes. That is a longstanding traditional concept across all nations and cultures and religions. Even nonreligious gov'ts (such as communist ones) used that definition and have denied gays the ability to use it.

However I see the point that it is largely being argued by religious people in the US and many appeal to religious tradition. If that IS the case, that's when I argue we shouldn't be engaged in granting marriages in the first place.

BUT... there certainly IS precedent for the gov't validating wholly religious labels. Should anyone be free to label their goods as "kosher", demanding that Jewish concepts should not be enforced on anyone wanting to use that term on foods being sold?


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 93 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 8:28 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 10:32 AM Silent H has responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 96 of 168 (365121)
11-21-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Silent H
11-21-2006 9:13 AM


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

Yes, then I did get you right in that aspect. I simply turned the question around. If they are equal, there is no difference, then why can't gays accept civil unions instead of marriages?

Ah, fair enough. Well, I suppose that most would be more than happy with civil unions. This being denied in some states.

Holmes writes:

However I see the point that it is largely being argued by religious people in the US and many appeal to religious tradition. If that IS the case, that's when I argue we shouldn't be engaged in granting marriages in the first place.

Heh. It is strange how loaded term is for some sections of the community. Here in the UK the last two "marriages" (which is how everyone involved referred to them) I attended were held in registry offices! They were non-religious heterosexual civil ceremonies with many of the visual elements derived from traditonal weddings (white gown for the bride, etc). Ask either participant and they will certainly tell you that they consider themselves "married".

Holmes writes:

BUT... there certainly IS precedent for the gov't validating wholly religious labels. Should anyone be free to label their goods as "kosher", demanding that Jewish concepts should not be enforced on anyone wanting to use that term on foods being sold?

Maybe, but words do have the slippery habit of developing new associations. Here in London the term "kosher" also means "genuine". Indeed this slang meaning is probably more widely understood! Legislating for the sake of a word seems fruitless at best....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 9:13 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 1:19 PM RickJB has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 168 (365122)
11-21-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


Re: maturity
How does that not allude to a crime?

Totally agree with you, here. Just flip on any crime show (Law and Order, CSI) and count how often they're pulling attractive young rape victims out of dumpsters. Culturally, the dumpster is the traditional final resting place of disposable women.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by docpotato, posted 11-21-2006 11:21 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 98 of 168 (365135)
11-21-2006 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Phat
11-20-2006 11:16 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I know what you mean, nemesis. I know that I will get a lot of flak for saying this, and I dont have any studies on hand to back up my assertion, but many of the men involved in the gay pride movements are emotionally 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.

Well, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that most homosexuals feel as though their homosexual urges are completely biological. They feel that it is something they cannot change and have used that belief to achieve parity with the womens' sufferage movement and the racial equality movements. I am of the belief that no man, woman, or child can choose their race or their gender. I feel differnetly about their sexual preference.

Apparently, there are homosexuals who view their lifestyle as a choice and not some innate sexual preference that dictates the outcome.

Here's an interesting website hosted by homosexuals on the matter.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 11:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 101 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 12:13 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 115 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 154 by LinearAq, posted 11-23-2006 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
docpotato
Member (Idle past 3125 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 99 of 168 (365136)
11-21-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
11-21-2006 10:44 AM


Re: maturity
Just flip on any crime show (Law and Order, CSI) and count how often they're pulling attractive young rape victims out of dumpsters.

Hey man, it's rough out there on the TV streets. A TV girl's gotta be TV careful.

Edited by docpotato, : TV!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2006 10:44 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 100 of 168 (365142)
11-21-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 11:12 AM


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

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 101 of 168 (365145)
11-21-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 11:12 AM


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

I am of the belief that no man, woman, or child can choose their race or their gender. I feel differnetly about their sexual preference.

So when did you "decide" you were attracted to women? Or, like Haggard perhaps, do you "choose" a female partner for the sake of your Christian morals?

nj writes:

Apparently, there are homosexuals who view their lifestyle as a choice and not some innate sexual preference that dictates the outcome.

Tell me, do you think Haggard's "choice" was a lifestyle choice? Seems to me that he tried to be heterosexual and couldn't carry it off....

Also, as homosexuality is just a choice and all, am I right to assume that you'd happily become sexually aroused riding another guy if you "decided" to do so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 1:03 PM RickJB has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 102 of 168 (365152)
11-21-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
11-20-2006 5:43 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
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.

I think that 'outlawing' homosexual unions would be horribly counter productive. I think that anyone should be allowed to make that choice for themselves from a legal point of view, however, I don't feel that we should erase thousands of years marriage by trying to redefine what marriage means. Marriage is a special union between a man and a woman. I think that should be protected by law, because if not, it will open the door to anything. If you redefine what a marriage is to accomodate homosexuality, then another group is going to lobby for the same rights. After awhile the whole institution of marriage will be turned into a mockery, as if it needed any help.

The sanctity of the institution of marriage is already being regarded flippantly by many people. Hollywood is certainly culpable in that. It does not need anything else to exacerbate the problem.

I am, however, in favor of homosexuals living together and perhaps even a civil union. It doesn't mean that I agree with homosexuality, however, it does mean that I will respect them to make their own decisions. I only ask that they not try to redefine marriage. Anything less than what it currently means would be sanctimonious.

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound?

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).

See, this is very difficult for me to understand. I hear of the disproportionate levels of violence against homsexuals, or that Christians single them out with fervor. While I certainly believe that violence has occured against them, and I know that certain "Xtian groups" do single them out with more ferocity than other groups, I don't know a single one. I have been taught that while not condoning the act of homosexuality from a moral viewpoint, we should always extend our support to them out of love. Anything less would just further stigmatize both homosexuals and moralists. But more than anything else, its just the right thing to do.

As far as the military is concerned, I think its reasonable. I think everyone seems to forget that we're dealing thousands of years of being weirded out by homosexuality. Everyone wants to all of a sudden accept it like they began to do in Greece or Rome. But its not that simple. Think of why there are separate public bathrooms for male and female. Why do they do that? We're all people right? So, why do they separate them? Isn't because of its sexual connotation? Okay, so if you wouldn't expect to subject a woman to taking showers in front of men, why would should we subject both men and women to take uncomfortable showers with members of the same sex?

What are you going to say in defense of that? Just get over it? If I just get over it, then we should allow men and women in boot camp to shower together by the same premise. Do you understand? Nobody cares about the feelings of straight people in the matter who feel violated because they're hyperfocused on how the homosexual feels.

Well, you know what? I've been approached by many, many aggressive homosexual men over the years who, even after knowing that I was straight, still push the issue. Do you think that would fly in the heterosexual world? No.

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?

The unambiguous and gratuitous use of sex. No one seems to make the connection. It seems odd to me to wrap an entire persona in a sexual manner, especially if its so 'natural.'

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.

Alright, let me elucidate my objection. There is the factor in homosexuals that they not be treated differently and not segregated by society. But they are the ones who segregate themselves by making a big deal about their sexual preference. If one's sexual preference really is no big deal and you don't want to be treated differently, then why would you make it a big deal? Isn't that counter intuitive? Look at television sitcoms. I know you're from Holland, so I don't know what Dutch sitcoms consist of. But in America, the homosexual role is typecasted as the quintessential male homosexual who is extremely effeminate and flamboyant. They portray him as a sillyheart who is carefree and exuding love. But most important, they seem to focus on his sexuality as the central piece of the jokes. My question, then, is if homosexaulity is really not any different than heterosexuality, why such an extreme focus on that? Likewise, why a gay 'pride' parade? Why all this fanfare over something you allege is completely normal? When somebody throws a white 'pride' parade, its immediately met with hostility. If somebody throws a black 'pride' parade, its immediately met with resistance. I think homosexuals have a dominant role in their OWN segregation that bespeaks of the larger issue, which is, it is normal, its just about pride and nothing else.

??? 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.

Right. Gay culture or queer culture is what we're dealing with here. The word "homosexual" is just the scientific/sociological name.

You would be correct in stating that homosexuality is about sexuality, but so is heterosexuality.

Ah, but here's the difference that I'm trying to bring into the light. For a heterosexual, their sexuality is the one of the least important aspects of their life as far as self descriptions go.

Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is. Its different for homosexuals. You aren't a sportsman-- you're a 'gay' sportsman. You aren't a lawyer-- you're a 'gay' lawyer. You aren't a racecare driver-- you're a 'gay' racecar driver. Ever heard of heterosexual basketball player? I haven't. I've just heard of a basketball player. Because, really, his sexual preference is inconsequential. So, if homosexuals don't want their sexual prefernece as being the focus of their self-identity, maybe they should not make their sexuality the focus of the attention. Does that make sense?

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.

No, they do have other facets of their life. But like I said earlier, their value and self-identity is wrapped up in their sexual preference. That is the pinnacle of who they are, which to me, is absolutely absurd, especially when you're out trying to prove just how normal the whole thing is.

As for homosexuals not being 'happier' than their heterosexual counterparts, I think that's obvious. Maybe you can name one set of parents or even prospective gay parents who actually 'want' their child to be gay. I think we all know that having a 'normal' life is optimal here. And by 'normal' I mean it exactly by the word the means. By normal, I am actually referring to the 'norm.' That isn't me saying the opposite of normal = freaks, because it doesn't.

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.

Something like that is difficult to quantify, but one statistic that Berberry mentioned is that an exorbitant amount of suicide by homosexuals is prevalent. Per capita it is extremely disproportionate. I think that speaks highly about the issue.

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.

Okay, St. Patrick's day is an excuse for the government to generate revenue, for its adherents its an excuse to drink copious amounts of alcohol. Heck, St. Patrick wasn't even Irish, he was Welch. As for the 4th of July, this seems worthy of a little praise. All nations that gained their independence have an independence day celebration, once a year. Gay pride parades seem to an excuse to meet other gay people while prancing around your underwear. Afterall, what purpose does it serve to pat yourself on the back for something that you had no control over? Makes about as much sense as a Straight pride parade.

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.

Well, I've been to San Francisco and Key West. Nobody is shy with public displays of affection. That doesn't stop them from having a parade.

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.

Why should it be 'celebrated' Holmes? I mean, think about it real hard here. If you are born with something, what sense does it make to exalt that? Let's have a 'blue-eyed' parade so that anyone not blue-eyed can feel excluded. You don't need to 'celebrate' sexuality. That's absurd. Lets celebrate breathing while we're at it. I can't wait for the 2007 Pulmonary parade.

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.

I'll give you a for-instance of what I view gay pride parades to be akin to. There is something in Miami called the "Columbus-day regatta." That's where the privaleged folks who own yachts and boats go out to a place called Elliot Key in Biscayne Bay and mass together. Now, one would think that they are celebrating Columbus' discovery of America. But, alas, his name is mentioned nowhere on the lips of the members. Instead, the participants moor their boats together and get naked. Its an excuse to get naked and have sex.

Yeah I agree, just like Xians, Jews, and Muslims who do the same thing.

Religion is a choice. Homosexuals claim that

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.

Yeah, Andrew Cunanan probably wasn't gay. Or John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer.


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 54 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2006 5:43 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 2:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 111 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-21-2006 3:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 4:52 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 116 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3897 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 103 of 168 (365154)
11-21-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by RickJB
11-21-2006 10:32 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
They were non-religious heterosexual civil ceremonies with many of the visual elements derived from traditonal weddings (white gown for the bride, etc). Ask either participant and they will certainly tell you that they consider themselves "married".

Not sure if you saw any of my posts on dutch laws. They actually have three separate kinds of unions. Two are identical for all legal rights etc, the third has a few less rights involved.

They are all secular/legal entities. One is officially labelled "marriage". The others can be called that by the people that use them, but that is not their legal title. Essentially one is for those that want all the rights of marriage but have no interest in being called "married". Sort of a protest union.

Here in London the term "kosher" also means "genuine". Indeed this slang meaning is probably more widely understood! Legislating for the sake of a word seems fruitless at best....

This is a fantastic example. Kosher has certainly broadened in general meaning.

Now imagine someone stating that state regulations pertaining to authenticating food as kosher should be expanded. That is hey, my beef sausage is kosher (genuine/all right) so its unfair that these guys get to use that term but I don't.

The reaction from Jewish orgs will be to point out that the regulations on authentication were created based on the traditional definition, and suddenly having a ton of products using the same term but the more broad definition will create confusion for Jews, or anyone else wanting food manufactured using tradionally kosher methods.

The whole point of kosher was to identify a certain kind of food based on its methods of production. Marriage was to identify a specific kind of union.


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 96 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 10:32 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 1:58 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 110 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 2:47 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3897 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 168 (365161)
11-21-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


eye of the beholder
The meaning is not inherent?... How does that not allude to a crime?

I talked this issue over with my gf and I realized something about this claim. To say that it is inherent and an allusion to crime, that seems to suggest that the makers had to have understood and perhaps intended such a meaning.

Do you actually believe that the makers of that shirt meant to sell a shirt implying a men kill women and dump their bodies in dumpsters? Or that such a thing is humorous?

And the urinal "implication" contains the same issue. The idea behind it was to make something interesting out of urinal design, beyond mere function. She found it kitschy and funny. Are we to take that as the implicit meaning, or that of how some groups may view it?

You say that pissing in a humorous (lets say female) mouth is to be derogatory. Say she had made them in the shape of a flower. Would that mean people should view it as people pissing on nature? Or say she decided to line them with images from famous paintings. Would that then be interpreted as pissing on art, or specific artists?

If these latter cases should not be viewed that way, why should the mouth be viewed that way?

As a thought experiment. Maybe you should find some of these urinals and draw moustaches on them (or maybe add a groucho marx glasses and moustache thingy). If guys start complaining in droves about having to pee into a guy's mouth, and that that is degrading, that could be interesting.


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 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 7:31 PM Silent H has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 105 of 168 (365163)
11-21-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


Re: maturity
quote:
A male figure is literally throwing away a female figure, head first, into a garbage can.

Oh, that's a female figure. At first I thought it was a child figure (it is small, after all) and so thought it was some sort of sick pedophile joke (and pretty funny, too).

Now I see what it's saying. The trash can is a visual pun, equating "dump" as in "dump trash" with "dump" as in "leave a relationship". So the T-shirt is saying that one should have sex with a woman and then leave her. And I agree that this isn't nearly as funny as what I originally thought it was saying.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019