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 5:13 PM
46 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tanypteryx, vimesey (7 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,598 Year: 3,635/19,786 Month: 630/1,087 Week: 220/212 Day: 35/27 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
nator
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 168 (365324)
11-22-2006 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Silent H
11-22-2006 5:10 AM


Re: eye of the beholder
quote:
It is not a human mouth.

OK.

What species does it represent if it isn't a representative of a human mouth?

Fish? Bird? Elephant? Lobster?

quote:
Yep, but the question is is that really the message these makers were going for with THIS shirt?

To clarify, the shirts I linked to were:

A cartoon figure of a black man in a shirt and tie with a frightened look on his face, sprinting away from a number of hooded KKK figures who are also running and reaching out as if to grab him. The caption "Run Obama run" is underneath. To me, this is a shirt that portrays the lynching of black men by the KKK as funny.

A depiction of the stick figure people, a woman on her back with her arms over her head and her legs in the air and a man situated as to imply he is penetrating her with the words "I am a Registered Sex Offender" next to the figures. To me, this is supposed to be interpreted as a representation of how the wearer rapes women.

Three words on the last one; "No Means Go", which to me is supposed to mean that the wearer believes that when a woman says no to his sexual advances, he is to interpret that as her wanting him to continue. Or, on a different level, it is a backlash against all of those uppity women who came up with the "No means No" slogan. How dare they not be sexually available to men at all times?

I found them at www.roadkilltshirts.com

Your question asked if the people who made this shirt could possibly have really intended it to indicate the killing and dumping of women's bodies, and that they thought this would be humorous. You seemed to be rather surprised or incredulous that a company would actually create or sell a shirt like that.

My actual answer is that I don't know exactly what they intended, and neither do you, but the fact that one can easily find shirts that abolutely glorify and make light of crimes against women (and others) and portray such acts as humorous should settle any incredulity you might have over any company doing this.

It is just as likely as not, then, that they did indeed want to imply the killing and dumping of women.

I do, of course acknowledge the methaphorical interpretation of "love em and leave em". But I also think that it's not unlikely that they were also going for the double entendre of literally discarding disposable women, dead, in the garbage.

I mean, it wouldn't be anywhere near as offensive or shocking if it didn't imply that, and that's the sort of thing these companies specialize in.

Edited by schrafinator, : fixed link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2006 5:10 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2006 8:56 AM nator has not yet responded

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


Message 122 of 168 (365336)
11-22-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
11-22-2006 7:53 AM


Re: eye of the beholder
What species does it represent if it isn't a representative of a human mouth?

A quote mine? On this issue? I can't believe it.

I was pretty clear that it was REPRESENTATIVE of a human mouth, as in that is what it is derived from. That is NOT the same thing as being a human mouth or trying to suggest actual human mouths. Here is what followed the single sentence you addressed...

It is comically exaggerated. As I said it is as much the toilet having a mouth, than that the toilet becomes a person.

Deal with that portion. The fish in SharkTales have human mouths... that does not mean the fish ARE human. Rather it gives the fish a human persona. In this case the toilet has been given a humorous persona with a smiling mouth.

To clarify, the shirts I linked to were:

Actually I notice they are showing up now. I had used the peek mode and tried the actual site and it didn't work at the time either. Must have been down at the time.

I agree with your interpretation of two of the shirts. The sex offender one I think is just supposed to be joking like one is bragging that they have been branded that, not because they specifically rape women. But I'm willing to agree for sake of argument. I didn't say people don't make rude and derogatory tshirts.

What they say or mean cannot reflect on what another tshirt actually means.

You seemed to be rather surprised or incredulous that a company would actually create or sell a shirt like that.

No, that would be you reading into what I said. Thanks for making my point. I said one thing, you misread it.

In this case I was plainly asking you if you thought your interpretation was the intended message of the makers. It does not seem clear that it would be at all. If it was they could have had much different imagery and verbiage.

My actual answer is that I don't know exactly what they intended, and neither do you,

To be sure I cannot be certain, but your interpretation takes a few more steps, and does not explain why they used less clear verbiage if that is what they meant. Clearly these other tshirt makers were explicit in what they meant.

But I also think that it's not unlikely that they were also going for the double entendre of literally discarding disposable women, dead, in the garbage.

And I think that's a bit of a stretch to make. I also think its a bit unfair to criticize people or works based on such assumptions.

Lets say we went to the tshirt maker and they said they had absolutely no intention of having your proposed meaning, and think that interpretation is ridiculous? Does that change anything, or is it up to them to take into account all possible ways someone could take it? As it is with the lips-urinal you totally misjudged its source and intent, and that's exactly what the artist said of people that had your read.


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 121 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 7:53 AM nator has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 168 (365370)
11-22-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 1:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
My only concern is, can you truly understand where I am coming from? Are you able to see things from where I am standing? Can you see life from my vantage point?

Sure. I was a Christian once, too. I know your vantage point very well indeed.

And by and large, I still have homosexual friends. I just don't agree with their lifestyle, nor do I believe they are destined to be gay.

I don't know what that means, "agree with their lifestyle." I mean nobody expects you to have sex with other men, you're straight. Can you elaborate on what it would mean to "agree with their lifestyle"? I mean, I'm not gay. I don't want to have sex with other men. That's simply not the gender that I'm attracted to. So I don't "agree with their lifestyle" either, I guess. But what does that have to do with their human rights? Why should I demand that they be straight, just because I am?

I just don't understand what you mean when you say "agree with their lifestyle". I need you to explain, I guess.

'm actually trying to tread lightly without completely undermining my own point of view. At some point, I can't get around offending him/her in some capacity. But I am not offering that in order to be divisive and disrespectful.

Fair enough, fair enough. Look, you're under a potentially unfair burden, I get it. Right now you're not just NJ, you're a stand-in for the whole Christian right; a stand-in for every oppressive force that exists in Berb's life.

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I'm just interested in trying to help you understand his reaction. He's no more inclined to approach your position from a stance of dispassionate disinterest than Malcom X would be inclined to dialogue with the KKK. One of you has to have some understanding of the other. It would be better if you both did, of course. But you do represent the side that has oppressed and marginalized homosexuals for decades, and is making every effort to continue to do so - to roll back the gains homosexuals have made. Taking the side of the oppressors obligates you, in my opinion.

Aside from which, the thread is technically about Haggard and not so much homosexuality. I guess we were technically OT anyway.

Indeed. Still, though, I'd appreciate it if you could help me understand what you mean when you say "agree with their lifestyle." I don't know what it means to agree with a lifestyle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 1:52 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:30 PM crashfrog has responded

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


Message 124 of 168 (365380)
11-22-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by RickJB
11-21-2006 12:13 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Alright, I'm coming out of retirement and re-engaging in the thread.

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?

I can't exactly identify the moment of attraction for members of the opposite sex. It was a slow progression. I was pretty young though.

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.

I believe that homosexuals have a predilection for heterosexuality as well. Having desire for members of the same sex is the same as having a sexual desire for members of the opposite sex. Finding somebody attractive doesn't mean that having sex with them at the moment is right just because of a feeling that comes from baser instinct. I mean, we have predilections to attack when we feel threatened, but going through the action doesn't make us right. I do believe the sincerity of most homosexuals. It doesn't make them right though, just as being attracted to another man's wife may be viewed in natural terms doesn't make you having sex with her, right. Do you understand?

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?

Only if it was with you..... tiger ;)


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 101 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 12:13 PM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 11-22-2006 2:18 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 126 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-22-2006 4:34 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 138 by RickJB, posted 11-23-2006 3:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 125 of 168 (365415)
11-22-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 1:03 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I do believe the sincerity of most homosexuals. It doesn't make them right though, just as being attracted to another man's wife may be viewed in natural terms doesn't make you having sex with her, right. Do you understand?

I don't. I cannot even fathom how you can equate a consensual act between two people that does not in any way violate the rights or even lives of anyone else with having sex with someone else's wife.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 1:03 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 6:52 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 9:09 PM jar has responded

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 126 of 168 (365463)
11-22-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 1:03 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
quote:
Finding somebody attractive doesn't mean that having sex with them at the moment is right just because of a feeling that comes from baser instinct. I mean, we have predilections to attack when we feel threatened, but going through the action doesn't make us right. I do believe the sincerity of most homosexuals. It doesn't make them right though, just as being attracted to another man's wife may be viewed in natural terms doesn't make you having sex with her, right. Do you understand?

Sure, I think I see where you're coming from, Nemesis.

Let's think it through a bit. Guy is attracted to his mate's wife. Guy wants to have sex with his mate's wife, which as we all know is a natural sexual urge and not wrong per se. But:

-wife may object, in which case he'd better not try anything because as we all know, that would be sexual harrassment or rape
-if wife does not object, husband may object because being married implies an agreement to be monogamous, in which case husband can file for divorce and all that.

It's wrong of him to try to have sex with his mate's wife if wife or husband object to it. In one case, it's because he'd be violating another person's body, and in the other he's just being a right bastard by trying to break up his mate's marraige. On the other hand, if neither objects, then it's not wrong because neither of the above are happening.

Anyway.

Guy is attracted to other guy. Guy wants to have sex with other guy, which we all know is a natural urge and not wrong per se. But:

-Other guy may object, in which case he'd better not try anything because as we all know, that would be sexual harrassment or rape

It's wrong of him to try to have sex with the other guy if the other guy isn't willing, because (duh) it's violating another person's body. If the other guy doesn't object, then it's not wrong because the above is not happening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 1:03 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:49 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

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


Message 127 of 168 (365468)
11-22-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
11-21-2006 4:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I get that one might want to preserve the meaning of a term that has a long tradition. But I don't see how broadening the meaning to allow others to use the term makes it a mockery. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that.

Because 'broadening' the definition in this case would be changing it. The definition specifically entails a union between a man and a women. That's the very criteria. If you were to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then why not extend it to something else while were at it?

Sanctity implies sacredness, religious reverence. If that is the case perhaps the gov't shouldn't be involved at all. What about the solution of just having civil unions, and allow people themselves to have separate sacred ceremonies according to their own style and definition?

I guess one could make that argument that since marriage is inherently a religious institution, that the government is infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. At the same time, marriage has synthesized into sort of a catch-all. I think the government stepped in for reasons of legal indemnity and identity.

As for legal, civil unions, that isn't my place to decide. If the government recognized a homosexual union as a legal and binding argreement, then let it be. In the meantime, I am afforded the right to protect marriage if I can. If the laws are overturned, then let it be so. In my minds eye, it doesn't really matter what man thinks of it. I'm judged by God, and so is everyone else. What really matters is what God thinks about it. And we already know the answer to that, provided the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh, has anything to do with it.

I am actually American, just living overseas. Thus I am in tune with gay imagery in media (even if not the most recent). I think you make a valid point that some gays do embrace the stereotype and that image does seem to be celebrated in the media.

Yeah, I think wearing daisy-duke's and an "Ass Master's" t-shirt tends to exacerbate the stereotype.

You are also right that there are cases of self-segregation. I have personally been offended when I have not been allowed to bring my gf into some gay bars/clubs, yet there is a demand that gays can go anywhere straights are allowed.

Well, you won't get the ACLU knocking down their door for that... Only when its the other way around. But, yes, that's not really cool.

But that is a criticism of some, not all

Of course. Not all homosexuals convey the typical, effeminate/butch persona. This is a case-by-case scenario.

I see exactly what you are saying, but I think you are missing why this is happening. I think most gays would be quite happy just being a sportsman, lawyer, etc.

Like I said, gay lawyers, gay doctors, gay this, gay that... I think for a group that wants so badly to achieve parity with everyone else and wants to not be treated differently should probably take their own advice and stop segregating themselves or highlighting their sexuality. I don't think they realize they are doing it.

The problem is that they are NOT allowed to be viewed as those things once it is discovered they are gay. Society (in general) suddenly views them as just that. Their sexuality. Most are fighting that by showing they can be gay AND the other thing.

Then how do explain homosexuals inventing their own websites? Gay Realty? What the hell does sexual preference have to do with realty? Nobody made it that way. They did that all on their own.

If you want things to return to normal, why not treat homosexuality as insignificant a factor as anything else?

I do. I don't go to rallies or picket gay bars. In fact, I've done nothing that might be considered as proactive other than having conversations like I am now. That's about the extent of my activism. And if I was asked to vote for or against a measure, I would do that too.

I might add that perhaps you are seeing those that make the most noise, and not what most gays are actually like.

I don't think there are too many people that can slip underneath the 'gaydar' as far as I'm concerned. Its usually pretty obvious.

I think many would say they don't care, rather than prefering their child to be gay or straight.

But most people would. I don't think even most gay people would want their own children, albeit adopted or through natural conception. Its different from saying, "If they were gay, I wouldn't stop loving them." Well, of course not! We're not even discussing that. I'm saying, I think if somebody could prefer for their children to have a 'normal' life, they would. Again, before I get flamed, my use of the word 'normal' means exactly what it means. I'm referring to the norm. I don't think anyone would disagree that heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is abnormal.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that countless cultures over the span of thousands of years don't accept it for legitimate reasons?

They generate revenue, and they serve as an excuse to drink... like St P and the 4th... as well as prance around naked in underwear (or whatever). As far as being sexual, been to Mardi Gras much?

No, I've never been. But, yes, Mardi Gras is another excuse. The point being, gay pride parades seem to be nothing more than a meat market. It may have been invented for altruistic purposes, as did Mardi Gras, but it doesn't seem serve any function other than strutting.

As far as the rest, are you claiming people have a control over whether they were born Irish, or American?

No, but homosexuals do. That's my point. Even many homosexuals have conceded that they do it because they like it. http://www.queerbychoice.com/

They certainly can have that facet as well, but if you think that is all they are about then my guess is you haven't actually seen a gay pride parade. They usually involve issues such as politics and health, along with the gyrating hardbodies.

That's another thing I find disturbing about the whole thing. Its a political platform, and we already know that I don't go to the Left very often.

Heheheh... or is it that you have seen the parades but couldn't get your eyes off the hardbodies?

Yup, you got me pegged. There's something very sensual about a 200 pound, hairy man in chaps that just does it for me.

Are you claiming that these serial killers were acting out stereotypes of being gay? My statement was that at least those who wrap themselves up in the issue of being gay, as opposed to say a religious zealot, don't end up going on murderous rampages.

Uhhhhhh.... What? I've read this over three times and I'm still not understanding what you are saying clearly...

Two of those guys were certainly not at one with their being gay and targeted gays. Stereotypical religious zealots feel the call of their religion to kill others. About the only call there is in stereotypical homosexuality is to make passes at any cute guy that moves.

Then it seems you have to distinguish between what zealots feel the call to kill and which don't.


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 112 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 4:52 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Coragyps, posted 11-22-2006 8:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 6:28 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

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


Message 128 of 168 (365488)
11-22-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
11-22-2006 11:53 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I don't know what that means, "agree with their lifestyle." I mean nobody expects you to have sex with other men, you're straight. Can you elaborate on what it would mean to "agree with their lifestyle"? I mean, I'm not gay. I don't want to have sex with other men. That's simply not the gender that I'm attracted to. So I don't "agree with their lifestyle" either, I guess. But what does that have to do with their human rights? Why should I demand that they be straight, just because I am?

Okay, couldn't NAMbLA, NAWgLA, NAMgLA, or NAWbLA make the same argument? Are we taking their human rights away from them by not allowing them to molest little kids? They make the same plea. Its all about 'love.'

Even on NAMbLA's website, he makes the argument that:

"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -David Thorstad

Would agree with their lifestyle?

Fair enough, fair enough. Look, you're under a potentially unfair burden, I get it. Right now you're not just NJ, you're a stand-in for the whole Christian right; a stand-in for every oppressive force that exists in Berb's life.

Yeah, I get to be the Right's whipping boy right now.

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I'm just interested in trying to help you understand his reaction.

I understand his reaction. But he's got foot-in-mouth disease if he thinks he's going to get his point across constructively. He doesn't like my beliefs. That's fine. I understand that. But he should probably try to get it across more constructively. He was practically foaming at the mouth but I don't think I said anything that warranted such a vehement response.

He's no more inclined to approach your position from a stance of dispassionate disinterest than Malcom X would be inclined to dialogue with the KKK.

Well, I don't like Neo-Nazi's or Black Panthers either, but I wouldn't call them names in order to get my point across. I'd simply beat them by forcing them to refute their own ideology. I'd find ways to pit their arguments against itself.

One of you has to have some understanding of the other. It would be better if you both did, of course. But you do represent the side that has oppressed and marginalized homosexuals for decades, and is making every effort to continue to do so - to roll back the gains homosexuals have made. Taking the side of the oppressors obligates you, in my opinion.

I've tried to be reasonable in my approach without emasculating my own argument. There are alot of arguments I could use that are rather inflammatory, but I choose not to use them because all it will do is further stigmatize his beliefs concerning mine. I think it would be easier for him to deal with me if I just called him names and said that I think his life is shit. That way, it would be so much easier for him to hate me. But I want to kill Berberry through kindness and show him that though I am adament in my position, I at least am flexible enough to hear him out. If he wants to be cool with me, I'd love to finish the conversation. I realize that this is a very unpopular subject. I realize that it is going to get a little heated. But we can speak assertively without heaping outright disrespect.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.


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 123 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 11:53 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 8:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

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


Message 129 of 168 (365491)
11-22-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by IrishRockhound
11-22-2006 4:34 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Guy is attracted to his mate's wife. Guy wants to have sex with his mate's wife, which as we all know is a natural sexual urge and not wrong per se. But:

-wife may object, in which case he'd better not try anything because as we all know, that would be sexual harrassment or rape

This is all taking into consideration that she's all about it too. Just because both parties are consenting, I think we'd all agree that its wrong. Whether we are gay or straight or bisexual or whatever, even if we are married or in a serious relationship, at some point, we are going to find somebody else attractive. However, acting upon those feelings while in a committed relationship is often considered as wrong, even though those are natural, biological urges.

-if wife does not object, husband may object because being married implies an agreement to be monogamous, in which case husband can file for divorce and all that.

Yeah, but this argument is being made in relation to biology/morality view. Just because something may be biological doesn't automatically make it right. I could make the same argument about homosexuality.

Guy is attracted to other guy. Guy wants to have sex with other guy, which we all know is a natural urge and not wrong per se. But:

-Other guy may object, in which case he'd better not try anything because as we all know, that would be sexual harrassment or rape

It's wrong of him to try to have sex with the other guy if the other guy isn't willing, because (duh) it's violating another person's body. If the other guy doesn't object, then it's not wrong because the above is not happening.

You could view anything as not being right or wrong by attaching relativistic methods. I can only extend my argument to mean that homosexuality is against a moral standard and counter intuitive from an evolutionary outlook. Aside from that, there really isn't anything more I could say against it. But it would be the same for any other type of sexual immoral act. Bestiality, adultery, fornication, or pedophilia-- the argument would look the same in each case.


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 126 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-22-2006 4:34 PM IrishRockhound has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 8:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 130 of 168 (365492)
11-22-2006 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
11-22-2006 2:18 PM


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

I cannot even fathom how you can equate a consensual act between two people that does not in any way violate the rights or even lives of anyone else with having sex with someone else's wife.


Remember that NJ equates gays with dogs and children, neither of which can legally give consent. In his latest post, he even went as far as bringing in the Nambla argument. In NJ's universe, 2 gay men who are both above the age of 18 are no different than children or dogs. Explains why he thinks 2 men both above the age of 18 consenting to sex acts between them is equal to a relationship between a man above the age of 18 and a 5 year old.

For a little while, I really thought he wasn't equating gay people to children and dogs because of his later posts... but his most recent posts convinced me. I simply don't understand why Berb is suspended for disrespecting another member while NJ can get away with calling other adults children and dogs again and again.


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 125 by jar, posted 11-22-2006 2:18 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2006 7:24 PM Taz has responded

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


Message 131 of 168 (365497)
11-22-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taz
11-22-2006 6:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
You know there is enough to disagree with, and have a constructive dialogue on, that one does not need to simply make things up...

NJ equates gays with dogs and children, neither of which can legally give consent.

This issue was put to rest. First of all he didn't equate them. Second consent is a bs smokescreen to the topic. But I guess people can keep repeating whatever they want, huh?

In his latest post, he even went as far as bringing in the Nambla argument.

He appropriately brought in NAMBLA against a position that another poster took. He was challenging that poster's argument showing that NAMBLA uses it. The distinction that that poster will have to make, will likely help NJ's position in the long run.

That's called a good debate technique.

Please pick up your game.

Edited by holmes, : better first sentence


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 130 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 6:52 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 9:15 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 168 (365507)
11-22-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 6:30 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Okay, couldn't NAMbLA, NAWgLA, NAMgLA, or NAWbLA make the same argument?

Not any more than a rapist could. Having sex with a child isn't a lifestyle; it's rape. Children can't consent to intercourse.

But if adults can't consent to sex with each other, who can?

You still haven't helped me understand what you mean when you say "agree with their lifestyle." Examples of people who want to rape children don't help me because that's not analogous to the desires of two consenting individuals to do something you don't like, that they don't expect you to like. Nobody's interested in your sexual orientation, which makes me wonder why you think you're being expected to become a homosexual yourself.

And if that's not what you think you're being asked to do, why the focus on whether or not you "agree with their lifestyle"? What, exactly, would constitute "agreeing with their lifestyle"? Simply letting them be?

Well, I don't like Neo-Nazi's or Black Panthers either, but I wouldn't call them names in order to get my point across.

Would you? If you had been directly oppressed by those groups for decades? I'm sure you recognize the need to remain dispassionate, but I'm surprised that you believe you'd have no trouble doing so. I don't know you that well but I'm pretty sure you're no Ghandi.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:30 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 11:11 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 168 (365508)
11-22-2006 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 6:49 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
This is all taking into consideration that she's all about it too. Just because both parties are consenting, I think we'd all agree that its wrong.

I think hurting another person is wrong, but not everybody is in a situation where they're going to hurt somebody via extramarital sex. If not I don't see what basis any of the rest of us have to conclude that something is right or wrong, if we're not a part of the marriage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 134 of 168 (365512)
11-22-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 5:06 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Because 'broadening' the definition in this case would be changing it. The definition specifically entails a union between a man and a women. That's the very criteria. If you were to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then why not extend it to something else while were at it?

For the eleventh time......

The Supreme Court, as an agent of our government, broadened the definition of marriage to include unions between persons of differing skin colors only 39 years ago. My son would have been a felon had he married KK in 1966. She would have been a felon, too, at least in sixteen states.

Marriage hasn't always been just "between a man and a woman." In my lifetime, it's been more restricted than that, right here in the USA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 9:28 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

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


Message 135 of 168 (365516)
11-22-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
11-22-2006 2:18 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I cannot even fathom how you can equate a consensual act between two people that does not in any way violate the rights or even lives of anyone else with having sex with someone else's wife.

Alright then. For the sake of the argument, suppose they aren't married. Suppose a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is disrupted when the boyfriend decides to cheat on his girlfriend with one of her friends. There is nothing illegal about that, but we might be all in agreement that its messed up to cheat on your significant other with one of her friends.


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 125 by jar, posted 11-22-2006 2:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RickJB, posted 11-23-2006 3:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 143 by jar, posted 11-23-2006 11:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019