EXCLUSIVE: TMZ has learned that Mel Gibson went on a rampage when he was arrested Friday on suspicion of drunk driving, hurling religious epithets. TMZ has also learned that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's department had the initial report doctored to keep the real story under wraps.
TMZ has four pages of the original report prepared by the arresting officer in the case, L.A. County Sheriff's Deputy James Mee. According to the report, Gibson became agitated after he was stopped on Pacific Coast Highway and told he was to be detained for drunk driving Friday morning in Malibu. The actor began swearing uncontrollably. Gibson repeatedly said, "My life is *beep* Law enforcement sources say the deputy, worried that Gibson might become violent, told the actor that he was supposed to cuff him but would not, as long as Gibson cooperated. As the two stood next to the hood of the patrol car, the deputy asked Gibson to get inside. Deputy Mee then walked over to the passenger door and opened it. The report says Gibson then said, "I'm not going to get in your car," and bolted to his car. The deputy quickly subdued Gibson, cuffed him and put him inside the patrol car.
TMZ has learned that Deputy Mee audiotaped the entire exchange between himself and Gibson, from the time of the traffic stop to the time Gibson was put in the patrol car, and that the tape fully corroborates the written report.
Once inside the car, a source directly connected with the case says Gibson began banging himself against the seat. The report says Gibson told the deputy, "You mother *beep* I'm going to *beep* you." The report also says "Gibson almost continually [sic] threatened me saying he 'owns Malibu' and will spend all of his money to 'get even' with me."
The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: *beep* Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"
The deputy became alarmed as Gibson's tirade escalated, and called ahead for a sergeant to meet them when they arrived at the station. When they arrived, a sergeant began videotaping Gibson, who noticed the camera and then said, "What the *beep* do you think you're doing?"
A law enforcement source says Gibson then noticed another female sergeant and yelled, "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?"
We're told Gibson took two blood alcohol tests, which were videotaped, and continued saying how *beep* he was and how he was going to *beep* Deputy Mee.
Gibson was put in a cell with handcuffs on. He said he needed to urinate, and after a few minutes tried manipulating his hands to unzip his pants. Sources say Deputy Mee thought Gibson was going to urinate on the floor of the booking cell and asked someone to take Gibson to the bathroom.
After leaving the bathroom, Gibson then demanded to make a phone call. He was taken to a pay phone and, when he didn't get a dial tone, we're told Gibson threw the receiver against the phone. Deputy Mee then warned Gibson that if he damaged the phone he could be charged with felony vandalism. We're told Gibson was then asked, and refused, to sign the necessary paperwork and was thrown in a detox cell.
Deputy Mee then wrote an eight-page report detailing Gibson's rampage and comments. Sources say the sergeant on duty felt it was too "inflammatory." A lieutenant and captain then got involved and calls were made to Sheriff's headquarters. Sources say Mee was told Gibson's comments would incite a lot of "Jewish hatred," that the situation in Israel was "way too inflammatory." It was mentioned several times that Gibson, who wrote, directed, and produced 2004's "The Passion of the Christ," had incited "anti-Jewish sentiment" and "For a drunk driving arrest, is this really worth all that?"
We're told Deputy Mee was then ordered to write another report, leaving out the incendiary comments and conduct. Sources say Deputy Mee was told the sanitized report would eventually end up in the media and that he could write a supplemental report that contained the redacted information -- a report that would be locked in the watch commander's safe.
Initially, a Sheriff's official told TMZ the arrest occurred "without incident." On Friday night, Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore told TMZ: "The L.A. County Sheriff's Department investigation into the arrest of Mr. Gibson on suspicion of driving under the influence will be complete and will contain every factual piece of evidence. Nothing will be sanitized. There was absolutely no favoritism shown to this suspect or any other. When this file is presented to the Los Angeles County District Attorney, it will contain everything. Nothing will be left out."
On Saturday, Gibson released the following statement:
"After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I drove a car when I should not have, and was stopped by the LA County Sheriffs. The arresting officer was just doing his job and I feel fortunate that I was apprehended before I caused injury to any other person. I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior. They have always been there for me in my community and indeed probably saved me from myself. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health."
[ July 31, 2006, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Gecko ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Don't repost entire stories. Pick a paragraph or two excerpt and remove the rest.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I was just watching VH1 and when they make fun of a news source for making up stories- you know it's gotta be bad.
Which is what they were doing in the case of talking about TMZ
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well Gibson's statement is apparently correctly quoted. It certainly sounds like TMZ isn't doing much truth-stretching, if any. The statement in Gibson's own words seems to give support to the accusations. YMMV, I guess. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sounds like he was channelling his father (a known and vocal anti-semite) while drunk. I hate when that happens.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I've heard this from other sources already, so I don't know how TMZ thinks it's an exclusive. But ... *sigh*
This is unfortunate. I was ready to believe that Gibson was not an anti-semite, and that all of that stuff during the release of Passion of the Christ was people mis-reading what he was trying to do with his film.
I'm not Christian, but I thought it was a brilliant film. And as a fan of movies I've always supported Mel Gibson as a filmmaker. Frankly, he's a brilliant filmmaker.
This is so disappointing. Now I won't get to see Apocalypto.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I don't get how a person like Mel, who actually worships and Jewish man as his God, can be such an anti-semite.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:This is so disappointing. Now I won't get to see Apocalypto.
Yeah, it's disappointing, but I don't get the connection you're trying to make. What does Mel Gibson's legal trouble in California have to do with your ability to see a movie releasing in December?
Or do you mean, "I don't WANT to see Apocalypto."?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Oh, I want to see it. That's the point. The connection is I won't spend my money to support an anti-semite.
I take it you feel differently.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
See, I couldn't even see the Passion. I mean, aside from the fact that it probably would've turned my stomach, my church growing up never even did plays like that for Easter because they thought it was disrespectful to the Lord.
-pH
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: I don't get how a person like Mel, who actually worships and Jewish man as his God, can be such an anti-semite.
Regardless of what religion someone is, anti-Semitism, and all other forms of racism, are irrational. No one is anti-Semitic for rational reasons. Maybe there are understandable reasons, like if every Jew you've ever met was an evil, money-stealing, ***hole, then you can understand why that person would start hating Jews. It still wouldn't be rational, though.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, logically speaking, given a large enough sample size, wouldn't that be rational? Seems to me that it would.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't think so. That would mean that if he met another Jew, whom he knows nothing about, he would already hate him just for being Jewish. I don't think that qualifies as rational. Understandable, but not rational. IMO.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't know, I think if you had a hatred of a particular kind of person based on repeated bad experiences, it'd be irrational to keep meeting the same kind of person and always expect everything to be hunky dory.
I mean, if every blonde person you meet kicks you in the shins, it's not irrational for you to be a little nervous about meeting new blonde people.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It might be practical. I mean, if you've been shot every time you went to one neighborhood, then for reasons of practicality, you avoid that area.
I think though, that you would be hard pressed to meet enough individuals who were evil, that you could then extrapolate the qualities of an entire race of millions. I don't think you'd ever really get there, although you might convince yourself you had.
This whole thing though, just reaffirms how I already felt about Gibson and his holier than though spouting for the last few years. Surprise suprise, he is an unstable, emotionally disturbed alcoholic. Fine if you're an alcoholic, because its a disease, and the whole point of alcoholism is that you lack the ability to control your impulses in the fight or flight part of your brain. In fact, alcoholism genes are closely tied to strong survival skills, because the same impulses that tell you to drink are there to tell you to kill or be killed, or to keep going in the face of disaster. Here's the thing though, everything he has done is colored by this instability in his impulse control. I didn't trust him before, and I just feel more justified in not trusting him now.
This stuff about his anti-semitism? I never heard that before, so I can't say what it means. Would it seem to be important in light of TPOTC, and his other religious endeavors, if it is true? Oh yeah.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Mel Gibson, Anti-Semite?!?! Wait, how is this news? I don't get it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I guess I'm in a devil's advocate kind of mood:
quote:Would it seem to be important in light of TPOTC, and his other religious endeavors, if it is true? Oh yeah.
All humans are flawed/sinful, right? So can an imperfect person create a meaningful or even holy work? If TPOTC (which I did not see) brought people closer to God, does it matter if Gibson is an anti-semite?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, yes it does.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?"
I think this one is more straight-forward. Since all of the books are by the same author, you can expect they will have alot of the same qualities (or lack thereof). A religion/ethnicity/race is different. I'm pretty sure being Jewish doesn't say anything definite about one's personality. One Terry Goodkind book is more likely to be similar to another Terry Goodkind book than one Jew is to another Jew, I think.
Edit: Ok, I definitely posted this after Icarus posted what I quoted. Wow, I'm slow.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?
There's only one way to find out. I guess you'd better keep reading!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Yes, yes it does.
It matters in the sense of his soul, etc. But in the effect of the art on you, if you didn't know he was an anti-semite? (This is assuming, for the moment, that there were no concern about TPOTC being antisemitic.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've read about a dozen Terry Goodkind books. They've all been crap. Would it be irrational of me to assume that his next book will be crap also?
There's only one way to find out. I guess you'd better keep reading!
*sigh*
I was afraid of that.
:-\
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I guess I'm in a devil's advocate kind of mood:
quote:Would it seem to be important in light of TPOTC, and his other religious endeavors, if it is true? Oh yeah.
All humans are flawed/sinful, right? So can an imperfect person create a meaningful or even holy work? If TPOTC (which I did not see) brought people closer to God, does it matter if Gibson is an anti-semite?
Leaving aside the specific example, IMO the one time it matters most who the source of a movie/book/etc. is for those which are meant to be deeply spiritual. I do not feel that most media touch me on a spiritual level -- nor do I expect them to. But when I am open to that, I don't want . . . "tainted" is the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one . . . anyway, I try to only open myself spiritually to that which comes from sources I consider worthwhile.
(Of course, the argument can be made that everything I am exposed to affects me spiritually, whether I want it to or not. And I agree with it, to some degree. But I use a different level of filtering for "everything" than for specifically spiritual things.)
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:I take it you feel differently.
No, I merely misunderstood you.
(And of course, your tone appears to insinuate I'm anti-semitic. I'm not.)
I'll tell you one thing, though: I don't care about the people in Hollywood. I don't follow the stories of actors, actresses, directors, or any other member of the soap opera. If I truly cared, or applied my values as you say, I probably wouldn't spend a dime on entertainment.
I (almost) invariably discard anything intoxicated people say.
So, combine the fact I completely ignore the celebrity world, with my disregard for the bravado of drunks, and you have a pretty good idea how much credence I give this stuff.
I'll see Apocalypto one way or another. I rarely go to see movies in the theatre anyway, for entirely different reasons than we're discussing here. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I myself don't see how Mel Gibson is going to wriggle his way out of this one. When you make a movie that's anti-semetic, and do so in a indirect way, you may be able get out of it by saying 'I didn't mean it, because I'm a stupid idiot.' But when you say 'F****ing Jews. They're cause the cause of wars in this world.' I don't see how you can get of it.' I, personally, am glad to see the anti-semetic jerk get shunned and pushed aside. As they say, what goes around comes around.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Can't people say a lot of things they don't really mean when they are that drunk? Especially if his dad said a lot of those things in his hearing. I just wonder. Is it fair to assume he thinks like that all the time and just manages to button his lip 99% of the time?
The Passion of the Christ wasn't antiSemitic in a direct or indirect way, that I'm aware of.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Can't people say a lot of things they don't really mean when they are that drunk?
Ohhhhh yes. And if they're belligerantly drunk, they'll say angry things they don't really mean.
-pH
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I've said things in anger that I just felt like saying, even though I don't really believe them. It just felt good to say something hurtful at the time. And boy did I regret it later.
I honestly have different feelings about different groups of people on different days. Some days I love the whole world. Some days I'm very uncomfortable with certain groups. It's not rational or fair, but it's there in the background of my thoughts. I recognize that it's unfair and irrational, and I'm constantly trying to challenge my biases and change that about myself. I DEFINITELY control what comes out of my mouth. Because even if I have picked up some less-than-savory attitudes, I don't want to be part of passing them on.
I wonder if this is a case of someone who has picked up some unfair attitudes about Jews somewhere, and they're still in the back of his head, but he usually tries to fight those thoughts and control his behavior. In a situation where he's drunk and out of control, they come out.
It was horrible to read all the garbage that came out of him. I felt like he was a totally different person than I had thought. But I did really respect his "sober" response to the incident. Absolutely no excuse-making or trying to get out of anything; he took full responsibility and admitted it was horrible. There's too little of that nowadays. Often it's "I'm sorry you took it that way," or, "I was misunderstood, it was taken out of context," or "I'm sorry I said it in a way that would offend people." This time it was just: "My fault, my behavior was terrible, and I'm ashamed."
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Whether Gibson is anti-semitic or not, I really don't know. But is it fair to assume he must be based on ravings while very drunk?
I believe each of us have parts about us that we hate or don't want to be a part of us. For example, if you are raised in a racist home and were constantly exposed to those beliefs, you may have believed them as a kid. Let's say you grow and, through education, experience, etc., you come to realize those beliefs were wrong. You now believe the latter and hate the beliefs you grew up with. Despite this, those early beliefs are still a part of you. You may disagree with them, but you may find your subconscious occasionally trying to raise those beliefs again. Of course, as soon as you recognize this, you discard the idea as wrong and recognize that you believe something else.
Just because your subconcious, or whatever you want to call it, brings certain thoughts to your head, doesn't mean you have to follow that thought. You can make a choice. You can choose to follow a different set of beliefs, even if the old ones still try to come back. This is part of changing.
I'm not saying this is the case with Gibson, but it certainly is a possibility. If he was very drunk, he may have very well said some things that he really doesn't believe in, but were just thoughts from his old belief system that he no longer accepts (except when drunk, of course).
He seemed ashamed of what he did, and I think he should also accept the consequences of his actions. Drunk driving is a very dangerous crime, and I don't think he should escape the consequences. Part of remorse is being willing to pay for your mistakes.
But let's not automatically conclude that he must be anti-semitic. On the other hand, don't be blind to the possibility.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't know about alcohol making him say things he doesn't believe. His blood alcohol level was 0.12, which doesn't seem like all that much to me. It looks to be seven beers over two hours for a two-hundred pound man.
The online BAC estimators seem to think that I get that high just about every time I go drinking. I sometimes drink Long Island Iced Teas, and it looks like I should have a BAC much of about 0.12 after only two of them in one hour.
I've had two in one hour many many times, and the effects are not at all obvious. I just asked Niki what I'm like after I've had that much alcohol:
"You laugh a little bit more. Jokes are just a little bit funnier to you. Your shoulders open up a bit, and you look more relaxed."
That's it. I don't start calling women "sugar-tits". I don't start spewing hate.
I know alcohol affects everyone differently, but I'm not about to let Mel off that easily. I think he's a great actor, and a better director, but I can't help but think his mind has been polluted by some awful ideas of reality.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Xavier, it seems like Gibson was very, very obviously intoxicated from his demeanor. I'm sure BAC affects people differently.
Edit: Apparently from what I can Google, a BAC of .12 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will all be impaired."
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Yes, yes it does.
It matters in the sense of his soul, etc. But in the effect of the art on you, if you didn't know he was an anti-semite? (This is assuming, for the moment, that there were no concern about TPOTC being antisemitic.)
Well, there is a HUGE philisophical question you're asking, so I assume you don't expect anyone to be able to adequately counter your devil's advocacy?
The question is as to whether the source and motivation of art affects the reality of that art, and the people who view it. First of all, there will be a subtle (or unsubtle) effect upon the nature of the art which depends upon the motivations of the artist. So for instance, the way in which the filming of Jewish characters is done in TPOTC may reflect the way Gibson would like them portrayed.
If it does not seem to be effected by the overt will of the artist, then secondarily (and more importantly) there is a question as to whether the source of the work effects it intrinsically, in principle, and that art in order to be valid, must be pure of source. This assumes that the act of making the art was nuetral and free of overt designs by the artist. So, say Gibson made no special effort to make Jews look bad in the movie, and maybe even made an effort to counter his own prejudices and force the images to be more nuetral. If the images are then effectively nuetral, the nature of the art is two-fold.
One, the peice of art as it exists on celluloid. This is a film that might be viewed by anyone a thousand years from today, or by an alien civilization unaquanted with the beliefs of the artist, or our society. This peice of art has qualities which only an uninterested observer (to borrow philosophy from Emmanuel Kant) can appraise properly. The alien civilization will only value the art on this level, as a technical or communicative achievement, because it neither expresses nor counter's their preconceptions or place in a society. (Edit to add: This alien society may only after due reflection become an "interested" party, in which case they will be much like us, and incapable of complete objectivity, for which all critics should strive)
Second, the art as it exists to the interested viewer. All humans in today's society are counted as interested viewers of TPOTC. "Interest" in this sense means simply that there is something of an argument or a view, or an opinion, or an image of society and history which all people will either agree with, or deny (or many variations on agreement and denial). Every living person is affected by this aspect of the movie because every person lives in a society in which this is a relevant topic, in some way. In this sense, the movie is NOT free from the artist who created it, because he too has an interest, an investment, in the art. It exists as a statement demanding all viewers to have a response, even if that response is not verbal or even conscious. The art cannot, in this sense, be detached from the artist and observed with a lack of interest by any living person. To do this would be an ironic solopsism, because even by attempting to detach the art from any interest one might have, one acknowledges implicitly that interest is at stake. If you could ever examine a peice of art without interest (meaning investment) in it, then you wouldn't ever have to question whether an objective view is possible. It just would be possible.
That's me, and my undergraduate understanding of this kind of thing. Still, I think the question is compelling in an of itself, and can't be dismissed by me, and certainly not in just a few short paragraphs.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Still, what comes out when you're drunk is usually what's boiling up underneath, anyway.
Though on the other hand, one could argue that it is having that underneath but resisting it most of the time that shows great virtue. Bah, humbug.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Edit: Apparently from what I can Google, a BAC of .12 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will all be impaired."
I don't know about this. Reminds of that statistic that says you're considered an alcoholic if you ever have more than 3 drinks in one evening, or one drink or more three nights a week.
I'm with Xavier. 0.12 is incredibely low. Just barely above the legally allowed driving limit. So if you're okay(in the eyes of the law) to drive a car with a BAC of .09, .12 seems like just one more beer. I don't know that that one extra beer would cause me to have a radical personality change.
Though when was the BAC test actually done? If it was done an hour or more after he was originally pulled over his BAC could have significantly fallen during that time.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: Still, what comes out when you're drunk is usually what's boiling up underneath, anyway.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. I do believe I have declared my undying love for a lamp post in the past...
Also, I dunno. In Florida, I think you're not legal to drive with a BAC of more than .08.
But I don't believe all those things necessarily, either. "Binge drinking" is more than four drinks in a night? I mean, I go out from 11pm until 4 or 5 in the morning. It is very unlikely, if I'm going out to bars with my friends, that I will consume fewer than 4 drinks.
-pH
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
that's right, the statistic i was thinking of was the definition of binge drinking.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
In relation to being an alcoholic, someone once told me that you're an alcoholic pretty much if you drink for...like...any reason besides showing up somewhere and thinking, "Ah, I shall have a drink, but not because my friends or drinking or this is a party or I want to be tipsy or for any reason at all."
Yeah.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
What a blow-hard thing for that person to say. I've only read a few books about addiction for the common reader, but its easy to dismiss that kind of shallow thinking pH.
Addiction, as I understand it, is something like: continuing a behavior which is self-destructive, even the face of life altering consequences.
Also, addiction has been found to be related to certain genetic factors related to the fight/flight reaction in the human nervous system. Population groups that have suffered great hardships and death in great numbers have a relatively large numbers of alchoholics in their midst. For instance, native American populations, especially in North America are actually affected in multiple ways by their genetic histories, which causes genes related to alcoholism to appear in nearly 100% of the population. First, the millenia of seperation from alcohol left no tolerance for its effects, so native Americans are more easily intoxicated. Second, the dramatic fall in population which accompanied colonization actually favored those native Americans who had alcoholism related genes. These genes are also related to strong survival instincts, higher intelligence, and better reflexes.
Also, PH I think you're quite right. We conflate alcholism with the definition given by the surgen general of "Binge Drinking," even though the two things are hardly related. As a white male, 230 pounds and 6 feet tall (I'm dieting though, I swear!) I have 4 beers in the course of two hours and barely feel the effects. I also get tons of exercise and drink plenty of water when I am drinking alcohol. I have had 4 drinks plenty of times, 4 or more, and not been drunk.
Why should the same standards apply when I am twice the size of some of my friends?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Orincoro, I'm 135lbs, and as I said, fewer than four drinks in one outing is really unlikely to happen. I can have four drinks in two hours and be buzzed, but not wasted out of my mind.
The person who gave me that definition was actually an alcoholic himself...in counseling, but still drinking. Hardcore drinking. But of course, everyone around him was an alcoholic too, according to the definition the counselor gave him.
-pH
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A BAC of .12 doesn't cross the threshold into delerium, not even close. So, his commentary on Jews couldn't have been entirely out of a mental left-field. Unsurprisingly, it's probably based on some of his own irrational hatreds and frustrations. Mel Gibson? Anti-semite? Color me surprised!
Actually, in all seriousness: take a good long look at his official apology. He's avoiding directly addressing the issues of his drunken 'I hate jews and they suck and their stupid hats suck' commentary. He's still in gloss mode.
Previously, I could have cared less about Mel Gibson, but I remember the controversy over whether or not Mel had it out for the Jews with the subtle socio-theological commentary inherent to a movie he made where dastardly Jews sort of brutally torture and kill the son of God, so that totally makes this hilarious.
Also, the story now involves a potential police coverup.
quote:ALLEGATIONS that police in Malibu tried to cover up an anti-Semitic outburst by Mel Gibson are to be investigated by an independent review body.
...
However, the apology was overshadowed by the publication of a section of the arresting officer’s handwritten report. The extract, on TMZ.com, suggested that the original report had been heavily edited.
...
Mike Gennaco, head of the Office of Independent Review, told the Los Angeles Times that an investigation would begin today into the apparent editing of the report. “All that stuff about favourable treatment is something that needs to be looked at,” he said. “I’d like to see if there was a legitimate law enforcement reason for asking that the report be altered.”
He added that he would also look into Mr Gibson’s financial links to the department. In 2002 Mr Gibson served as a “celebrity representative” for the Star Organisation, which provides financial aid to the children of Sheriff’s Department officers killed while on duty.
The plot thickens!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: I don't get how a person like Mel, who actually worships and Jewish man as his God, can be such an anti-semite.
It's kind of a long standing tradition. Surely you realize that historically speaking, his view is the norm.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Xavier, it seems like Gibson was very, very obviously intoxicated from his demeanor. I'm sure BAC affects people differently.
Edit: Apparently from what I can Google, a BAC of .12 causes "significant impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time and hearing will all be impaired."
And if a person is a psycho, racist, nut, it only takes a little bit of alcohol to lower his inhibitions enough for him to act like a psycho, racist, nut.
I thought he was an anti-semite when he made Passion, but when I saw an interview with him about it on TV, I was sure.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: Originally posted by Samprimary: ... take a good long look at his official apology. He's avoiding directly addressing the issues of his drunken 'I hate jews and they suck and their stupid hats suck' commentary.
I figured this addressed that:
quote:I ... said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said.
I don't know whether he's anti-semitic or not. I do know that it's possible to have attitudes ingrained in the back of your mind that you're actively trying to change and fight against, that might still come out when your judgment is impaired.
And I do think that, to quote Joldo, "having it underneath but resisting it most of the time ... shows great virtue." Don't we ALL have to resist our baser attitudes and angers in order to be civilized? And if we have biased views because we've been taught them, shouldn't we resist them? "Bah, humbug" indeed. Are you saying that the only virtuous person is the person who HAS no biases to resist?
Not that I know whether this is the case. Either he's a hypocritical anti-semite, or he's gotten some bad ideas that he generally doesn't believe with his rational mind, but when his judgment is impaired, they come out. In my opinion, it's worth the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, there is a HUGE philisophical question you're asking, so I assume you don't expect anyone to be able to adequately counter your devil's advocacy?
Well sure it is! I have no great interest in whether or not Mel Gibson is an anti-semite, so I'm selfishly trying to tyurn the conversation toward a question I find more interesting!
I don't know for sure how I feel, because if someone is prominently, openly anti-semitic or racist, his or her success could possibly advocate those views for other people and help to propagate them. On the other hand, if you had no idea that someone had this particular flaw, and the work did not subtly push an anti-semitic agenda, then it seams reasonable to believe that the work could entertain you, move you, or possibly even make you a better person, end the flaws of the creator don't matter overmuch. A logical part of me thinks you really need to judge the effect of the works on people, and not the morality of the creator.
Then again, I make a point of avoiding Roman Polanski films, so clearly I am talking out of a secondary orifice.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Can't people say a lot of things they don't really mean when they are that drunk? Especially if his dad said a lot of those things in his hearing. I just wonder. Is it fair to assume he thinks like that all the time and just manages to button his lip 99% of the time?
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I've said things in anger that I just felt like saying, even though I don't really believe them. It just felt good to say something hurtful at the time. And boy did I regret it later.
Well, I'll tell you what. I also have, in my life, said hurtful things I did not mean or believe specifically because I wanted to be hurtful. Heat of the moment angry stuff. I'm not saying it was this bad, or particularly recently, or that it's okay. I'm throwing it out there, though, because I suspect I'm not close to unique. As a completely unrelated comment, sometimes racist thoughts go through my mind. I know they're wrong, and I feel ashamed of them the moment they pop up, but I don't know how to make ideas *not* come into my mind. They're things I try not to believe in, things I don't want to have in my character. But if someone goes and acts in a manner that fulfills a stereotype, sometimes the thought pops up unbidden. I suppose that does make me racist, but then I suspect that it's not at all unique. And I certainly don't think you need to be white or Christian to be prejudiced. My point is not to excuse Mel Gibson or argue that he's not an anti-semite; as I said, I don't care about Mel Gibson, I'm just exploring the issues. And exposing my own character flaws, I suppose. ( ::Cue Avenue Q sountrack to "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist.":: )
-o-
All these definitions of alcoholism based on concrete, externally observable criteria are, I think, absurd. Especially the low-threshhold ones referenced here. Sounds like comments made by people with an axe to grind. (Not the posters here, but the people they are quoting.)
quote:Addiction, as I understand it, is something like: continuing a behavior which is self-destructive, even the face of life altering consequences.
*nod* I agree with this. It's not as concrete, but it actually addresses the internal behavior, as opposed to trying to count the number of drinks you've had or the frequency and decide from there.
-o-
Where was his blood-alcohol measured? Back at the police station? DUI stops can sometimes take a very long time, I think. Especially if the driver is belligerent, or, say, tries to escape (like Gibson did). If he had been drinking an hour or more before he stopped, and the BAC was measured a couple of hours or so after being stopped, it seems to me like it could give a deceptively low measure.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Hey! I LIKE our hats!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh good; I didn't kill the thread. Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
In vino veritas.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dammit, I liked mel gibson movies. Are all actors bat-caca crazy???
If they're not howling liberals they're whacky-christian-homophobe(*)-anti-semites.
I wish I hadn't read this. I hope I can still enjoy his acting without thinking about the ugliness underneith. Just like I have to do with most actors... =(
Pix
(*) Charges that Mel Gibson was a homophobe surfaced back when Braveheart came out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I really like Mel Gibson, as for him being anti semitic.
I do not let a persons drunk behavior play a huge factor in my overall view of the person. I am expecially wary of believing every single quote and detail that article presents as it could easily have been fabricated.
But leaving the anti semitic comments in for example, he still cut the scene in The Passion where Caiaphas says, "His blood be upon us and upon our children!"
He claims people including his brother told him he was chickening out by cutting it, but he felt it was not neccesary for the message of his movie.
Its also widely known that Mel has struggled with alcoholism since he was a young and that he is certainly a violent drunk. He was cast for Mad Max 1 after having been in a huge bar brawl the previous evening.
His letter of apology seems very genuine. You all may do as you please, but I will forgive somebody who asks for forgiveness until his behavior warrants me reconsidering. Especially in cases where that person is striving to overcome an addiction.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Mel Gibson is, in my opinion, one of the most talented actors to ever be seen on the big screen. Not only that, but he has also proven his worth behind the camera as well, with Braveheart and The Passion. I consider myself an athiest, but The Passion still touched me as the story of a man, rather than a God. Ignoring its message for the moment, it was obviously made by somebody with considerable gifts. Now, was it anti-semitic? I didn't think so. Does the possibility that it's creator might be anti-semitic have anything whatsoever to do with my enjoyment of it as a piece of art? No.
I recently watched a movie that, if it were viewed by people outside of the proper context, could be taken as extremely anti-semitic. It was called "Downfall" and it was about Hitler's last days in his bunker in Berlin. Filled with rants against Jews, and speeches about the final solution and what not. I would not consider this movie anti-semitic. It is a portrait of madness. Now if this movie can say such things about Jews and still be great art, I propose that Mel Gibson can say pretty much whatever he wants about anybody, he'll still make great art, because he's a great artist. His personal feelings are none of my concern, and will not affect whether or not I go to see his movies, because they do not affect whether or not I enjoy his movies, and that is why I go to the movies. Not because I agree with the filmmaker's personal convictions, but because I enjoy his work. If you discovered the chef at your favorite restaurant was anti-semitic, I doubt you would stop eating there.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Unless he killed Jews and threw them in the stew.
Then I would stop eating there for sure.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Dammit, I liked mel gibson movies. Are all actors bat-caca crazy???
If they're not howling liberals they're whacky-christian-homophobe(*)-anti-semites.
I think they're just flawed people, no different from anyone. But of course, our expectation about them are magnified and our images of them become kaleidoscopic panoramas of their screen characters, mixed with their politics, mixed with their personal appearances until you forget that this person gets up every day and the first thing they want is a peice of toast and some coffee, and check the e-mail.
You wouldn't be shocked and offended if the guy down the street turned out to be a drunken anti-semite, but you are shocked by this because the actor's "relationship" with you is shattered. You felt close to him because you seemed to know him maybe, or you felt that he knew something about you because you've seen and understood his movies.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:If you discovered the chef at your favorite restaurant was anti-semitic, I doubt you would stop eating there.
Actually, that's a pretty big assumption for you to make. I think if anti-semitism was an issue that was important to you(the general you), not eating at a restaurant with an anti-semitic cook would not be that big of a stetch. It's called moral convictions, people exersize them all the time.
If you found out the chef at your favorite restaurant was a child abusing murderer, you would continue to eat there right? What they with their own time has no effect on the food they make, right?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: If you discovered the chef at your favorite restaurant was anti-semitic, I doubt you would stop eating there.
Speak for yourself. I know I would.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
It's like not supporting a business with your money because you don't agree with a certain facet of their business. Almost everyone I know won't give money to one or more businesses, local or global, because of something they don't agree with in regards to the people involved, the corporate practices, etc...
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote: If you found out the chef at your favorite restaurant was a child abusing murderer, you would continue to eat there right? What they with their own time has no effect on the food they make, right?
Correct. However, if they were a child abusing murderer, I doubt that they would be a chef at my favorite restaurant.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What if they had at one point in their lives dated your significant other and beat them up? Would that be enough for you to not frequent their restaurant?
At what point does something that someone does or believes offend you enough that you don't associate with them or want to help them out in the slightest bit. From what you say, there is no line for you. There is never a connection between the service provided and the person providing it. Would you take a job on the death star? Would you work a desk job for Hitler because it was good money and who cares where the money comes from?
Are you a minority? Or if not, lets say you're white, and you frequent a restaurant where the owner is of color and freely proclaims that all white people should be shot and killed because they are an inferior race. Would you still eat there?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce: His personal feelings are none of my concern, and will not affect whether or not I go to see his movies, because they do not affect whether or not I enjoy his movies, and that is why I go to the movies. Not because I agree with the filmmaker's personal convictions, but because I enjoy his work. If you discovered the chef at your favorite restaurant was anti-semitic, I doubt you would stop eating there.
You completely ignore the question of the nature of art and your interest in it. This is simply too shallow an understanding of art to endure very long. If you value the form over the source of the work all the time, then you deny yourself the ability to discern motive from an artist. Motive is important. Motive exists. You're simply choosing to ignore it, and that's not good enough for me.
edit: The general reaction to your comment about restaurantuers should tell you that most people DO value some knowledge and understanding of intent. Intent does not supercede form, and we can't forgive BAD artistic expression because we agree with the intent either, but we must be aware of it consciously, because we are already aware of it unconsciously.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
When there is no relationship between what somebody does and the ways in which our beliefs differ, I see no reason to boycott them. If I boycott a certain gasoline company (Exxon) it is because our ideas about the environment differ. There's a relationship there. The belief (whether we should drill in ANWR) and the service (gasoline) are related. In no way would my boycotting a restaurant change somebody's mind about Jews. Now if the service this hypothetical anti-semite provided was monument construction, I would probably not hire him to build my Holocaust memorial. As for the crazy restaurant owner you put forward, if I was allowed in the restaurant, and felt safe enough, I see no reason why I wouldn't eat there.
And as for the Death Star, there were a lot of good, innocent civilian contractors killed when that thing went up. The second one at least.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce: When there is no relationship between what somebody does and the ways in which our beliefs differ, I see no reason to boycott them.
And you think there is EVER an instance where someone's artistic will is not related to their ideas and beliefs about the world? Seriously, think about this: he is putting his stamp on films with an extreme slant toward his personal beliefs. There is a connection there. Its an obvious one.
Edit: I can see too that this is a discussion that could get very vexing and non-productive. I have to leave for the rest of the day now, so I hope you can be satisfied with reviewing my comments on the philosophy of art from the first page as my argument against your view. I would hardly like to sit here and repeat it over and over again.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
And this chef that I (apparently unwisely) brought up. He and I would have a beef if we had fundamental differences in opinion in what wine should be served with filet mingon. I'm there for the food, not a lecture.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Again you are all assuming he is anti semetic
If you were at your favorite restaurant and you found out that somebody talked to somebody who interviewed a police man who said the chef said some anti semitic comments while under the influence of alcohol and then later wrote a seemingly sincere letter of apology for everything he said and did.
Would you still eat there?
Some of you might not, I still would, but hey thats me.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Hmm. You may have a point. It appears I may be hoist on my own petard.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're straying too far from the topic. Film is expressive, food is not the same kind of medium. I would drop the analogy as a bad job and leave it at that.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
BlackBlade, I laughed very hard at that. Good form, my good man.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
By the way, I still like Gibson's stuff. Maybe that makes me a bad person.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce: And as for the Death Star, there were a lot of good, innocent civilian contractors killed when that thing went up. The second one at least.
Dude, it's a shame Hatrack doesn't have .sigs, because I would totally put this in mine. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
AP (New York) The United Nations condemned the Rebel Alliance today for their destruction of The Death Star. "The Rebels killed thousands of civilians," said Kofi Anan, "We can not sit by as this Massacre happens without condemning it in the strongest possible language."
The Death Star Masscare isn't the first time The Rebel Alliance has murdered thousands of civilians. Just six years ago, the Rebels destroyed the first Death Star, despite the fact that most people on the Death Star had no ill will toward them and didn't support The Emporor or his Second in command, Lord Vader.
Leah Organa could not be reached for comment.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by GForce: And as for the Death Star, there were a lot of good, innocent civilian contractors killed when that thing went up. The second one at least.
Not to mention a whole bunch of poor Wookie slaves... Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
GForce, I was thinking of that exact Clerks conversation when I brought it up... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Come now, they'd never call it the Death Star Massacre. Too many people would wonder at a machine called the Death Star. It'd be called the Mega Ore Extractor or something equally innocuous.
So that becomes the MOE Massacre, which of course just leads to mo' rebels, mo' problems.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
quote:... take a good long look at his official apology. He's avoiding directly addressing the issues of his drunken 'I hate jews and they suck and their stupid hats suck' commentary.
I figured this addressed that:
quote:I ... said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said.
I don't know whether he's anti-semitic or not.
I'm not sure he's anti-semetic either, but it is an incredibly safe bet. Part of it involves how he's not yet addressed and apologized for his anti-jew commentary directly, as in saying 'I am sorry I said what I did about jews.' He will most likely have to in the near future.
The 'gloss mode' is just me observing a further mistake, one which fits in with a pattern that makes it easy to assume that, yes, Mel is most likely harboring a lot of anti-Jewish mentality. A pattern that started long ago, not with this drunken debacle, not with Passion, but rather with his defense of his father, Hutton Gibson.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
Updated to show mugshot
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
he looks pretty happy in that picture actually.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Indeed, Lisa, the phrase, "In wine, truth" did not arise in a vacuum. The best and worst things in a man can shake loose in a man when his conscious mind gives way to his id... aided by copious amounts of alcohol.
Of Mel Gibson, really, who didn't see this coming? His Jesus-freakery really came to the fore in "Signs", shortly after which he embarked on "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre".
Who could have predicted that he would have followed in his father's Holocaust-denying footsteps? Besides anyone who knew him or kept track of his press...
I will go so far as to predict this: here is a man second only to Kevin Costner in his Hollywood messiah complex. His next movie (by which I mean, after Apocalypica) will involve the character he plays sacrificing himself to save us all from eternal damnation. I'm thinking Riggs vs. Satan in a steel cage match.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
[edit] I didn't see the page had turned. Seems like the thread was about dead...[/edit]
There is some research that alcoholics are more impaired than "normal" people by the same amount of alcohol. Unfortunately, I can't link to it because it was something I saw in a book once. It goes against the idea of building up a tolerance, but if this was an actual relapse...
Anyway, I was one of those nerds who persisted in not seeing the Passion, since Gibson played the agnostic card back when he was promoting "Signs". He's just another Hollywood guy as far as I'm concerned.
But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
That's true, Pooka, history has consistently shown that no one likes Jews, save mormons, but they like everyone.
Not even GHANDI believed in Jews as equals to a degree.
[/End bad tasted joke]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: [edit]
But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
What the crap are you talking about?
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
Not even GHANDI believed in Jews as equals to a degree.
[/End bad tasted joke]
Ghandi was also a amazingly racist against blacks
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
So it's ok for him to be an anti-Semite, because lots of people are?
Seriously?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
So pooka doesn't like Jews any more than she likes gays. I wish I could say I'm surprised.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think what some actor said while drunk in any way matters to me, except to illustrate why one probably doesn't want to get drunk, especially if one is a famous actor.
quote:You completely ignore the question of the nature of art and your interest in it. This is simply too shallow an understanding of art to endure very long. If you value the form over the source of the work all the time, then you deny yourself the ability to discern motive from an artist.
Art exists independently from the artist.
One can choose to look for motives behind works of art, but I think that is among the shallowest ways to appreciate any work of art, for two reasons: Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head. And secondly, what an artist's opinion about the world is is not very important. For instance, what Mel Gibson thinks about Jews is pretty much totally unimportant to any of us in any real way.
There are much more meaningful ways to approach works of art. If you get too distracted in the artist's opinions, then it will make you unable to appreciate that artist's works in the way they deserve. You may not like OSC's political columns, for instance, but you should still be able to appreciate Ender's Game for what it is. If you let your views on OSC's politics prevent you from doing so, I think you are being unfair to Ender's Game. In the same way, if you can't enjoy Mel Gibson movies because he gave you the impression he is an anti-semite, then you may be acting fairly towards Gibson, but you are not fairly judging his films, which exist and have great value entirely independent from him.
Of course, then again, the main person you hurt if you do this is yourself. You'd be the one missing out, and presumably it would barely effect Gibson.
Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
quote:Art exists independently from the artist
Not so much. Art is about the interaction between you and the piece. On its own it's just coloured paint on a semi-absorbant surface. On your own there's no art. Together, you are seeing, and interpreting what you see - and that is where the art comes into it. Meaning is not absolute - shown perfectly in the poem Ozymandias. The line "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair" meant exactly that, despair because I am so much more mighty than you, when the fictional Ozymandias had it engraved. In the context of the poem, it means despair, because look how mighty he obviously was, and look how it has lasted - not at all. Your achievements are fleeting, human. And so on. The meaning depends on the context, so too with other forms of art. Now that's not to say that the meaning in one context is more valid than the meaning out of that context, but I don't want to get into the debate about which is more valid "the meaning of the artist" or "the different meanings that the viewers believe it means", as that's very long, involved and off subject, but it is true to say that you cannot experience the intended meaning of the piece without knowing about the artist, the cultural context, the related pieces that it may draw on, and often, with rubbish modern art (excuse that opinion, it's just an opinion) the actual explicit explanation of the artist themselves.
AW
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I take a middle road to this art vs artist myself. Most fo the time I will see anything that interests me. I loved Powder, even though the director was a freak.
But sometimes I can't distance myself. If I find myself feeling strongly about something, strongly enough that it affects my perception of the art itself, then I think that it needs to be considered.
It isn't black and white.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I will love The Patriot exactly as much as I always have. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
So pooka doesn't like Jews any more than she likes gays. I wish I could say I'm surprised.
Pooka didn't say anything against Jews. She was simply stating the fact that the majority of the world is turning against Israel and it's millitary actions. Making a personal attack in response to that quote shows a lot more about you than pooka.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So it's ok for him to be an anti-Semite, because lots of people are?
Seriously?
She didn't say it was okay.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Tresopax: Art exists independently from the artist.
I have to strongly disagree with this. An artist puts something of him/herself into anything they create, be it their insecurities, their passions, or just their way of viewing the world.
Every work of art is a self portrait.
quote:Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head.
Again, I disagree. It is very possible to read into the motivations behind a work of art; sometimes, it can be very easy to do so. In fact, were it impossible to understand what's going on behind the canvas, so to speak, the value of art would be greatly decreased. We'd lose an important part of the dialogue between the artist, the artwork, and the viewer.
It's not always easy to decipher art. Many of us, I think, are only aware of the visual language on a subconcious level. If someone were to point out to us that a horizontal line often evokes stability, while a diagonal one imparts motion, we might shrug and say, "well, of course." These visual codings are so ingrained into our culture that we're not aware of them most of the time.
Which is fine. Having the associations exist at a primordial level can heighten the impact of what the viewer (or listener, for that matter) is experiencing. But that doesn't mean we can only access art in an intuitive way. When we view a scene from a movie in which the main character kneels in the rain sobbing while a piano plays a slow, heavy tune, everyone instantly understands that this is at least supposed to be sad. But if we stop and think about it, we can easily isolate the individual elements of the scene that impart this.
quote:If you get too distracted in the artist's opinions, then it will make you unable to appreciate that artist's works in the way they deserve
I think you are right in essence here, but I don't think OSC is a good comparison to make to Gibson. OSC is fairly well known for keeping his politics out of his writing, when appropriate. And, in my opinion, he has good judgment about what appropriate means in this context. Also, boycotting an author because you disagree with his stance on the Bush administration is kind of nutty. Boycotting a bigot (assuming Gibson is one) doesn't seem to me to be over the line.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
Not even GHANDI believed in Jews as equals to a degree.
[/End bad tasted joke]
Ghandi was also a amazingly racist against blacks
I seriously doubt the majority of people know whether or not Ghandi was racist against blacks. Please do not call him racist against blacks unless you can demonstrate some sort of proof of this.
Seems contradictory since he was in favor of aboloshing the caste system.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Now I understand all of the hidden subtext in the first Lethal Weapon movie...
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
The gloss mode I talked about has officially ended.
quote:"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark," Gibson said in a statement.
"I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested," he added.
Not even GHANDI believed in Jews as equals to a degree.
[/End bad tasted joke]
Ghandi was also a amazingly racist against blacks
I seriously doubt the majority of people know whether or not Ghandi was racist against blacks. Please do not call him racist against blacks unless you can demonstrate some sort of proof of this.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:posted by Tresopax: Art exists independently from the artist.
I have to strongly disagree with this. An artist puts something of him/herself into anything they create, be it their insecurities, their passions, or just their way of viewing the world.
Every work of art is a self portrait.
quote:Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head.
Again, I disagree. It is very possible to read into the motivations behind a work of art; sometimes, it can be very easy to do so. In fact, were it impossible to understand what's going on behind the canvas, so to speak, the value of art would be greatly decreased. We'd lose an important part of the dialogue between the artist, the artwork, and the viewer.
It's not always easy to decipher art. Many of us, I think, are only aware of the visual language on a subconcious level. If someone were to point out to us that a horizontal line often evokes stability, while a diagonal one imparts motion, we might shrug and say, "well, of course." These visual codings are so ingrained into our culture that we're not aware of them most of the time.
Which is fine. Having the associations exist at a primordial level can heighten the impact of what the viewer (or listener, for that matter) is experiencing. But that doesn't mean we can only access art in an intuitive way. When we view a scene from a movie in which the main character kneels in the rain sobbing while a piano plays a slow, heavy tune, everyone instantly understands that this is at least supposed to be sad. But if we stop and think about it, we can easily isolate the individual elements of the scene that impart this.
quote:If you get too distracted in the artist's opinions, then it will make you unable to appreciate that artist's works in the way they deserve
I think you are right in essence here, but I don't think OSC is a good comparison to make to Gibson. OSC is fairly well known for keeping his politics out of his writing, when appropriate. And, in my opinion, he has good judgment about what appropriate means in this context. Also, boycotting an author because you disagree with his stance on the Bush administration is kind of nutty. Boycotting a bigot (assuming Gibson is one) doesn't seem to me to be over the line.
Artwork (and poetry, and writing, and music, and other forms of expression), once created, cannot exist independent of the artist any more than a Civic is ever not a Honda, or a child is not the genetic offspring of the parents in question.
At the same time, interpretations of that work can exclude all aspects of the artist's involvement and intentions. If a friend links me to a random piece of online artwork, odds are I'm going to interpret it as I see fit with zero consideration for what the artist may or may not have been trying to accomplish. If my interpretation and reaction happen to coincide with what the artist intended, I still feel that the interpretation exists independent of the artist.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Wow, proof right in front of you, and still you chose to be blind. Wow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So it's ok for him to be an anti-Semite, because lots of people are?
Seriously?
She didn't say it was okay.
She certainly implied it.
And the man was not condemning Israel's actions (which I think is perfectly acceptable, whether or not I agree with someone's views). He was saying unprintable things about Jews. (And just to be clear, that is NOT ok.)
To claim that he is getting flak because he had the bad luck to be caught saying "what everyone is thinking" implies that pooka either thinks it's ok for many people to have nasty opinions of Jews (and I don't believe she does, which is why I requested clarification); or that she is failing to make a distinction between some pretty vile anti-semitism and dislike of the actions of the Israeli government. There is quite a difference, IMO.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The gloss mode I talked about has officially ended.
quote:"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark," Gibson said in a statement.
"I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested," he added.
The cynic in me wants to say that the man works in Hollywood, and wishes to continue to do so.
But I am willing to suspend judgment, and see what he does.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Art is about the interaction between you and the piece.
I agree. But I said art is independent of the artist, not that it is independent of you who is viewing it - it needs not be an interaction between you and an artist.
quote:I have to strongly disagree with this. An artist puts something of him/herself into anything they create, be it their insecurities, their passions, or just their way of viewing the world.
The same is true with children, but that doesn't mean children are not independent from their parents, and it certainly doesn't mean that disliking a child's parents means you can't appreciate the child.
quote:Artwork (and poetry, and writing, and music, and other forms of expression), once created, cannot exist independent of the artist any more than a Civic is ever not a Honda, or a child is not the genetic offspring of the parents in question.
As I said above, I think children do exist independently from their parents. And cars do exist independently from the car company that makes them. Frankly, I don't think you need to know a car maker's intentions in order to appreciate their car.
quote:It is very possible to read into the motivations behind a work of art; sometimes, it can be very easy to do so. In fact, were it impossible to understand what's going on behind the canvas, so to speak, the value of art would be greatly decreased.
I would say "somewhat decreased" instead of "greatly decreased". There are some works that I think lose a lot of their value if you don't know what they are intended to be about. But I think that with most works, especially those that are most meaningful to you, the intentions of the artist are more of a footnote to what the work itself is to you who views it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The gloss mode I talked about has officially ended.
quote:"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark," Gibson said in a statement.
"I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested," he added.
The cynic in me wants to say that the man works in Hollywood, and wishes to continue to do so.
But I am willing to suspend judgment, and see what he does.
I don't care how vile a person may be at any given time. If he's willing to do something about it and change, I think that's laudable. And given what he said in that article, I would absolutely give him that chance.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
So pooka doesn't like Jews any more than she likes gays. I wish I could say I'm surprised.
Pooka didn't say anything against Jews. She was simply stating the fact that the majority of the world is turning against Israel and it's millitary actions. Making a personal attack in response to that quote shows a lot more about you than pooka.
Oh, please. Gibson was talking about Jews. Not about Israel. What she said was absolutely a defense of anti-semitism. And as I said, someone who defends her opposition to same-sex marriage by claiming that it's "anti-woman"... well, it doesn't surprise me to see her standing up for Jew-hating rhetoric as well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wonder sometimes why you work so hard to act like an unreasonable person.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
He is doing something to change: checking into rehab, the last refuge of busted celebs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Wow, proof right in front of you, and still you chose to be blind. Wow.
And here I was thinking that you are seeing mountains where there are only molehills.
I read through your two sites to see what they had to say and I answered their points to an extent. You simply called me blind for disagreeing, you could always try refuting what I had to say Reticulum.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hmm... what's that about? Is it my connecting bigotry in one area to bigotry in another area? Or is it my pointing out that Gibson wasn't talking about Israel, and that pooka's statement was obviously supportive of anti-semitism?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: He is doing something to change: checking into rehab, the last refuge of busted celebs.
Did you even read what he said? He's actually approaching the people he offended and asking them to work with him on it. Yes, he's an actor. Yes, the fact that he sounds sincere doesn't necessarily mean he is. But as I said, I'd give him the opportunity to show one way or the other. Wouldn't you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: He is doing something to change: checking into rehab, the last refuge of busted celebs.
Did you even read what he said? He's actually approaching the people he offended and asking them to work with him on it. Yes, he's an actor. Yes, the fact that he sounds sincere doesn't necessarily mean he is. But as I said, I'd give him the opportunity to show one way or the other. Wouldn't you?
been trying to say this the entire thread Lisa, I guess you are better at it then I am.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: If he's willing to do something about it and change, I think that's laudable. And given what he said in that article, I would absolutely give him that chance.
Agreed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Until I saw that link, I wouldn't have spit on him if he were on fire. But you have to respect someone who makes that kind of statement of genuine regret.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Wow, proof right in front of you, and still you chose to be blind. Wow.
Reticulum, I don't see any reason to respect your views when you link two sites, one member writes a very detailed and intelligent rebuttal of them, and then you write one sentence where you say he is blind. You input nothing of your own and only attack when other people do.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
So what you're saying is, if a public figure does anything positive, he/she cannot possibly be doing it for reasons other than the money?
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I was raised by a racist - a man who sincerely believed white people were inherently better than all others and used racial epithets around the house routinely.
I have, in bad moments, channeled my stepfather and things have come out of my mouth which deeply shamed me as soon as I realized I said them. On one case I distinctly remember, alcohol was certainly involved.
I cant' judge whether or not Gibson is really anti-Semitic, but it seems highly likely his father is, and so he grew up hearing all those things and sometimes our pasts come back to haunt us. What matters is that we don't perpetuate it, that we fight against it and refuse to pass on a legacy of hate. That is what I try to do - racial slurs are not allowed in my home my husband and I both will not speak them or tolerate anyone else doing so, because I dont' want my children to grow up as I did. I know in my heart that racism is wrong, and I think it's likely Gibson knows anti-Semitism is wrong. I'm willing, because of my experience, to give him the chance to prove he means what he now says.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When I watched American History X as a teenager I was amazed by how logical the racism was presented, and then suprised again when it was all debunked.
Thats a very interesting insight Belle, one which which I was certainly unaware of.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
While I think it's unrealistic to expect that anyone in the public eye doesn't have their image & potential salary in mind more or less constantly, I think you may be being overly critical.
Let's see what big Mel has to say. I'd be interested in hearing from the Jewish community members he talks to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
Fascinating. Someone more cynical than I am. I'm impressed.
I think the reason I'm not seeing it the way you are is that he didn't have to go as far as he did in his apology to get the result you're talking about. No one really expected it of him, for that matter. He could have just said, "Hey, I was shnockered. I said dumb things. Sorry." He went beyond that, unnecessarily, from a PR view, and that makes me feel that there might be something there.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Blackblade, I must say your right, and what I said was mean. Sorry. However, I still think Ghandi was racist. Let's agree to disagree, agreed?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Blackblade, I must say your right, and what I said was mean. Sorry. However, I still think Ghandi was racist. Let's agree to disagree, agreed?
apology accepted along with your proposal Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: To me it has less to do with possibly faking sincerity in an apology, and more with the PR motives for making an apology and checking into rehab. I cynically assume his motivations stem from retaining his multi-million dollar per picture salary.
So what you're saying is, if a public figure does anything positive, he/she cannot possibly be doing it for reasons other than the money? -pH
No, of course that's not what I'm saying. Let's say some regular guy gets wasted, and spouts off some anti-semitic junk to his fellow barflies. The next day he apologizes, says he doesn't believe that, etc.
I'd be more likely to believe him than someone who's whole career depends on selling an apology. I don't know if Gibson's apology is sincere, but his motivations for giving an insincere apology are too huge for me to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Art exists independently from the artist.
One can choose to look for motives behind works of art, but I think that is among the shallowest ways to appreciate any work of art, for two reasons: Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head.
Tres, once again we disagree about the same thing, and if you think my opinion will be different in this thread then you are mistaken. It hasn't changed. You can say till your blue in the face that "art exists independent from the artist," but what that means as a statement is in question. Personally I can agree with that statement on many levels: a painting is not a person, or a painting exists after a person dies, changes careers, or loses touch with that type of art or that opinion. I agree on all those points. Edit: But when Da Vinci carried the Mona Lisa around with him everywhere he went for 10 years, was he seperate from the art, in EVERY sense of the word? He was close to it, it effecte him every day, he was physically near it, he used it to influence other people and it became part of his relationship with the world. How seperate were they?? Can you see where the above statement lacks?
Perhaps you believe that you have made a simple decisive point "it is seperate," but you consistently fail to define anything beyond the broad and as it applies to your view, and not to the specific meaning you wish to convey through universal understanding of an idea. Please strive, for my sake, to be specific and universal, rather than broad and personal in a discussions such as this. Your opinions will not be very effective if they are cloaked in your own intended meaning, rather than thoughtfully applied to the question at hand. As it is you have only raised further questions, and answered nothing.
Edit to add: This is why my post is in no way a response to your opinion: you seem to have no standpoint from which to argue. If you were to specify and actually discuss the nature of the thing you want to explain, I might be able to respond.
Take this for example: "A work of art is seperate from the artist," and then "It is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art." Here you deny any connection, and then claim unlikely any success in finding something you believe to be irrelevent. If it is irrelevent, or non-existant, than why is it "nearly" impossible. It should be impossible in your view, if it is a consistent one following from "the art is seperate."
You may wish to view the art as seperate for your own purposes, but again that is not relevant here, and it is clear that you don't even believe it.
Please don't take this as a discouragement from further dialogue, but you must understand that I find dialogue impossible with you when this kind of thing goes on.
[ August 01, 2006, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
Guys, Guys, Guys. You're missing the forest for the trees! TheHumanTarget has just stumbled on the best-kept secret in human history! It's The Gibson Code!
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Now I understand all of the hidden subtext in the first Lethal Weapon movie...
Furthurmore, starLisa: it makes me all giggly when someboy uses the word "shnockered". It's people like you that help me get through the day.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I grew up with Catholic hard-liners like Gibson -- and while none were as anti-Semitic as he is (I never really understood the concept), they shared his homophobia and hostility against non-Catholics.
I respect the guy's talent, honestly. Braveheart's quite possibly my favorite film, and if Gibson's anything like the average Catholic nut, he's not evil or malicious. He's just sure everyone different is. He reminds me of some of my old teachers, and that's not a bad thing.
I feel bad for him. The guy he hired to play Jesus, Jim K______, spoke at my high school -- and he's a nutjob too. He warned us about Satan lurking in every corner, trying to destroy you and everything good, to the point where he was actually crying onstage with the fervor of his beliefs.
I guess some people respect that. But I've never seen fundamentalism do anything but make otherwise good people closeminded bigots, threatened by anything that contradicts their dearest beliefs -- hence such idiocy as intelligent design and "defense of marriage." It's a shame, Gibson seems like an otherwise nice guy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In what was is he an otherwise nice guy? I think when you cross over to driving drunk and calling the cops F-ing Jews and saying the Jews are ruining the world, you don't get "otherwise nice guy" as an option.
I think back to not too long ago and that Children's Songs album done by inmates in federal prison. When the work they did was presented as "from some pedofile and a bunch of felons in prison," (paraphrase) it was recieved with terrible rancor. Why? If they are good artists then what is the beef? We know what the beef is, and yet because Gibson's work predates the knowledge that he is really a heel and an idiot/nut, we refuse to go back and reconsider our former conclusions.
If you had heard that prisoner's album and liked it before you knew where it was from, how would you feel? Knowing that, would you allow your kids to listen to the album? Why not? So that you don't support these prisoners? Because their evil might infect your child vicariously, or they might get off on being listened to by children? Don't you think Gibson gets off at being listened to by millions of Americans? You didn't think it was ALL about the art did you? Could it be?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: In what was is he an otherwise nice guy? I think when you cross over to driving drunk and calling the cops F-ing Jews and saying the Jews are ruining the world, you don't get "otherwise nice guy" as an option.
He's anti-Semitic -- that makes him ignorant, not evil. There are a number of people in this very forum that believe in a "homosexual agenda," that homosexuals are trying to force equal marriage rights on the country through political correctness. Others go further, and believe heterosexuality is inherently superior to homosexuality, and believe that homosexual love is a sin. Will you dismiss their good aspects because of their close-minded beliefs?
Card is, even by conservative fundamentalist standards, a rather rabid homophobe. He's also an excellent writer. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and ranks among the greatest gifts to this country. Bigotry is a sad reflection on the bigot, but it isn't such a hideous crime that one can't appreciate their better aspects.
Like I said, I grew up with hardcore Catholics. While I never noticed much anti-Semiticism, Gibson strongly reminds me of them -- and they're good guys, in truth. They don't like effeminate homosexuals or vegetarians, but they do believe in frequent volunteer service and strong religious community. They distrust the unfamiliar and enjoy getting hammered, but they don't give a damn about race or income. They're loyal to a fundamentalist interpretation of religion, and that invariably leads to closed minds and paranoid hatred -- but not sinister mustache-twisting, and insisting otherwise makes you look foolish.
Gibson's not evil, he's wrong. Trying to demonize the guy accomplishes nothing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Gibson's not evil, he's wrong. Trying to demonize the guy accomplishes nothing.
How did I try to demonize him? I simply asked why you say he is an "otherwise nice guy." One does not get being evil from being a "not so nice guy after all."
Also, you don't know if he IS evil. You don't know him personally, I assume, so you can't really vouch for him as a person beyond what any movie viewer could. How do you know he is a nice guy? How do you know he ISN'T evil?
I wasn't even calling him evil, but simply saying that I think when you do dispicable things, you are not "a nice guy" who does dispicable things. A guy who does dispicable things (even while drunk yes) is not a nice person. The drunk and the sober person are not divorced from each other, and though I think alcoholism is a disease that can do some things, alcohol does not actually take over your body and give you things to say while drunk. He already had those things in him to say, and that means he only appears to be a nice guy when he ISN'T drunk. Edit: Can you say things you don't mean to say? Oh yeah. Can you say things you don't mean AT ALL? Not really IMO. I've been drunk, and it was me talking.
If you ask why I should judge him, then I shall say it is only because he has gone SO FAR to set himself up in this christ-role in society and in many of his films, in which he is the bearer of suffering and wisdom for the whole world. It stinks, it's pathetic and I don't care if he is a great film maker, that doesn't make him a nice guy. I wish people would see that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Society has an interesting take on its hero's and its villians. We take a person who does an incredible perfect heroic deed, and assume that he is always that heroic, that perfect. Then when we discover that there were times when they were less than perfect, less than 100% heroic at all times, we demonize them as fakers and frauds. Then we take our villians and we assume that those moments of pure evil represent their entire lives. When we discover that there were times when they showed compassion, loved a kitten, helped an old lady across the street, not out of some sinister plot, but because they too are human, we question their guilt.
Mel Gibson is not another Hitler, nor would he support one. On the other hand, the worst of his attitudes could do a lot of damage if splashed across the big screen.
I go back to my first post. He got drunk, and channeled his father, spewed out the years of hate his closed minded father fed him. Its a shame. In many ways its like a car wreck, in that we all can't turn away from this disaster, but face it, there are bigger disasters going on today.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
yeah, right on. I just think the only important lesson here is not to confuse the issue.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: He's anti-Semitic -- that makes him ignorant, not evil.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Being evil isn't like a tattoo. It can come off. An anti-semite can stop being an anti-semite, just like a homophobe can stop being a homophobe, and a racist can stop being a racist.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
A dear friend recently had a terrible experience -- because of a complication with some medication she basically lost control of her mind and her mouth. She had no control over what came out of her mouth. She used terrible abusive language, said the most awful things about all of her family members. It was quite an ordeal. It made me wonder -- in the same circumstances, what would come out of my mouth? Would it be the deepest, most repressed part of my brain? The things I had disgarded as wrong and decided never to say in my life? Most of us have been exposed to many many things that are NOT US! Especially those raised by parents who we have decided to disagree with as grownups.
So -- what should we be judged by? The things we CHOOSE to say and do in our lives after considering and rejecting other possibilities? Or what spews forth from our darkest places when we are out of control? I hope I'm judged on what I choose to say after careful consideration rather than what falls out when I'm not in my right mind. But -- obviously that won't happen.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Actually, I'd say the exact opposite. Anti-semites are necessarily ignorant, but they aren't necessarily evil. In fact, I don't think any person is evil.
quote:Being evil isn't like a tattoo. It can come off. An anti-semite can stop being an anti-semite, just like a homophobe can stop being a homophobe, and a racist can stop being a racist.
I'd also say the exact opposite to each of these.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, once again we disagree about the same thing, and if you think my opinion will be different in this thread then you are mistaken. It hasn't changed. You can say till your blue in the face that "art exists independent from the artist," but what that means as a statement is in question.
How can you know that we disagree and what we disagree about, yet then later claim you don't know what I am saying and that I have "no standpoint from which to argue"?
Let me put it another way though: I think that, in most cases, you don't need to know anything about the artist in order to appreciate his or her art in the deepest and most meaningful way. Or, more broadly, I simply think that it is possible to take great meaning from art in a way that is totally unrelated to the creator and the creator's intentions. That is what I mean when I said the art is "separate" from the artist.
There are usually many ways to appreciate any given work of art. You can appreciate it as a paperweight, for one thing - but I think that is one of the shallowest ways to approach art. You can also appreciate it in terms of what you think the artist intended to communicate through it - which I'd argue is a significantly more meaningful way to approach it than if you just looked at it as a paperweight, but also significantly less meaningful than what the art itself means to you. (I'd say that for reasons 1 and 2 that I mentioned earlier.) Being able to appreciate it in all of these ways would add to the value of the art, in your mind, I'd think. At the same time, it would be foolish to allow a failure to appreciate art in one sense cause you to be unable to appreciate it in other, more meaningful senses. I don't think it is wise to reject the value of a painting because it doesn't work well as a paperweight, because that would misses the greater value one could find in it. In a similar fashion, I don't think it is wise to reject the value of a painting because you don't like the message the author intended to communicate through it, because that also misses the greater value that one could find in it.
So, what my position is, to be clear, is that I think it is foolish to allow Mel Gibson's intentions as an artist, or his character as a person, prevent us from appreciating his films.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think it is foolish to allow Mel Gibson's intentions as an artist, or his character as a person, prevent us from appreciating his films.
It would be like not being able to appreciate Master & Commander because Crowe is a violent mong.
Or saying "I refuse to look at any Caravaggio piece, because he was a violent mong."
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Does this statement apply roundly to anyone who discriminates against people of other faiths? Is it equally inherently evil to be anti-Muslim?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I hope that Mel Gibson's apology does some good for Judeo-Gentile relations in the same way that Rebbitzen Rothschild refered to the Temple bombing in Atlanta as the "bomb that healed."
I do have to say that I am much more wary of anti-Semitism now that I am the mother of a Jewish child. Also, I spoke to my dear friend in LA yesterday about this. Her husband is a producer for a prominent production company and he had this to say about the apology, "Not even Mel Gibson has the money to make and distribute his own movies."
I have to say that I am a little shocked that no one seems to be batting an eye over the fact that he was DRIVING DRUNK, which is a much worse offense to me. I have many friends in LA (including quite a few Hatrackers) and the idea of a drunk driver sharing the road with them scares me (yes, I realize that there are more drunk drivers out there than just Mel Gibson and I hold them all in the same low regard). The friend I mentioned is 8 months pregnant - what if Gibson had hit her? Or hit anyone? I understand that alcoholism is a disease - I am the child of an alcoholic. However, drunk driving is a choice and a deadly and despicable one. Gibson was lucky that no one, including himself, was injured or killed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: [QUOTE] Bigotry is a sad reflection on the bigot, but it isn't such a hideous crime that one can't appreciate their better aspects.
Like I said, I grew up with hardcore Catholics. While I never noticed much anti-Semiticism, Gibson strongly reminds me of them -- and they're good guys, in truth. They don't like effeminate homosexuals or vegetarians, but they do believe in frequent volunteer service and strong religious community. They distrust the unfamiliar and enjoy getting hammered, but they don't give a damn about race or income. They're loyal to a fundamentalist interpretation of religion, and that invariably leads to closed minds and paranoid hatred -- but not sinister mustache-twisting, and insisting otherwise makes you look foolish.
Gibson's not evil, he's wrong. Trying to demonize the guy accomplishes nothing.
And this "hardcore Catholic" is trying to make the assumption that you are just refering to specific people rather than making a generalization about "hardcore Catholic". Even so, I will try to "appreciate your better aspects" and, rather than assume "sinister mustache-twirling", will just wonder about what invariably led to your closed mind.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Card is, even by conservative fundamentalist standards, a rather rabid homophobe.
Not really. He disapproves of homosexuality, certainly, and he tends to condescend towards those who promote the acceptance of homosexuality, but I've never seen evidence that he discriminates against homosexual people.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Actually, I'd say the exact opposite. Anti-semites are necessarily ignorant, but they aren't necessarily evil. In fact, I don't think any person is evil.
If you don't think a person can be evil, then you've essentially denied the existence of evil. In which case, you're starting with the premise that evil doesn't exist, and concluding that anti-semites aren't evil. No offense, but that's kind of empty, logically speaking.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Being evil isn't like a tattoo. It can come off. An anti-semite can stop being an anti-semite, just like a homophobe can stop being a homophobe, and a racist can stop being a racist.
I'd also say the exact opposite to each of these.
What's the opposite of "a racist can stop being a racist"?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Anti-semites are evil. They may or may not be ignorant.
Does this statement apply roundly to anyone who discriminates against people of other faiths? Is it equally inherently evil to be anti-Muslim?
Anti-semitism is not anti-Judaism. It's Jew hatred. And yes, to hate all Muslims, because they are Muslim, is evil.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
...and concluding that anti-semites aren't evil. No offense, but that's kind of empty, logically speaking.
Are we talking "evil" as a separate force? That, I don't believe in, either. Or "evil" as an adjective to describe abominable, malevolent, despicable?
For once, I'd have to agree with Tresopax. I don't believe any person is evil. I do believe that people can commit evil acts.
Anti-semitism is a belief. An ignorant one, in my opinion. It is not evil, nor are people who hold that belief. People who act on that belief may be committing evil acts.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Card is, even by conservative fundamentalist standards, a rather rabid homophobe.
Not really. He disapproves of homosexuality, certainly, and he tends to condescend towards those who promote the acceptance of homosexuality, but I've never seen evidence that he discriminates against homosexual people.
Lord, Chris. He has called for the force of law to be used to persecute homosexuals. Don't get me wrong; I like him. I like his writing, and I like a lot of his views as well. But on this one, the term homophobia, or bigotry towards gay people does apply. You can't say "We should put gay people in jail" and claim you have no problem with gay people. It just doesn't work that way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Anti-semitism is not anti-Judaism. It's Jew hatred. And yes, to hate all Muslims, because they are Muslim, is evil.
Yeah, that's why I applied the term 'anti-muslim,' which, likewise, wouldn't be anti-islamism, but rather the catchall for hating muslims. I think.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
He is very, very against the acceptance of a behavior he believes to be wrong. He is not against the people themselves.
I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's an important point. A homophobe is irrational, by definition, and can never be reasoned with. That doesn't apply here, I don't think, although it would certainly be an uphill battle. Likewise, labeling someone an anti-semite isn't terribly useful as it doesn't tell us much unless we immediately jump to assume the very worst and the accused must be one army away from committing genocide.
Someone with anti-semitic beliefs could be an otherwise wonderful person who likes Jew jokes. Or she could be someone who won't hire a Jew, or someone who won't date one. Or he could be someone who goes out and beats them up after work. Or he could be someone who makes a movie with anti-semetic themes and releases it worldwide.
I don't like labels. I think they do a disservice to the person so labeled and to the discussion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What's the opposite of "a racist can stop being a racist"?
Ooops... Nevermind what I just said about that. I read it as being the exact opposite as what you said... which means I actually agree with you on that one!
quote:If you don't think a person can be evil, then you've essentially denied the existence of evil.
No, I'm just denying that people are evil. There are plenty of things out there that are evil (such as rape and murder) - just not people.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*cough* I don't consider a non-Jew who refuses to date Jews an anti-semite. I consider them right. (Of course, I may or may not agree with their motivations for the choice.)
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
That's funny, I'd roll my eyes at a non-Mormon who refused to date a Mormon ... but if a Mormon refused to date a non-Mormon, I would understand. Why am I so messed up?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
quote:From "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality", by Orson Scott Card: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
I included that second paragraph so that no one would shoot back saying that I'd ignored it. But the fact that he says the intent isn't to put gays in jail doesn't mitigate his statement that the laws should stay on the books in the least. On the contrary; subjective law of that sort -- having laws that can be used arbitrarily as weapons when desired -- is always a bad thing. Favoring the abuse of governmental power to force people to abide by his views... well, that's the main area where he and I don't see eye to eye, but in this particular case, gays are his victims.
Again, I need to repeat that I see more positive than negative in OSC. But this is definitely homophobic bigotry. Replace "homosexuals" with any other group of people, and you'll see.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: That's funny, I'd roll my eyes at a non-Mormon who refused to date a Mormon ... but if a Mormon refused to date a non-Mormon, I would understand. Why am I so messed up?
If a Jew refused to date a non-Jew because of some kind of bias against non-Jews (rather than because it's just wrong), I'd think very little of that person. But I'd still be glad he or she wasn't dating a non-Jew.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Any other?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yes, kat. Are you enjoying yourself?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
You mean, replace "homosexuals" with "pedophiles" and we'll see a pedophilophobe?
He's talking about curtailing behavior that he believes to be immoral and illegal. I understand that not everyone shares that view about the behavior. But to use the word "homophobe" implies that he hates or is afraid of homosexual people, which he has shown time and time again is NOT true.
This is what drives me crazy ... comparing hating someone's chosen behavior to hating someone because of their race or religion. I can't stand people who blow up abortion clinics, but I'm not anti-fundamentalist Christian. I just hate the behavior. I hate suicide bombers but I'm not anti-Muslim. It's about behavior, not about hating a group of people.
And before anyone accuses me of comparing homosexual behavior to suicide bombers ... please. I'm not here to argue whether the behavior is right, just to argue that disapproving of someone's behavior is NOT the same thing as hating or fearing an entire group of people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I doubt that you and Card would select the same groups, and understanding the reasons behind eacb selection would help a great deal in understanding where the other is coming from.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not here to argue whether the behavior is right, just to argue that disapproving of someone's behavior is NOT the same thing as hating or fearing an entire group of people.
Likewise, merely disapproving of homosexuality is very different from saying that homosexuality should be an illegal sexual deviance.
Merely disapproving of homosexual behavior is also somewhat different from saying that homosexual behavior should not be accepted or tolerated in society, and that people who practice homosexuality should not be permitted equality in society!
The endorsement of such discrimination will, among other things, make one an excellent candidate for the label of 'homophobe.'
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: You mean, replace "homosexuals" with "pedophiles" and we'll see a pedophilophobe?
Sure. Because consensual and non-consensual are the same thing. Gag.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
You said to pick any group. I was trying to pick another group whose behavior is objected to. Perhaps I should've used marijuana users - that's another group that engages in behavior some people feel is immoral and should be illegal, and some people think is harmless and affects no one but themselves.
So if OSC thinks the laws against marijuana use should stay on the books, he's a bigot against drug users?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This is what drives me crazy ... comparing hating someone's chosen behavior to hating someone because of their race or religion.
It should be noted that one's religion IS a sort of chosen behavior.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
True, true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So if OSC thinks the laws against marijuana use should stay on the books, he's a bigot against drug users?
Nope. The comparison is unworkable, since the chief issue involving homosexuality is that it is not a personal choice even remotely in the form that a person electing to consume a recreational drug is. Being gay is greatly inborn and entirely immutable.
Fortunately, it's not much of an issue at all, as long as you live in a society that doesn't discriminate against you or criminalize you for your sexual preferences! You don't have to suffer or hide for virtue of the fact that you enjoy the company of the same sex.
Ain't this a good thing?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I think my point is being obscured by trying to compare it to other groups. I don't want to debate whether or not the feelings are a choice or whether or not the behavior is a choice or whether or not the behavior is moral.
My point is that to throw out a word like "homophobe" immediately ends the discussion. It means you want the other person to shut up because you don't want to hear their opinion. So you throw out a name that means they're a vile, unthinking bigot who hates a whole group of people and wants to persecute them and hang them all. Once that word is out there, then no one has to listen to the person's ideas at all anymore - they can just dismiss them with "Oh, he's just a homophobe." There are real homophobes out there, but using that word for someone like OSC diminishes the meaning of the word, because it's used to mean anyone who disagrees with the position of homosexuals, rather than the kind of scum who would drag a gay man to death behind their car because he's gay.
It happens a lot in Mormon circles too - someone will question an LDS doctrine, and the defensive Mormons in the group call him an anti-Mormon, and suddenly all discussion ceases. No reason to have a discussion at all, they're just an anti, and there's no use talking to them.
OSC has put forth his opinions clearly. I know many disagree with them. I disagree often myself. But he isn't filled with hate and trying to persecute people. He's just stating what kind of behavior he thinks ought to be illegal. That's an issue that can be debated - but the debate is over once the name-calling starts.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Personally, I'm waiting to hear from Chris. He wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
Well, now he's read it. I'm just wondering if he still thinks that OSC never said we should put gay people in jail.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
actually, if he wants to use the law to drive us into hiding, then yeah, he wants to persecute us.
I've been incredibly sad all day since I read that quote. I can only hope that Scott has had a change of heart since he wrote that...
I would think that mormons would be especially sensitive to people using the law... and extra legal methods... to drive out people who don't quite fit societal norms.
=(
Pix
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:OSC has put forth his opinions clearly. I know many disagree with them. I disagree often myself. But he isn't filled with hate and trying to persecute people. He's just stating what kind of behavior he thinks ought to be illegal. That's an issue that can be debated - but the debate is over once the name-calling starts.
Words can be descriptive, even if -- by context -- they are inexorably pejorative.
Exa: 'criminal,' or 'anti-semite.' Sometimes, there's just no getting around what one's actions will get one labeled as. If a debate is canned, ended simply on account of these labels, then I'd venture to guess that the debate environment and/or participancy was critically flawed to begin with. It isn't over inherently, any more so than this Mel Gibson issue was over when people brought out the Anti-Semite bomb.
There's an applied definition of homophobia; a criteria of what defines a comment, action, legislation, or opinion as being homophobic. A statement that homosexual acts should be made and kept illegal, and that homosexuals are beneath heterosexuals? Dead ringer. Anyone short of an apologist will admit that yeah, ... that's pretty homophobic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Personally, I'm waiting to hear from Chris. He wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
Well, now he's read it. I'm just wondering if he still thinks that OSC never said we should put gay people in jail.
Lisa it probably does not mean much, but again OSC has said he is in favor of laws that discourage PRACTICING homosexuals. In OSC view its stupid to nitpick about whether homosexuality is a choice as he feels that everyone is born with predispositions to do certain things that are wrong. A person who is homosexual then has no more claim for pity than a person who is born a pathological liar, or a person who is born with a titch of sadism.
I am not saying homosexuals are as bad as sadists, etc. Merely saying that from OSC perspective even if you could prove people are born homosexuals and it is not a choice in any way that that would matter little. For OSC the laws that punish those who ACT on those impulses should still remain in place.
Thinking that homosexuality is not right does not make you a homophobe, thinking that homosexuals are bad people or less deserving of the respect due all human beings does.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't imagine he'd still have it up on his site if he'd changed his view on the subject.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, mainly because I was raised by a racist - a man who sincerely believed white people were inherently better than all others and used racial epithets around the house routinely.
I have, in bad moments, channeled my stepfather and things have come out of my mouth which deeply shamed me as soon as I realized I said them. On one case I distinctly remember, alcohol was certainly involved.
That's interesting. I thought alcohol just removed your inhibitions, in particular, that it wouldn't make you say anything you didn't believe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I seriously doubt OSC wants to drive homosexuals into hiding. As another Mormon it seems to me that his desire is to show homosexuals that there is a way that brings more joy if one is willing to try it.
You can yell and rail at us for presuming to suggest to others what is best for them but that is the nature of a God based religion. We hear the ideas as they are revealed to us and we are invited to test them and prove them.
I know this might sound retarded to some, but there are moments in my life where I wonder that, "When the end of the world comes and all my friends are presented the truth in such a manner that they KNOW it is true, will they think that I was too cowardly to share it with them in the manner they deserved. Will they think I didn't care enough about them to share this wonderful message with them. Do I do what is required to be able to adequately communicate this truth to others, or am I too lazy in this regard. Will they condemn me for not braving their derision so that I could at least try my best to show them the truth?"
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:That's interesting I thought alcohol just removed your inhibitions, in particular, that it wouldn't make you say anything you didn't believe.
I think it's not a matter of what you do or don't believe, but alcohol loosening up your inhibition so that things you've heard all your childhood and young adulthood come out. Just because I repeated things my stepfather said doesn't mean I believed them. They were there, in my subconscious because they were beaten in to me by years of being raised in that environment. Doesn't mean I dont' still think those things were wrong.
You mean to tell me you've never blurted out something you've heard your parents say before, even though you swore to yourself you'd never say them? I know I have, even when I wasn't drinking, especially around my kids. I find myself saying things that when I was a kid I said "I'll never say that to my kids!" yet I do it anyway.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sorry for the delay, but by now it seems that most of my responses have been made.
I hadn't remembered that quote, and I'm saddened to see it, but it doesn't change my view. I do not believe that OSC hates and/or fears gay people. He hates and/or fears homosexual acts, the acceptance of those acts, and the changes he thinks will occur to society as a result of the acceptance of those acts. There is a distinction, small though it may be, and as JennaDean said that difference allows for discussion.
I have always had the impression that, given adequate reasoning and supportive findings, OSC might grudgingly accept some inroads of homosexual acceptance for a greater good. Civil unions, perhaps, or gay adoption. Whereas a homophobe, to be my way of thinking, isn't capable of addressing the issue. When pressed, a homophobe often can't give a real reason why he or she hates. It's a fear on a deeper level than conscious thought.
I don't want to seem like I'm OSC's apologist. But I think he holds that position based on reasoning and consideration and not on fear and ignorance. The fact that I flatly disagree with that position is besides the point.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
For those who think homosexuality should be legal, what about polygamy? People always make the pedophile comparison...but I don't think that is a valid comparison because as starLisa pointed out, consent differs. A pedophile is breaking the law (and morals) because he is involved in non consensual sex (the same as a rapist). However with polygamy and homosexuality both can be consensual.
For me, both are things I wouldn't do...but if someone else wants to do it, I'm not sure why it should be illegal. I've never understood why someone would think that homosexuality was fine but polygamy was wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lupus: I've never had somebody adequately argue that point either but I have had people who looked at me funny because I did not understand the difference, they acted like, "Everyone knows its not the same thing!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can yell and rail at us for presuming to suggest to others what is best for them but that is the nature of a God based religion. We hear the ideas as they are revealed to us and we are invited to test them and prove them.
But where are we required to make other choices, choices that harm no one, illegal so that everybody has to do what we think was revealed? As I recall, we are "invited" to refrain from judging.
If you want to be an example, that's ducky. Making it illegal not to follow your example is coersion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can yell and rail at us for presuming to suggest to others what is best for them but that is the nature of a God based religion. We hear the ideas as they are revealed to us and we are invited to test them and prove them.
But where are we required to make other choices, choices that harm no one, illegal so that everybody has to do what we think was revealed? As I recall, we are "invited" to refrain from judging.
If you want to be an example, that's ducky. Making it illegal not to follow your example is coersion.
If you are a Mormon you were invited to, "Refrain from judging unjustly."
The natural response to your statement would be something along the lines of:
"But you are coercing me to tolerate the existance of an act that I think is wrong and harmful."
you would say, "How do 2 homosexuals having sex effect you adversely directly?"
and I would respond with something like, "It cuts away at the family structure which is the groundwork of good society."
You would argue that it does not, I would say it does so, and I would ask why I am being asked to not vote according to my own beliefs. I'd rather just avoid the standard list of exchanges.
To be honest, I personally am not sure how I feel about anti homosexual legislation. I made a thread about this very question a few weeks ago. On the one hand I do think homosexuality ought to be discouraged in a moral and effective manner, and I think legislation making polygamy illegal is absolutely bogus.
But on the other hand how can I in a democracy support legislation that discourages a behavior that people very positively believe is right.
And then I think again, "Why shouldn't I vote for legislation the supports behavior I agree with and discourages behavior I think is wrong?" If a person cannot vote to make their environment more to their liking whats the point of voting?
I am still at a quagmire, so don't look to me for effective explanations concerning this dilemma.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But where are we required to make other choices, choices that harm no one, illegal so that everybody has to do what we think was revealed?
The term illegal is very imprecise here.
Polygamy is, in most states, illegal in the sense that a man living with a legal wife and three other women whom he refers to as "my wives" (but not in any legal sense) but has not attempted to legally wed can be thrown in prison.
As of Lawrence v. Texas, a homosexual couple can live together and refer to each other as "my spouse" (but not in any legal sense) without facing criminal sanction.
There is a vast difference between the law not recognizing a particular consensual adult relationship and criminalizing a particular consensual adult relationship, and homosexual couples do not face the latter consequence today.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, I wasn't refering to current law, but to this suggestion that "homosexual behavior" shold be illegal:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality", by Orson Scott Card: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lupus: I have no problem with polygamy so long as everyone in the relationship is married to everyone else. That is, the relationship is a triangle, not a V.
I even seen the advantage in it. Two spouses work, one stays at home and takes care of a whole mess of kids. Sounds like heaven to me. Too bad I don't love that way.
Still, as much as I think it should be legally recognized, it's different from the fight for gay rights in that it is MUCH more complicated when things fall apart and the courts must decide who gets what and what happens with the children.
If marriage was forever, like it's supposed to be, this wouldn't be an issue... But as the divorce statistics show, people havea hard time sticking together with one person... how much harder is it to stick together with 2 or more people.
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pixiest, I had a point by point rebuttal of your post, but it seemed kinda pointless (excuse the pun) to just outline why your thinking is wrong in regards to polygamy.
All I will say is I think that the fact people talk so much about gay marriage and almost no attention is paid to polygamy is very much akin to fighting for the rights of one ethnic group to vote while ignoring the claims of another.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE]
Let me put it another way though: I think that, in most cases, you don't need to know anything about the artist in order to appreciate his or her art in the deepest and most meaningful way. Or, more broadly, I simply think that it is possible to take great meaning from art in a way that is totally unrelated to the creator and the creator's intentions. That is what I mean when I said the art is "separate" from the artist.
This makes considerably more sense as a position, however it still requires that you approach art from a position that politics is not an issue for you at all. That connection, for you, has to be ignored.
Also, how will his politics effect his films? Isn't he capable of doing things, portraying people in ways that he wants you to believe? If you believe that good art is also cathardic, then what about a false catharsis, where you are exposed to his twisted vision? We are none of us immune from suggestion, and we ussually freely admit being "affected" by a good film. I wonder too if we are affected by the wrong images in a film.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: Unfortunately we gotta fight these things one at a time and we have to pick our fights.
It would be nice if, when we finally get equal rights, we won't turn our backs on the polyamorous/polygamists (whichever they prefer to be called) It would be nice if we would fight for their rights too.
But people have a tendancy not to care about equal rights for others once their group gets equality.
Personally, I think it was an abuse of power to require mormons to change their religion before the US would like Utah become a state.
Honestly, I'd be interested in your point by point disection of my comments. I'm assuming you've been in a polyamorous relationship or have been close to those that have?
Please email me if you don't want to discuss this publicly. p ix ie st (at) y a hoo (dot) co m
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: Unfortunately we gotta fight these things one at a time and we have to pick our fights.
It would be nice if, when we finally get equal rights, we won't turn our backs on the polyamorous/polygamists (whichever they prefer to be called) It would be nice if we would fight for their rights too.
But people have a tendancy not to care about equal rights for others once their group gets equality.
Personally, I think it was an abuse of power to require mormons to change their religion before the US would like Utah become a state.
Honestly, I'd be interested in your point by point disection of my comments. I'm assuming you've been in a polyamorous relationship or have been close to those that have?
Please email me if you don't want to discuss this publicly. p ix ie st (at) y a hoo (dot) co m
Pix
I found out recently that several of my ancestors on my maternal grandparents side were polygamists but I set my feelings on the topic long before I learned of this. I must admit its "interesting" to find out that one is decended from a polygamist wife.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: So what is it you think of polygamy? Now that I've told you what I think.
I figure if we could see all the details on every person in our family tree we'd find a lot of things to admire and a lot of things that are less than admirable. And a lot of things that are debatable as to which category they fit into.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Reading the wikipedia artile on Polygamy would prove useful to even the casual reader.
Its interesting that EVERY single major religion allows for the practice of at least polygyny
There are not many precepts that have achieved such general acceptance, though admitedly mainstream Christianity does not allow for Polygamy of any sort. Interestingly enough Martin Luther said, that he could not, "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."
According to Wikipedia the Libertarian party is in favor of decriminalizing polygamy as part of its belief that the govt ought not to regulate marriage at all.
Even within societies that allow for polygamy it is still seldomly practiced.
You could argue quite effectively that polygamy is as ancient if not more so than homosexuality. You could also argue that polygamists are going to jail for their beliefs whereas homosexuals are starting to ask for benefits (marriage) rather then the right to be homosexual.
Sorry to disapoint but I am going to be honest that I am not sure how I can expect other Christians who think polygamy is evil that they should remove the anti polygamous legislation and at the same time support legislation designed to control homosexuality.
I guess I have to fall back on the logic that I should not be required to vote against my personal convictions.
Is it a possibility than there is no way that EVERY single idea can exist at the same time, even in a society? If that is so then it seems possible that I could support polygamy being decriminalized and homosexuality continuing to be denied marriage priveledges and adoption rights.
I really am not sure sometimes how I feel about all of it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
After reading that I'm not sure how you feel about it either.
quote: Sorry to disapoint but I am going to be honest that I am not sure how I can expect other Christians who think polygamy is evil that they should remove the anti polygamous legislation and at the same time support legislation designed to control homosexuality.
This is particularly difficult to parse.
It seems to me that given your druthers you'd vote "Yes" to polygamy but "No" for homosexuals on the basis that polygamy is not forbidden by scripture.
Please let me know if I am misinterpreting you.
However, this isn't a theocrasy and when people vote their religion we end up with some pretty awful things... like blue laws and sexual minorities being opressed.
For those who think voting their religion is a good thing, I want you to concider that the US might not always be predominately christian. At some point, due to immigration and a falling native birth rate, we could be hindu, buddist or even Muslim. I'm sure you won't enjoy living under Sharia law any more than I would.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: After reading that I'm not sure how you feel about it either.
quote: Sorry to disapoint but I am going to be honest that I am not sure how I can expect other Christians who think polygamy is evil that they should remove the anti polygamous legislation and at the same time support legislation designed to control homosexuality.
This is particularly difficult to parse.
It seems to me that given your druthers you'd vote "Yes" to polygamy but "No" for homosexuals on the basis that polygamy is not forbidden by scripture.
Please let me know if I am misinterpreting you.
However, this isn't a theocrasy and when people vote their religion we end up with some pretty awful things... like blue laws and sexual minorities being opressed.
For those who think voting their religion is a good thing, I want you to concider that the US might not always be predominately christian. At some point, due to immigration and a falling native birth rate, we could be hindu, buddist or even Muslim. I'm sure you won't enjoy living under Sharia law any more than I would.
I wouldnt say I think Polygamy is ALWAYS good and that homosexuality is bad because the scriptures say so.
I have my own reasons for believing that homosexuality is not good, and I am not so much a fool as to think that polygamy is catergorically always good. There are people that should not practice it, but I do think there are certain people that would benefit from the system existing.
It might sound strange but I do not think my particular brand of Christianity has espoused any sort of generally agreed upon evil. Utah was the 2nd state to allow women the right to vote, and it entered the union as a free state, it also did not support segregation to say a few things.
But most Utahn do support the movement to block gay marriages, yet there was plenty of debate on the topic. I personally voted against the gay marriage ban that past in 2004 because I thought giving civil unions to homosexuals was an acceptable compromise.
I am still against allowing homosexuals to adopt children, and I do not think schools should have literature either espousing or discouraging the sentiment of homosexuality.
I'm sorry that I cannot give you a perfect answer to your queries as I myself have not come to a complete conclusion.
I would like to say Pixiest that I feel absolutely no emnity towards homosexuals. As a younger person I was a homophobic person (a state that I do not blame on my religion but on myself) my religion has never advocated shuning those who do not believe as I do, I simply made the classical mistake of not weighing somebodies motives and reasons and instead simply saw the act. Its not easy for me to admit having been so foolish even though it would be easy for me to simply dismiss it as adolecent foolishness.
I guess I find it difficult to accept that people say to me, "Do not impose your beliefs on others, they have a right to live in this society too." and the fact that by asking me to do that you are in fact saying, "Step aside while we establish our beliefs within the society you live in, it is wrong of you to voice your disent and even more so to vote accordingly."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: I guess I find it difficult to accept that people say to me, "Do not impose your beliefs on others, they have a right to live in this society too." and the fact that by asking me to do that you are in fact saying, "Step aside while we establish our beliefs within the society you live in, it is wrong of you to voice your disent and even more so to vote accordingly."
Its this line of reasoning that got my ancestors (and yours I presume) burned out of everywhere they went because people wouldn't "step aside" and let the mormons to live in peace.
Unfortunately, there's no empty western territory for all us queers to move to and establish our own home.
As for gay and lesbian adoption.. even if you believe a child being raised by two women is less than optimal, how can you say it's better than being raised in an orphanage?
Especially if headway is made on the abortion front (I'm pro-choice but I wish people would choose adoption) there will be a greater and greater need for couples, gay or straight, or even singles! to adopt children who are not aborted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perhaps but I honestly do not know how many kids languish in orphanage in the US these days.
I would definately benefit from posession knowledge on the subject, Ill try to get on that.
And actually there are in fact several countries that allow for gay marriage in Europe.
Though as a quick qualification I do NOT wish homosexuals to feel unwelcome within the US.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You realize of course, that we are unwelcome in most of the US. Which is why I had to leave my home straight out of school before I came out of the closet and could actually start living my life.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ill be back tomorrow pretty much all day Pixiest and we can continue this later, I am enjoying the conversation thus far, I hope you are too.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
actually, I'm incredibly depressed about it all
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
BlackBlade, you seem caught up in this "vote my conscience" thing. Let me give my opinion on that. Of course you should be able to vote your conscience. However, I don't think that anybody should have the right to vote at all concerning an issue that involves how other people live their lives, given that the behavior is not destructive to anybody else. I'm not saying that there should be laws allowing homosexuality and polygamy, I'm saying that there should be no laws regarding these things at all, period. We don't, and under no circumstances should we, have the right to vote to control the books somebody reads, nor should we have the right to control who somebody spends their time with.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Utah was the 2nd state to allow women the right to vote, and it entered the union as a free state, it also did not support segregation to say a few things.
Just for the record . . . when Utah first petitioned to become a state, we did so as a slave state. Even though there you could almost count the number of slaves in the whole territory on your fingers, there were Mormon slave owners, and the church was adverse to making them criminals. Linky. By the time we were actually admited into the union in 1896, the whole free/slave dicotomy was no longer an issue.
Now, women's sufferage, that's a fun story. Anti-polygamy groups from back east were agitating to give women the vote in Utah, under the assumption that if women had any say in the matter, they would surely make the practice illegal. The territorial legislature was game, and unanimously passed an act in 1869 giving women the vote. But surprise, surprise, the women did not vote against polygamy. The infamous Edmunds-Tucker act not only outlawed polygamy in 1887, but stripped Utah women of the vote. Not to worry, though, we got it back when we finally became a state; women's sufferage is written into the state constitution. Linky. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Personally, I'm waiting to hear from Chris. He wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: He has never said we should put gay people in jail, not that I've ever read. He has said that laws should not be changed to acknowledge homosexuals.
Well, now he's read it. I'm just wondering if he still thinks that OSC never said we should put gay people in jail.
Consider 1. OSC's intent in what he said: his stated goal of discouraging homosexual behavior.
Consider 2. The intent Chris had in denying that "Osc wants to put gays in jail." Chris was rightly correcting an exaggeration and misrepresentation of intent. OSC did not say: "put gays in jail," not directly. He said the laws which allow gays to be jailed should remain on the books, and he said it was to discourage the behavior.
Please Lisa, believe me when I say I agree that even that is bigoted and narrow minded, but it is not in the affirmative sense: "Put these gays in jail." You do no justice to any argument by misrepresenting the opposition. You have nothing to hide from this argument, and OSC's view should be enough as he stated it, without you projecting intent into it, to argue against. I know you partly want to just snow the issue and make the opposition look worse than it is, but you won't ever (have you ever?) win an argument if you refuse to actually argue honestly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know this might sound retarded to some, but there are moments in my life where I wonder that, "When the end of the world comes and all my friends are presented the truth in such a manner that they KNOW it is true, will they think that I was too cowardly to share it with them in the manner they deserved. Will they think I didn't care enough about them to share this wonderful message with them. Do I do what is required to be able to adequately communicate this truth to others, or am I too lazy in this regard. Will they condemn me for not braving their derision so that I could at least try my best to show them the truth?"
God this is egotistical. Please, spare us.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Also, how will his politics effect his films? Isn't he capable of doing things, portraying people in ways that he wants you to believe? If you believe that good art is also cathardic, then what about a false catharsis, where you are exposed to his twisted vision? We are none of us immune from suggestion, and we ussually freely admit being "affected" by a good film. I wonder too if we are affected by the wrong images in a film.
It will effect it in one of two ways: It might make the films bad (false, boring, etc.), in which case they will be bad whether or not we know what Gibson's politics are. Or they might not make the films bad, in which case they will remain good whether or not we know what Gibson's politics are. Thus, we can still judge the film on its own merits, regardless of any knowledge of Gibson's politics, because his politics are only an issue to the film-watcher insofar as they harm or improve the merits of the film.
As for being "affected" by a film, that is true. But the degree to which a film would convince us to be anti-semitic is not determined by Mel Gibson's level of antisemitism. It is determined by the degree of anti-semitism expressed in the film. If Hitler made a film that had no anti-semitic images in it, then the film would not be anti-semitic, no matter how its creator feels about Jews. And if the state of Israel produced a film that for some reason contained a bunch of anti-semitic themes, it could be anti-semitic no matter how its creator feels.
quote:God this is egotistical. Please, spare us.
If you had a choice between being egotistical in order to save your friends and letting your friends die, what would you do?
[ August 03, 2006, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A side story.
Let's say a person comes to me, and starts talking about his anti-homosexuality religious position. He thinks that homosexuality is wrong and absolutely should not be practiced in this country. In fact, he thinks that there should be laws on the books to criminalize homosexual sex.
I'll listen to the position, and say "Gee, homophobic much?"
Then say that this person says "Nono -- I'm not homophobic. See, I'm not in favor of making homosexuality itself illegal, or in favor of punishing homosexuals. I just want to make it so that people who practice homosexual acts be treated as societal lessers and prosecuted under anti-homosexual act laws."
"Oh," I say. "So if all these otherwise free homosexual men and women hang around and just never elect to have consensual homosexual sex with each other as they would otherwise want, then you only think of them as misguided, and not criminals."
"Yes. In addition, I'm only really doing this because I care for the homosexuals. Also, I'm simply attempting to legislate this way based on my personal belief that even allowing homosexuals to have sex with each other in the privacy of their own home is damaging to a healthy, good society and thus must be legislated against. This isn't homophobic. It's just doing what's right for the homosexuals."
"Gee, homophobic much?"
Sorry, no weaseling out on bogus distinctions. Wanting gay sex to be criminal is a distinctly homophobic position
Did you notice how every hypothetical 'no, I'm not a homophobe because X' situation presented above was based accurately on senator Rick Santorum's arguments that he, too, is not a homophobe?
addendum
quote:I don't want to seem like I'm OSC's apologist. But I think he holds that position based on reasoning and consideration and not on fear and ignorance.
It doesn't have to be fear/hatred/ignorance for homophobia. To say that something is 'homophobic' has become the catchall term for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against homosexuals.
This makes it like the catchall term 'racism' for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against different races.
Both are -- as mentioned before -- unavoidably pejorative, but they are both descriptive. A person who wants to criminalize interracial marriages is a racist. And they can't weasel out of being a racist just because they claim that their position is 'based on reasoning and consideration, not fear and hatred.'
Nope, the term still applies.
[ August 03, 2006, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's nonsense. Repeating it doesn't make it true.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: Your derision is duely noted. Also only you have stated as much, try not speaking for others, "us" unless you are sure others feel the same way.
thx Tresopax, though I confess I think being egotistical would probably serve as a retardent to one being able to communicate with others.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
People used to burn gays and witches to "clense their soul" so they would go to heaven anyway.
I'm not big on the whole "We're persecuting you for your own good" angle...
Orincoro: It's not egotistical. It's caring about your friends. If you're worried your friend is going to go to hell, you warn them. And after the 5th time they tell YOU to go to hell, you need to give up or risk losing the friendship.
Just remember though, BB, you think you're right, a suicide bomber thinks he's right, a hindude thinks he's right, a catholic thinks he's right... Isn't it better just to leave eachother to their beliefs?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The difficulty I have Pixiest is that say I allow homosexuals to practice freely, get married, and integrate their way of life more and more into mainstream society, I and my family down the road have to exist in that society. Sure I can raise my kids with my own values but that does not mean they will not be directly effected by the society they live in.
Certainly homosexual marriage is not the nail in the coffin for my kids, but its just one more thing that I think makes society worse, other peoples behavior does in fact effect me as much as people say it doesnt. Its not like people are homosexual inside their home and once they leave they arnt.
I'm trying to be as politely honest as I know how.
again I am not sure what the solution to all this is, and I suppose anything I write is not very useful as I very likely may change my mind in some regard down the road, possibly while debating in this very thread.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If you're going to exist in society there are going to be people you disagree with and people who offend you. Just as mormons were offensive to the rest of society in their time.
If anything, you can use homosexuality as an example of things you think are wrong but must be tolerated if we are all going to co-exist.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'll listen to the position, and say "Gee, homophobic much?"
Then say that this person says "Nono -- I'm not homophobic. See, I'm not in favor of making homosexuality itself illegal, or in favor of punishing homosexuals. I just want to make it so that people who practice homosexual acts be treated as societal lessers and prosecuted under anti-homosexual act laws."
"Oh," I say. "So if all these otherwise free homosexual men and women hang around and just never elect to have consensual homosexual sex with each other as they would otherwise want, then you only think of them as misguided, and not criminals."
"Yes. In addition, I'm only really doing this because I care for the homosexuals. Also, I'm simply attempting to legislate this way based on my personal belief that even allowing homosexuals to have sex with each other in the privacy of their own home is damaging to a healthy, good society and thus must be legislated against. This isn't homophobic. It's just doing what's right for the homosexuals."
"Gee, homophobic much?"
Is this story supposed to suggest your position is correct? You don't offer any argument for your position at all. If you have no response to the other position other than to blindly repeat "Gee, homophobic much?" then all it illustrates is that you have decided to call people homophobic whether it is actually true or not.
quote:It doesn't have to be fear/hatred/ignorance for homophobia. To say that something is 'homophobic' has become the catchall term for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against homosexuals.
That isn't true. Claiming that homosexual relationships are problematic does not make you homophobic, unless it is based in some fear or hatred you have of homosexuals. That's the reason why being homophobic is inherently bad - precisely because being homophobic entails an unnecessary hatred or fear of other people that is not based in reason.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's like the reasoning behind freedom of speech and expression, in a way. It allows people to openly express things that I may personally detest (KKK rallies, etc etc) but it is entirely more important that I live in a society that lets them do that.
The alternative is hideous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The difficulty I have Pixiest is that say I allow homosexuals to practice freely, get married, and integrate their way of life more and more into mainstream society, I and my family down the road have to exist in that society. Sure I can raise my kids with my own values but that does not mean they will not be directly effected by the society they live in.
Certainly homosexual marriage is not the nail in the coffin for my kids, but its just one more thing that I think makes society worse, other peoples behavior does in fact effect me as much as people say it doesnt. Its not like people are homosexual inside their home and once they leave they arnt.
I'm trying to be as politely honest as I know how.
again I am not sure what the solution to all this is, and I suppose anything I write is not very useful as I very likely may change my mind in some regard down the road, possibly while debating in this very thread.
BB, honey, homosexuality isn't contagious. No one is trying to change how you live. But you don't get to live in America and only have contact with people who agree with you or are just like you. Some find this diversity a joy.
At any rate, I am glad to see that you may change your mind.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tres: actually aren't they afraid of homosexuals impact on society? Isn't that the entire reason they want to opress us?
Though they still haven't expressed what they're specifically afraid of other than "it's bad, ok?"
BB: out of curiousity, what's your opinion on Atheists trying to remove symbols of christianity from society? "Under God" in the pledge, "In God We Trust" on the currency, crosses at war memorials, prayer in school? Wouldn't you like to express your religion regardless of what other people think your impact on society would be?
I take the christian's side on all of those issues despite being an atheist and bisexual, because I don't care if your christian and I don't care if you flaunt it. Just don't try to tell me how to live my life either. Either through law, sermons, or a fence in the middle of no where on a freezing winters morning.
Pix
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That isn't true. Claiming that homosexual relationships are problematic does not make you homophobic, unless it is based in some fear or hatred you have of homosexuals. That's the reason why being homophobic is inherently bad - precisely because being homophobic entails an unnecessary hatred or fear of other people that is not based in reason.
This is broaching on the fact that the term 'homophobia' is being used, commonly, in a manner which is technically incorrect.
It's true! The technical definition is, in its origins, entirely different. In fact, the term's technical relation to phobia makes it one of the worst possible terms to have become a catchall for the anti-gay. But, .. it is.
I'm not saying that it's wrong or right, just that it is.
Similar to how the lay usage of the term is a complete distortion of its true definition, let's talk about 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-semite.' This is another catchall term -- this one for anti-jewish sentiment -- which is being used completely incorrectly, based on what defines a semitic person. This creates the curious condition where semite and anti-semite aren't antonyms.
But it's recognized that an anti-semite is a person who hates or discriminates against jews. Despite the fact that you could make the argument that technically, anti-semitism is a correct term for discrimination against any one of the cultures that speak a language in the semitic family, or something. I've listened to people argue about it for hours.
But in defense of my complicit usage of the terms, keep it in mind that the way you are attempting to frame the correct usage of the word would make it so that practically nobody short of Fred Phelps could possibly fail to defend themselves from the application of the term, via motive.
Rick Santorum, Jerry Vines, Pat Robertson, Laura Schlessinger, Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Gary Potter, David Trosch, Bob Dornan, -- all of these people make textbook examples of folk who have (in my eyes, rightfully) been labeled homophobes. When you say that a homophobe has to have their discrimination based on fear or hatred, then all of these people fail to qualify for a term that a great many people would qualify them under -- they can just escape by saying 'it's not hate, it's god's love' or something.
In this circumstance, it's the same word, but it's commonly used in a way that you are denying it can be used under. However, it's still used that way, all of the time.
This is not a criticism, it's not me telling you that you can't be right to define it this way, this is just a curious observation of a linguistic flux. I'm using a common, widespread definition which is completely at odds with how you are defining it. I would nominally want to continue using the term, since I find it very handy in circumstances where you have a person genuinely asserting that gay sex should be criminal and prosecutable in the United States like it is in many theocratic nations, but if it's really that controversial here, I'm open to not using the term ever again for anyone short of Phelps or Paul Cameron, or perhaps Randall Terry, since we don't have to speculate that their motivations are fear and hatred (which, under your disparate definition, have to be evidently manifest to qualify them for the label), and they don't get to hide behind plausible deniability.
I suppose I could substitute the relatively vanilla term 'anti-homosexual.'
/edit:
Wikipedia tried to give me an answer:
quote:As behaviors and thoughts that are frequently considered homophobic are often not fear based but instead reflect a disapproval of homosexuality, recent psychological literature has favored the term homonegativity.
... but 'homonegativity' and 'homonegativist' are so odd sounding that I don't think I'll use them.
[ August 03, 2006, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What I don't understand, BB, is how admitting and recognizing homosexuals is a threat to your kids.
I would believe it is a great educational opportunity. Your kids are going to see two boys holding hands, or two girls embracing, whether they are legally allowed to marry or not. They are going to ask you about it. That is a perfect time to both talk to them about the importance of the Christian view on this behavior, and the greatness that is our country for respecting those couples beliefs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: This may be a bad example but how would you feel about people who are trying to legalize narcotics and all other forms of drugs? What they do in their own home is their business and they have a right to use drugs all they want, what right do we have to try and stop them?
The Pixiest: I grew up going to a Lutheran Private school where they considered Mormonism to be a non Christian cult. We had mandatory Chapels where there was prayer and the way they prayed was wrong to me. When they had interfaith chapel Mormonism was presented seperate from Christianity and what the spokesman was going to say had to be looked over first (not even the person representing the agnostics or even the atheists had to do that).
I was a member of the gymnastics team and unfortunately they had all their tournaments on sunday and I explained to my coach that I could not attend tournaments on sunday (I had 2 Mormons friends on the team that did anyway). You'd think a Christian Private school could understand Sabbath observance. At the end of the year they had a big party for the team and I was not invited because I, to use my coaches words, "Did not support the team by coming to tournaments." I had to put up with teachers and other students misrepresenting my religion, insulting me, ridiculing me.
Perhaps your horror stories far surpass mine, but I am merely trying to show that I know what its like to be persecuted for ones beliefs, beliefs I had every right to posess and harmed nobody as far I was aware of.
As for Atheists removing Christian symbology. I think was can honor the Christian values our great men and women had without making people unduely uncomfortable. I personally thought a school that acknowledges all schools of thought works fine, but if there must be that much of a seperationg between church and state I am fine with public schools allowing children to pray within their walls but not encouraging or discouraging the practice. If my child wants to go to school and pray before eating his/her lunch, I think that should be fine. If my child wants to express her beliefs in a discussion that should be fine. I am also fine with teachers not trying to endorse their own particular religion to their students.
Currency and pledges of allegience, are a national thing. If more people want the phrases "Under God" and, "In God we trust," removed from currency and the pledge then it ought to be removed, and vice versa. The pledge and currency exist for the America of today not the America of the founding fathers. If the American people as a whole do not feel trust in God or feel that we are a nation under God, then our pledge and currency should reflect that sentiment.
People who wish to express their faith as a memorial when they die on the battlefield ought to have that right. I do not believe in stifling the memory of the dead.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for double posting:
Dan_raven: Perhaps...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: So having been persecuted, however mildly, by a fellow christian sect... how can you justify persecuting gay people?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is this turning into a game of who is the bigger martyr?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually, I didn't interpret it that way, Katharina, I assumed we were looking for a common ground.
Maybe I'm naive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Is this turning into a game of who is the bigger martyr?
I always lose this game. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sorry to break into this debate again, but BB the drug user analogy breaks down.
Drug addiction is rarely confined to the limitations of one's home. It leads to all sorts of anti-social behavior, from theft to murder as the need to feed the addiction increases. It also makes a person less productive, dangerously so when others may have their lives in the hands of the participants. Finally there is the eventual health issues, that the government usually, eventually covers, or the increase in health insurance costs if they dont.
While some may argue there are higher health costs with homosexual practices, that is easily debated away (there are no unplanned pregnancies in a homosexual relationship for one thing).
Now you may compare sexual addiction to drug addiction, by the nature of that sex makes no difference in those arguments.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
dan: actually, there are fewer diseases amongst lesbians as well.
For some reason, the gay debate always centers around the boys. =(
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The Pixiest: How am I condoning the persecution of homosexuals specifically?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: This may be a bad example but how would you feel about people who are trying to legalize narcotics and all other forms of drugs? What they do in their own home is their business and they have a right to use drugs all they want, what right do we have to try and stop them?
The Pixiest: I grew up going to a Lutheran Private school where they considered Mormonism to be a non Christian cult. We had mandatory Chapels where there was prayer and the way they prayed was wrong to me. When they had interfaith chapel Mormonism was presented seperate from Christianity and what the spokesman was going to say had to be looked over first (not even the person representing the agnostics or even the atheists had to do that).
I was a member of the gymnastics team and unfortunately they had all their tournaments on sunday and I explained to my coach that I could not attend tournaments on sunday (I had 2 Mormons friends on the team that did anyway). You'd think a Christian Private school could understand Sabbath observance. At the end of the year they had a big party for the team and I was not invited because I, to use my coaches words, "Did not support the team by coming to tournaments." I had to put up with teachers and other students misrepresenting my religion, insulting me, ridiculing me.
Perhaps your horror stories far surpass mine, but I am merely trying to show that I know what its like to be persecuted for ones beliefs, beliefs I had every right to posess and harmed nobody as far I was aware of.
As for Atheists removing Christian symbology. I think was can honor the Christian values our great men and women had without making people unduely uncomfortable. I personally thought a school that acknowledges all schools of thought works fine, but if there must be that much of a seperationg between church and state I am fine with public schools allowing children to pray within their walls but not encouraging or discouraging the practice. If my child wants to go to school and pray before eating his/her lunch, I think that should be fine. If my child wants to express her beliefs in a discussion that should be fine. I am also fine with teachers not trying to endorse their own particular religion to their students.
Currency and pledges of allegience, are a national thing. If more people want the phrases "Under God" and, "In God we trust," removed from currency and the pledge then it ought to be removed, and vice versa. The pledge and currency exist for the America of today not the America of the founding fathers. If the American people as a whole do not feel trust in God or feel that we are a nation under God, then our pledge and currency should reflect that sentiment.
People who wish to express their faith as a memorial when they die on the battlefield ought to have that right. I do not believe in stifling the memory of the dead.
The drug example is not a great one, drug use does cause verifiable harm to people where homosexual behavior does not. However, for the record, I think we should legalize at least some narcotics and I do think that what people do in their own homes (with reasonable safeguards for children) is their own business.
Do you think what they did to you at your school was right?
"I think was can honor the Christian values our great men and women had without making people unduely uncomfortable."
And perhaps we can allow people to have the personal relationships that they want to have without being unduly uncomfortable.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: You are condoning the persecution of homosexuals by being FOR laws against us.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: I do not think it was right, but I can understand why they did it. Nothing is more dangerous then evil in the guise of good. I belonged to a religion they believe embodies this.
quote:And perhaps we can allow people to have the personal relationships that they want to have without being unduly uncomfortable
From how I understand things, the law allows for homosexuals to be with each other all they want.
To bring things back full circle, polygamy does not even have that.
It would be interesting to see the media reaction if the man on the FBI's most wanted list as a homosexual instead of a polygamist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for double posting
The Pixiest: What laws?
I voted against a gay civil union ban.
The only thing I guess I could be accused of as repressing homosexuals is that I am not in favor of them adopting children. Though the utilitarian arguement that its better for children to have any parents rather than none may be valid in this case. I have been trying to look up orphan demographics in the US but its proving difficult.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: The law does not grant our families the same protections and obligations that it does for heterosexuals. Some states deny gay adoption. Imagine raising your child until she's 10 then your partner dies and oops, you're not the child's biological parent so we're taking your babygirl away and you'll never see her again.
As for polygamy, I already told you I'm on your side there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:God this is egotistical. Please, spare us.
If you had a choice between being egotistical in order to save your friends and letting your friends die, what would you do?
*snort*
That depends on whether I think Blackblade is some kind of suffering authority on moral truth... I don't, he's just an ego.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Please be nice, Orincoro =(
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Orincoro: It's not egotistical. It's caring about your friends. If you're worried your friend is going to go to hell, you warn them. And after the 5th time they tell YOU to go to hell, you need to give up or risk losing the friendship. [/QB]
See Pix, there is this assumption in that, that you are the bearer of some higher truth and you KNOW that you can save your friends because obviously you are so great. The way Blackblade said it, he assumes he knows the truth and is just busting at the seams to "save" people. This is egotism. If they are really your friends, first of all, you are comfortable sharing your beliefs with them, and you DON'T try to change them and "save" them. This is my problem, in general with missionaries and prothletizers, they are so sure of themselves, and so often wrong about everything. The assumption of this righteousness is egotism.
Edit: And it occurs to me that if I had a friend who was saving up his moral truths to save my soul, that would be a bad friendship, and wouldn't endure that lack of trust and understanding.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Orincoro: You missed the next part of my post
quote:Just remember though, BB, you think you're right, a suicide bomber thinks he's right, a hindude thinks he's right, a catholic thinks he's right... Isn't it better just to leave eachother to their beliefs?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: I do not "bust at the seams." to save people. But it would be lying to say that I do not feel joy when others find happiness in the truth I ahve found.
I am not an idiot when it comes to sharing my beliefs with others, I know when people want to hear them and when they do not.
Just because I believe the truth I posess is the greatest truth that could be known does NOT mean I think I am a great person. I have plenty of friends who are even less interested in my beliefs then you are, and we get along just fine because I do not require that my friends play audience to my religious beliefs in order to be my friends. Though most of my friends are quite willing to talk about beliefs of any sort.
Even when I WAS a full time missionary if I met somebody like you on the street I would probably talk about something else for just a few minutes as you would have probably made it pretty plain pretty fast that you were uninterested in what my message was, that does not stop me from engaging in interesting conversation with you.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres: actually aren't they afraid of homosexuals impact on society? Isn't that the entire reason they want to opress us?
No, I think homophobic people want to oppress homophobic people because they simply don't like them and/or don't like them around, or wouldn't want to run across someone gay at any point in their lives.
Thinking that homosexuality has negative effects on society is an entirely different justification for oppressing homophobic behavior, which is based in reason - reason that in my humble opinion is mistaken, but is still nonetheless reason rather than emotion. It is not homophobia.
Of course, you could assume that anyone in the latter group is actually someone in the former group who doesn't want to admit their true reasons for trying to restrict homosexuality, but I don't think it is fair to assume they actually hold a position that they don't claim to hold.
quote:In this circumstance, it's the same word, but it's commonly used in a way that you are denying it can be used under. However, it's still used that way, all of the time.
As I've frequently claimed in the past, I don't think that just because a word is misused commonly it is okay to misuse it. That only leads to confusion, because then people start getting the actual meaning of the word mixed up with how people are misusing it. For instance, kids can say "That's gay!" and by "gay" they just mean "uncool". The trouble is that the true meaning of "gay" is still attached to the word, so that by misusing it in that way, they mix themselves up into thinking that being gay in the homosexual sense is equivalent to being uncool in the other sense of the word. That is why you must be careful when you define words and use them.
In this case, a similar mix up is occuring. On the one hand, people are calling anyone who opposes homosexuality a "homophobe", even if they don't hate homosexual people. But then, when people hear that OSC is a homophobe, they think it means he must hate homosexual people - because that is what homophobe actually means. OSC only falls into the homophobe category under the mistaken definition, but once the label is given to him under that definition, people get confused and thinks he fits into the real definition too - even though he has said that he does not hate gay people.
The bottom line is this: It is possible to use "homophobe" to include ANYONE who considers homosexual behavior to be harmful. But if you use "homophobe" in that way, then it is no longer a very negative term. If you use "homophobia" in that way, it no longer has anything to do with hating or discriminating against people, and instead becomes simply a position on what is or is not moral behavior.
Feel free to do that - but if you do, don't go back and forth by then implying that being a homophobe is a terrible, hateful thing. Homophobia is only a terrible, hateful thing under the proper definition of it. Under this other definition, it is, at worst, just a mistaken belief.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
While this is undoubtedly true, I think it's important to look at this issue from the viewpoint of the person witnessing the faith.
What's at stake is the fate of the IMMORTAL SOUL. God has given you a mission to save people, and that mission is more valuable than making sure people are comfortable in a temporal sense.
Were I of a witnessing faith (I never would be, but that's besides the point), I would never, ever stop trying to convert them. The fate of their souls would likely be more important to me than friendship, politics, my reputation, etc.
Logically, not everyone in a witnessing faith is going to go to those extremes, but I imagine that it often comes down to a choice: betray your friends by stopping, or betray your own self-interest by continuing to drive them away.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Is this turning into a game of who is the bigger martyr?
I always lose this game.
Know who always wins that game? Jesus. It's kind of his thing, though, so you can't really get mad at him for it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
See I think my religion CAN make anybody happy who wishes to be happy. But you are right that in the hands of somebody who does not care that much for happiness my faith would probably not work for them
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To say that something is 'homophobic' has become the catchall term for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against homosexuals.
What I'm looking for a distinction between hating and fearing a person's actions vs hating and fearing the person because they engage in those actions. The first is justifiable and open to reason, as it assumes that the person has many qualities and these actions are only a small part of their existence. Granted, they may not be terribly open to reason, but the possibility is there. Discussion can occur.
The second is not justifiable, because it is irrational and seeks to define the worth of a person entirely by their actions in this one situation. No discussion is possible; as soon as a person is labeled as a homosexual that person is no longer fully a person.
I have always defined "homophobe" as the second, and OSC does not fall into that category as far as I can tell (whereas I believe some of the others on your list do, regardless of what they say their reasoning is).
So if the term "homophobe" doesn't serve to make that distinction, what does?
[ August 03, 2006, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Noemon, this is a better, funnier world because you are in it. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: Your faith would make me utterly miserable and probably would have pushed me over the edge of suicide had I been mormon growing up. (I got really really close as it was.)
Happiness is my Basis of Value, so you can not say that happiness is unimportant to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:beliefs I had every right to possess
Dude, you went to a private Lutheran school. What made you think you had the right to the free expression of religion there?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Noemon, this is a better, funnier world because you are in it.
I couldn't agree more. That post was hilarious. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
While this is undoubtedly true, I think it's important to look at this issue from the viewpoint of the person witnessing the faith.
What's at stake is the fate of the IMMORTAL SOUL. God has given you a mission to save people, and that mission is more valuable than making sure people are comfortable in a temporal sense.
Were I of a witnessing faith (I never would be, but that's besides the point), I would never, ever stop trying to convert them. The fate of their souls would likely be more important to me than friendship, politics, my reputation, etc.
Logically, not everyone in a witnessing faith is going to go to those extremes, but I imagine that it often comes down to a choice: betray your friends by stopping, or betray your own self-interest by continuing to drive them away.
But here's the thing. Those who DO go the extreme often turn a lot of people off to the faith.
-pH
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
I believe "gay" originally meant "happy". I'm not sure how it came to mean "homosexual". Anyway, the point is that words don't mean anything at all by themselves. They only mean something when we assign them meaning. The meaning we assign them is completely arbitrary. I think one of the most exasperating things on this good Earth is when people try to argue that a "common" definition isn't right just because that's how it's used the majority of the time. If a word is commonly meant to signify something, then that's what it means. The word has no inherent meaning, it's just a vocalization. That's why I think the most common definition is the most correct one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:beliefs I had every right to possess
Dude, you went to a private Lutheran school. What made you think you had the right to the free expression of religion there?
Come again? I never asked for the right to express my beliefs, I was simply saying I didnt appreciate being mistreated purely because I was a Mormon. As a student I didnt go around trying to convert people , but I had plenty of people have a go at me when I least expected it.
The Pixiest: You may disagree but I think one can still live a happy life even with a modified gender identity. If I was asked to live a celebate existance, I would hope that I would be strong enough to handle it.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by GForce: I believe "gay" originally meant "happy". I'm not sure how it came to mean "homosexual". Anyway, the point is that words don't mean anything at all by themselves. They only mean something when we assign them meaning. The meaning we assign them is completely arbitrary. I think one of the most exasperating things on this good Earth is when people try to argue that a "common" definition isn't right just because that's how it's used the majority of the time. If a word is commonly meant to signify something, then that's what it means. The word has no inherent meaning, it's just a vocalization. That's why I think the most common definition is the most correct one.
What is this in reference to? The quibble over the term "homophobe?" If so, it's not a valid comparison.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: I do not think it was right, but I can understand why they did it. Nothing is more dangerous then evil in the guise of good. I belonged to a religion they believe embodies this.
Okay. Now we've seen and understood how people can be misguided in their attempts to force their viewpoint on someone else. We need to be able to recognize that in ourselves as well.
I do understand your wish for your friends to be as happy as you are. Really, I do. But in this culture people are often repelled by aggressive evangelism. My best advice to you is to be an example. Wait till they ask. I know this is hard, but trust that a loving God will have a plan for those people that doesn't rely on you being pushy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
sorry for double posting but
pH: Its entirely possible to do all you can to share your beliefs in a positive way to others. If they say they are not interested your best bet is to simply live your faith in your actions, and hope that one day circumstances changed leading them to ask for more information.
For some people no words and only actions are the best initial approach.
But I honestly spend very little time thinking "who can I convert next?" more often I am going to class/work and the opportunities present themselves, I must admit to having failed miserably sometimes, yet I have had even more sucesses and those people are some of my best friends.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: The Pixiest: You may disagree but I think one can still live a happy life even with a modified gender identity. If I was asked to live a celebate existance, I would hope that I would be strong enough to handle it.
I know this is to Pix but this is not your call to make for someone else. Would you be so excited to live a celibate existance for someone else's religious reasons. Should women of every faith be veiled to accomodate those who believe women should be veiled? Should we all have to keep kosher?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'd say for MOST people, actions are a better tool than words. Personally, I'm incredibly annoyed by, as kmb put it, aggressive evangelists. It makes it harder for me to even MENTION my faith because it's assumed that I'm going to be judgmental. I don't try to convert people because I don't think it's my place, but there are plenty of people who, upon hearing that I'm Christian, will become hostile toward me on many subjects or will outright attack me, even when religion has nothing to do with Thing X.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: The Pixiest: You may disagree but I think one can still live a happy life even with a modified gender identity. If I was asked to live a celebate existance, I would hope that I would be strong enough to handle it.
I know this is to Pix but this is not your call to make for someone else. Would you be so excited to live a celibate existance for someone else's religious reasons. Should women of every faith be veiled to accomodate those who believe women should be veiled? Should we all have to keep kosher?
I am having trouble placing the point you are trying to make. Where did I say to Pixiest, "You ought to be doing X?" I merely said that were I asked by God to live a celebate life (something I do not think is typically healthy) I would hope I would be strong enough to do it. I do think there is more to human beings then there sexual identity.
Maybe I came across that way but I was not suggesting that Pixiest should conform to my beliefs just because it makes me more comfortable.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: Do you really think that all homosexuals would be happier if they joined your church and became celebate?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Noemon, this is a better, funnier world because you are in it.
I couldn't agree more. That post was hilarious.
:: beams ::
Thanks guys!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I am having trouble placing the point you are trying to make. Where did I say to Pixiest, "You ought to be doing X?" I merely said that were I asked by God to live a celebate life (something I do not think is typically healthy) I would hope I would be strong enough to do it. I do think there is more to human beings then there sexual identity.
Maybe I came across that way but I was not suggesting that Pixiest should conform to my beliefs just because it makes me more comfortable.
It did, indeed, come across that way. Your concern over homosexuals "integrating themselves into society" and support for laws that would prevent that. If it wasn't a suggestion that homosexuals should remain celibate, what was it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
sorry to sound like I am using the "undecided" line to weasel out of having said something wrong, but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
again I AM NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ALL. All I know is that RIGHT NOW I am ok with homosexuals being granted civil marriages, adoption rights may come down the road. Is there anything else I should be allowing in order to not be overtly anti homosexual?
The Pixiest: I need to think about that for a bit, but my initial response is, "If they are unwilling to give up homosexuality then no they wouldnt be happy, if they want to see if they could be happy without it then yes."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Orincoro: You missed the next part of my post
quote:Just remember though, BB, you think you're right, a suicide bomber thinks he's right, a hindude thinks he's right, a catholic thinks he's right... Isn't it better just to leave eachother to their beliefs?
I did miss that, but it sounds like we agree on this more or less. Maybe I am being mean, but I would rather be mean than be "saved." Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just because I believe the truth I posess is the greatest truth that could be known does NOT mean I think I am a great person. I have plenty of friends who are even less interested in my beliefs then you are, and we get along just fine because I do not require that my friends play audience to my religious beliefs in order to be my friends. Though most of my friends are quite willing to talk about beliefs of any sort.
But see, you expressed earlier that you are wanting to preach to your friends, but are holding yourself back. I agree, hold yourself back, good impulse. But the distrust is there; the judging is there, and I can't see how you can be friends with someone who you see this way. I don't know what to say, I find this to be the most aggravating thing about missionaries. I have devoted time to studying the origins of "complete" philosophies: Aquinis, Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, and nothing has ever led me to believe that I know "the truth." I can't see how others can not only think they've got the answer, the ultimate final solution, but actually go and convince people of it. There is a feeling deep in my conscious mind, which tells me that this runs against everything I have ever learned on my own about anything. When people say they have "the truth" I laugh and cry because on the one hand its so naive and innocent, and on the other it seems so egotistical and cynical, to believe that understanding reaches a point and ends, and that you've gotten there.
That and experience, which has shown me no prothletizer who wasn't an arrogant fool, or just sort of foolish.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perhaps but I got the same feeling when I took college philosophy: "Oh wow Socrates had some interesting ideas, oh hey Aristotle is even better, oh hey look Kant is AMAZING, well Mill is my favorite so far!"
You can by cynical that the truth I think I posess is not as impressive as I think it is. But at least grant me the possibility of having had a genuine experience with God that validated my belief in him.
Remember before you called my egotistical I said I , "Sometimes." feel that way. I don't lose sleep over it, and it does not depress me, but it does concern me on occasion when I wonder if I am a very good living example of Jesus.
Also I do not see my friends as hellbound souls in need of saving. I see them as my friends, and friends share what they have with each other. If my friend offers me icecream I politely decline, if he brings up religion and decides he really isnt in the mood to discuss it I honesly feel upset AT ALL about it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: Your faith would make me utterly miserable and probably would have pushed me over the edge of suicide had I been mormon growing up. (I got really really close as it was.)
Happiness is my Basis of Value, so you can not say that happiness is unimportant to me.
*nod*
Its so easy to recognize the manipulation in BBs statement, forcing you or anyone to defend themselves "I really am happy!" No one need be on the defensive about their beliefs here, only in their carriage toward others and in how they act. BBs putting you on the defensive is a classic manipulation in missionary work: "be afraid, you don't even know happiness... but you could!" Instead of ever listening to what hapiness might be to you, it is all about how you are refusing to admit your need of faith to yourself... and you must always expend your energies fending off these mental assaults.
Pretty weak though, Pix saw right through that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: sorry to sound like I am using the "undecided" line to weasel out of having said something wrong, but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
again I AM NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ALL. All I know is that RIGHT NOW I am ok with homosexuals being granted civil marriages, adoption rights may come down the road. Is there anything else I should be allowing in order to not be overtly anti homosexual?
The Pixiest: I need to think about that for a bit, but my initial response is, "If they are unwilling to give up homosexuality then no they wouldnt be happy, if they want to see if they could be happy without it then yes."
I don't think you are trying to weasel out of anything - I am glad that you are still undecided. To be able to examine your own beliefs is a sign of maturity.
But this:
quote: but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
is a little unclear. Do you understand them, but think they are wrong? Or do you agree? I think that their views, about what consenting adults do should be ignored. In the same way that the views of a devout Muslim on whether I must be veiled should be ignored.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Oooh, I like the Burka comparison.
Since there are large numbers of people of faith who believe that all women should be covered in a Burka, any law allowing woman to avoid wearing a Burka are predjudiced against Islam.
Its not that we are telling woman what to wear. They can wear anything they desire, as skimpy of clothing as they wish, underneath their Burka.
That's reasonable, isn't it?
Mainly, if I wish to raise my family in a traditionally religious way, how can I spare my wife and children from seeing the blatant appearance of an elbow, an ankle, or heaven forbid--a belly button.
How can I explain this deviant Burkaless appearance to my five year old?
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
quote: What is this in reference to? The quibble over the term "homophobe?" If so, it's not a valid comparison.
Uh, not sure what you're talking about. I don't think I made a comparison in that post.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can by cynical that the truth I think I posess is not as impressive as I think it is. But at least grant me the possibility of having had a genuine experience with God that validated my belief in him.
Why? All I see in your posts tells me you haven't thought about it much, and your impression of college philosophy tells me you didn't take much interest in what the wider world has been doing for 2500 years. Learning how to be convincing, and learning how to learn are two seperate things, and they are sometimes mutually exclusive.
Edit: Blackblade please write "edit" into your posts when you revise them. As it is, it looks like I am ignoring the half of your post that was added later, when in fact I didn't see it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: Your faith would make me utterly miserable and probably would have pushed me over the edge of suicide had I been mormon growing up. (I got really really close as it was.)
Happiness is my Basis of Value, so you can not say that happiness is unimportant to me.
*nod*
Its so easy to recognize the manipulation in BBs statement, forcing you or anyone to defend themselves "I really am happy!" No one need be on the defensive about their beliefs here, only in their carriage toward others and in how they act. BBs putting you on the defensive is a classic manipulation in missionary work: "be afraid, you don't even know happiness... but you could!" Instead of ever listening to what hapiness might be to you, it is all about how you are refusing to admit your need of faith to yourself... and you must always expend your energies fending off these mental assaults.
Pretty weak though, Pix saw right through that.
I am not sure whether to be annoyed that you are accusing me of such a judgemental attitude or flattered that you have endowed me with such manipulating abilities.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: sorry to sound like I am using the "undecided" line to weasel out of having said something wrong, but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
again I AM NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ALL. All I know is that RIGHT NOW I am ok with homosexuals being granted civil marriages, adoption rights may come down the road. Is there anything else I should be allowing in order to not be overtly anti homosexual?
The Pixiest: I need to think about that for a bit, but my initial response is, "If they are unwilling to give up homosexuality then no they wouldnt be happy, if they want to see if they could be happy without it then yes."
I don't think you are trying to weasel out of anything - I am glad that you are still undecided. To be able to examine your own beliefs is a sign of maturity.
But this:
quote: but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
is a little unclear. Do you understand them, but think they are wrong? Or do you agree? I think that their views, about what consenting adults do should be ignored. In the same way that the views of a devout Muslim on whether I must be veiled should be ignored.
I understand them, but I also see how laws of this type are intrinsically wrong.
Orincoro: My apologies about not writing "edit" I debated whether to apologize for double posting or just edit, and I choose edit.
edit: at least I see why they are wrong in a democracy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I did call them "weak." And you are judgemental, so am I, and I never said that was so bad really. My problem comes when you say "I know I'm right," but then the first challenge is met with a manipulative jab to offset the discussion and put Pix or me on the defensive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, I did call them "weak." And you are judgemental, so am I, and I never said that was so bad really. My problem comes when you say "I know I'm right," but then the first challenge is met with a manipulative jab to offset the discussion and put Pix or me on the defensive.
What? The first thing you said on this thread was that I was egotistical? (or maybe you made earlier posts that I am not thinking of) but that constitutes being on the offensive in my book.
I said much earlier in this thread that were I positively proved wrong in my beliefs I would probably be unable to be certain of anything again, or even be confident of anything.
So fine I acknowledge the possibility of being wrong but it does little good.
I dont understand what you mean by judgemental, it seems we are operating under slightly different definitions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I said much earlier in this thread that were I positively proved wrong in my beliefs I would probably be unable to be certain of anything again, or even be confident of anything.
Everybody judges, all the time, that's all I was acknowledging, we are judging people- not necessarily in the harshest sense of the word.
This above is worrying though. It is what worries me about "complete philosophy" and doctrine. You have invested everything you have in this, and you acknowledge that if THIS is wrong, that's it, there is nothing left to trust.
I have always thought that what you should do is continue to learn and expand and reflect and question forever, and never arrive totally at a fixed position. Now that you have committed yourself to this thing, gone out and told people "the truth" and made it the mantra of your life. What if it were wrong, as you say? Your life is based on it, but why is it based on it? My life is based on questioning and learning, (at least I hope it is, but sometimes I am wrong about that), and I am guaranteed never to run out of things to learn and think about. Christian philosophers feel as I do, not as you do. Particularly Aquinis believes both in the complete philosophic domain of christianity, but dually in a continual revision of that doctrine according to present understanding and in view of all that one can learn. You have, it seems to me, excluded that from all possible consideration, and taken a hard and fast line that will not allow you to grow-- like the TV evangelists, your work will be in learning how to manipulate and convince, in order to avoid being caught out or contradicted.
I don't know, that's all my suposition and it may be off, but that is the impression I get, and my reasoning for hating evangelism, missionary work, and that kind of thinking in general.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Believing that there is a God, that he speaks to men today, and that he has revealed, does now reveal, and will yet reveal many important things hardly closes my mind to anything. I believe in being cautious about ones beliefs as rigidly held beliefs tend to retard ones progress not enhance it.
I modify my beliefs all the time concerning things that I have intelectually studied (BTW just because I mentioned some philosophers in my college freshmen philosophy class does not mean that that was my only exposure to philosophy)
But again you are assuming that NOBODY can be sure of ANYTHING. Just because you have seemingly yet to find a shred of truth that could be divinely verified does not mean it is impossible, or that nobody has yet had that happened.
You can meet my claim that I hold to my belief in God because He has confirmed it to me with derision, you wouldn't be the first. But my belief in God and his gospel is pretty much the ONLY belief I hold to rigidly for reasons I feel are valid. Everything else I believe is much less guarded.
I have simply seen that the more trust I have put in God, the more knowledge I have been rewarded with, and I have yet to have cause to doubt that that trend will continue.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Guys, we're ganging up on BB.. Let's let him think things through for a while.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Guys, we're ganging up on BB.. Let's let him think things through for a while.
Will you still party it up with me in WOW? Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If I avoided everyone who would deny me and people like me equal rights I would be very lonely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I understand them, but I also see how laws of this type are intrinsically wrong.
Orincoro: My apologies about not writing "edit" I debated whether to apologize for double posting or just edit, and I choose edit.
edit: at least I see why they are wrong in a democracy.
Well, that's good - as far as it goes. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: My apologies about not writing "edit" I debated whether to apologize for double posting or just edit, and I choose edit.
That apology was weak, I demand a series of increasingly groveling apologies! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As I've frequently claimed in the past, I don't think that just because a word is misused commonly it is okay to misuse it.
I'm at odds with the idea that using a contemporary, accepted definition over other definitions is misuse. Keep in mind that if departure from the technical definition is misuse, then we're both misusing it: homophobia is technically and originally a term describing fear of men. It originally had nothing to do with attitudes towards sexual orientation specifically.
Words being what they are, the meaning changed greatly. Today, it means the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries will even back me up on this one, and the wikipedia article on the term has a fascinating etymology describing the lead-up to this.
quote:but if you do, don't go back and forth by then implying that being a homophobe is a terrible, hateful thing. Homophobia is only a terrible, hateful thing under the proper definition of it. Under this other definition, it is, at worst, just a mistaken belief.
I think I've been pretty consistant. I saved the term homophobia for the attitudes people who actively stated to the effect that they want to discriminate significantly against homosexuals. I do not apply it to people who say something to the effect of 'homosexuality is morally wrong.' In fact, I went even further -- I saved it for stuff which I found comfortably within the realm of the intent for outright criminalization of homosexuality as a sexual deviance. Card's statement is safely within the realm of the commonly accepted definition of homophobia. You are just using a different definition than that. That's okay, really -- I respect that, and I understand that the ambiguities create an atmosphere where, in this environment, my use of the word 'homophobia' will create confusion as to my intent and meaning.
So I'm replacing it entirely and won't use it again.
I don't think that the words on OSC's little anti-homosexual speech there are in any way hateful or motivated by fear, and I don't believe that I've stated to that effect. This is cold comfort, though -- Whether the sexual discrimination originates from hateful passion, cold dispassion, or ostensible compassion, I treat it only based on how dangerous and discriminatory I find the stated goal behind the motive. This one's pretty discriminatory.
And, conveniently and thankfully enough, societally irrelevant and based on more of that thoroughly defunct and wishfully paranoid 'teh gay sexs is bad for teh societys!!' jazz, which -- as you can probably tell from my summarization of it -- I have next to no respect for. Hell will freeze over and turn several shades of puce before the United States re-criminalizes homosexuality, so it doesn't inspire a lot of continued debate.
IN CONCLUSION: semantics, lol, why in god's holy name am I arguing semantics again, this is a thread about Mel Gibson getting drunk and swearing about jews.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:IN CONCLUSION: semantics, lol, why in god's holy name am I arguing semantics again, this is a thread about Mel Gibson getting drunk and swearing about jews.
<looks around>
<yanks on the threads>
Yep, it's still Hatrack.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't think that the words on OSC's little anti-homosexual speech there are in any way hateful or motivated by fear, and I don't believe that I've stated to that effect. This is cold comfort, though -- Whether the sexual discrimination originates from hateful passion, cold dispassion, or ostensible compassion, I treat it only based on how dangerous and discriminatory I find the stated goal behind the motive. This one's pretty discriminatory.
I suppose we may always have thrust upon us, or given us by our parents, a belief system which says: "every individual is special, and created for the divine harmony of life- etc," and from the other side of its mouth: "but here are the rules: don't be THIS way."
That question as to whether its a choice or something you just are? I can't know that, I didn't make any choices about who I am; I didn't choose to be straight just like I didn't choose to be gay. I guess if I were gay I might know. I just wish more people would consider listening to people and trusting them to tell as much of the truth about themselves as they can.
This whole thing with gays hinges on that listening problem. If we all of a sudden discovered, conclusively and without question that homosexuality happens for THIS reason and this reason alone, and that it is genetic, or developmental (as I have read it may be connected to birthing order) and that it is irreversible, and that there is an evolutionary purpose to it, then what do the homophobes, or the anti-gay rights people have left?
It wouldn't be a threat to the family, because gays aren't meant to have that kind of family after all. It wouldn't be a moral question, because there would be no more choice involved, no choice about anything. It simply WOULD BE CONNECTED to morals. That's the issue as I see it: like (and please pardon the comparison which is unfair) alcoholism, like being tall, like being left handed (which has traditionally been considered a sign of evil, and IS connected with schitzophrenia and artistic ability)!
We learned what being left-handed meant, and why people are lefties, and it isn't a moral problem; teachers don't beat students with rulers to make them write righty (as I have heard from older teachers who were left handed). If we could just listen to each other, and look at the thing without interest, investment, or pride involved in our interpretations of the evidence, then maybe this would be, as it should be, a non-issue. As it is, it does as big a disservice to religious institutions as it does to gays to even have this ridiculous debate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Homosexual freedoms are sort of a non-issue in slow motion. Think about it -- not too long ago, we had traditionalists introducing flamingly racist anti-miscegenation bills to Congress, whinging and bloviating over how letting minorities marry white folk was dangerously destabilizing to the sanctity of American families, how it was dangerous to society, how it must not be permitted under law, blah blah.
In another fifty to seventy years, we'll think of the present-day anti-homosexual legislation and moralizing blitz to be, essentially, as retarded and backwards as we think of the anti-miscegenation bills today. I'll bet everything I have on it.
Religion, too, will change. Back then, marriages between whites and races of color were widely preached to be against God's natural order and were immoral. At some point in American history, churches were willing to claim that things like abolition and women's suffrage were attacks on God's natural order. Today, it's homomarriage. In another generation, I bet you that attitude changes too!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:In another fifty to seventy years, we'll think of the present-day anti-homosexual legislation and moralizing blitz to be, essentially, as retarded and backwards as we think of the anti-miscegenation bills today. I'll bet everything I have on it.
This reminds me of a girl I took a poli sci class with once. She had something called the "Three Hundred Year Theory." She claimed that, following the logical progression of social change, all social problems would be practically solved whithin 300 years.
I'm still not sure if she was joking or not.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This is cold comfort, though -- Whether the sexual discrimination originates from hateful passion, cold dispassion, or ostensible compassion, I treat it only based on how dangerous and discriminatory I find the stated goal behind the motive. This one's pretty discriminatory.
All laws are discriminatory. Banning drugs hurts only those who want to use drugs. Banning murder hurts only those who want to commit murder. Banning flag burning only hurts those who want to protest stuff by burning flags. Hence, being discriminatory does not imply a law is dangerous or bad. It is only a problem if it is unfairly discriminating.
Of course, then the question is: What determines what is fair and what is not?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Laws banning drug use are wrong. "Society" does not have a right to infringe on the freedoms of any individual so long as that individual doesn't harm others.
My right to swing my fist is inviolate -- right up until the point where I swing it into your nose.
You don't have a right to treat people like pawns in some game you're playing. You don't have a right to try and create some social reality that you like by restricting the freedoms of others except to the extent that is necessary to prevent them from restricting the freedoms of others.
Banning murder is right, because murder infringes on the right of the victim. Same with theft. Same with fraud.
But you know, there used to be a bookstore in the town where I grew up. It was called the Chestnut Court Book Shop. I have many pleasant memories of time spent there. I miss it. It closed years ago.
Could I have asserted some "right" to have the store stay open? After all, I prefer a world where the store exists.
Of course, that's idiotic. No one has such "rights". I wasn't "entitled" to have CCBS exist when it did. It existed. I benefited from it. Lucky me. But that benefit didn't grant me any kind of "ownership" or "entitlement" or "right".
This is no different. You don't want icky queero homos in society, so you think it's legitimate to have laws against us. But it isn't. Because you have no right to a "society" that looks the way you want it to. All you have a right to is for me to refrain from punching you in the nose.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dasa: By your logic we should ban churches because they make gay people feel bad and cause our youth to kill themselves.
But just as we have no right to demand churches close down because they hurt our feelings, they have no right to demand we go into hiding because we make them feel icky.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Laws banning drug use are wrong. "Society" does not have a right to infringe on the freedoms of any individual so long as that individual doesn't harm others.
This sounds very non-coercion principle. Keep in mind that any workable heterogeneous society does actively have that right. It took it a long time ago, and plans on keeping it.
Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Dasa: By your logic we should ban churches because they make gay people feel bad and cause our youth to kill themselves.
But just as we have no right to demand churches close down because they hurt our feelings, they have no right to demand we go into hiding because we make them feel icky.
I am sorry if I came across that way but I didn't say that at all. I even said that I am for gay marriage (incidentally, it is against my religion).
The point is that feeling bad is not substantial damage. On the other hand, if substantial damage can be shown (and spiritual damage doesn't count as it is non-demonstrable), I think it something worth *thinking* about.
My (not so well expressed) point was that it is not sufficient to say that your action does not immediately affect someone.
Nor is to sufficient to say that I need to point to a specific victim before I can show the action to be harmful. It is possible sometimes that a series of probable events could lead to a victim. We should look at the likelihood of that event and balance it with the evil of having to infringe upon individual freedom.
I agree with gay marriage because I think it does not do substantial harm to anyone in the near or far future. Not only does it not have any definite victims, it has none. It also has several positives apart from making those who are marrying happy.
I do not see the same happening with the drug issue. The libertarian "nose-fist" idea I think doesn't fit well in all situations.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Laws banning drug use are wrong. "Society" does not have a right to infringe on the freedoms of any individual so long as that individual doesn't harm others.
This sounds very non-coercion principle. Keep in mind that any workable heterogeneous society does actively have that right. It took it a long time ago, and plans on keeping it.
Taking something does not confer a right. There was a time when people would have said, similarly, that societies are ruled by kings. It's just a fact. But it's not a fact, and we've moved towards liberty by recognizing that people are not meant to be subjected to the tyranny of a monarch.
Neither, though, are people meant to be subjected to the tyranny of their neighbors. No society has any "rights" that its component individuals do not have. If I can't take your money to use for my own purposes, then neither can a majority of fellow citizens do it.
Rather, they can do it. But it's wrong.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
The libertarian philosophy has its practical limits just like any other political school of thought.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
That doesn't answer anything, though. You can't just say, vaguely, that there are limits. You need to demonstrate what they are. You need to justify by what right a group of people can take from someone what they have earned against that person's will.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If someone benefits from an infrastructure and has input into how that infrastrucure is administered, society has a right to demand reasonable contribution toward that infrastrucure.
For example.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Neither, though, are people meant to be subjected to the tyranny of their neighbors. No society has any "rights" that its component individuals do not have. If I can't take your money to use for my own purposes, then neither can a majority of fellow citizens do it.
Rather, they can do it. But it's wrong.
That's a nice moral philosophy, but it wouldn't realistically translate into a workable societal structure. It would eventually begin to microfederalize, and we'd simply have swapped out democracy for a vaguely oligarchical system. If even that! It would train-wreck the structure we have in place, first. Strangely, nearly absolutely nobody nobody nobody seems to think it would work, unless their axiomatic philosophy demands that no other way be allowed to work, and I haven't wondered for a second why that is.
But I'm sure you've heard this all before, from about anyone who isn't in the objectivist or anarcho-capitalist camps of hyperlibertarianism.
It's fun to fantasize about how whacky such a system would be, though. Wow, imagine if the United States had gone without Eminent Domain. Or building codes. Boy, that'd be messed up! Urbanization would have been a full-scale disaster!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: All laws are discriminatory. Banning drugs hurts only those who want to use drugs.
And the economy, and the people who get shot in the crossfire of the drugwar, the people who don't get police attention because the cops are chasing drugs, and the families of people who are sent away for 20 year drug possession raps, and cancer victims... need I go on?
The outlawing of certain drugs has far-reaching consequences, beyond what happens to those who break the law. You can see that right? It is just the same with these laws regarding homosexuality, they are not self-contained, they are representative of, connected with and effected by other societal issues. This kind of narrow thinking helps no-one. At least acknowledge that there IS a great effect, the law of unforseen consequences, involved in all policies.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If someone benefits from an infrastructure and has input into how that infrastrucure is administered, society has a right to demand reasonable contribution toward that infrastrucure.
For example.
There is no "society". If people want infrastructure, they can build infrastructure. You're talking about the "free rider" issue. If I go outside and play a flute, that doesn't give me the right to charge people walking by who might enjoy it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is no "society".
This is demonstrably false, Lisa.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Neither, though, are people meant to be subjected to the tyranny of their neighbors. No society has any "rights" that its component individuals do not have. If I can't take your money to use for my own purposes, then neither can a majority of fellow citizens do it.
Rather, they can do it. But it's wrong.
That's a nice moral philosophy, but it wouldn't realistically translate into a workable societal structure.
You mean it wouldn't translate into the same societal structure we have now. That's no argument at all, though.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It would eventually begin to microfederalize, and we'd simply have swapped out democracy for a vaguely oligarchical system. If even that!
How does it change democracy at all? On the contrary. Right now, the biggest failure of our system is the fact that candidates can essentially bribe the voters with their ability to manipulate the economy. This is the single most fundamental cause of political corruption.
Imagine if the government was only there to make sure that no one hurt anyone else. Imagine getting rid of the disgusting bloat that eats most of our earnings. Imagine the government limited to its basic Constitutional functions.
You talk about oligarchy, but what do you think our current government is? We have a vast, unelected bureaucracy, which runs most of the country. We have a political class that is essentially a ruling class. And there's about as much potential for movement into that class as there is into any upper economic class. It can happen, but it's the exception, rather than the rule.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It would train-wreck the structure we have in place, first.
And that's a bad thing?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But I'm sure you've heard this all before, from about anyone who isn't in the objectivist or anarcho-capitalist camps of hyperlibertarianism.
Well, hey. I guess you've managed to find a good label. That's certainly more efficient that actually addressing the issue.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's fun to fantasize about how whacky such a system would be, though. Wow, imagine if the United States had gone without Eminent Domain. Or building codes. Boy, that'd be messed up! Urbanization would have been a full-scale disaster!
Tell it to the people in Houston.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is no "society".
This is demonstrably false, Lisa.
Nu? So demonstrate. Since I'm not speaking in a vacuum, and you know exactly what I mean by it, but since there may be people here who don't, let me expand the statement. There is no such thing as a corporate entity called "society" to which individuals are subordinate. What we label "society" is simply the aggregate of the individuals which compose it. There is no critical mass at which it becomes greater than the sum of its parts in terms of perogatives. Certainly, lots of people have the physical power to force things on fewer people, but that's just thuggery. There's no legitimacy to it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is no "society".
This is demonstrably false, Lisa.
There is no "lisa."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You mean it wouldn't translate into the same societal structure we have now.
No, no, I mean it would be a ker-flaming disaster! It would totally not work at all.
It's a shame, though, since it's fun to imagine ideal societies that work without the need to sacrifice some positive liberties as well as negative liberties.
quote:Well, hey. I guess you've managed to find a good label. That's certainly more efficient that actually addressing the issue.
I don't know exactly how to place this sentiment. It sounds reliant on the idea that my use and application of accurate terminology precludes my ability or intent to address the issue.
I can be a super big help and tell you upfront that this is not the case! I'm just pointing out -- rather accurately, I might add -- that few people not in those camps are inclined to pretend even for a moment that societies can work while adhering dogmatically to a non-coercion principle of governance.
quote:And that's a bad thing?
Yup, unless one isn't used to the conveniences equipped and enabled by the social contract. Like, say, working highway systems, communal water systems, me not being able to build towers or oil derricks in the middle of a residential district just because I want to.
Also there's the whole common defense thing, unless we're willing to assume that strictly voluntary taxation is capable of providing police forces and military forces as a public service.
Also: monopolies. Still a consequence of fully untethered markets! Actually, in the real world, a very bad thing!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Wow. From Mel Gibson to Libertian rants, by way of Gay Rights. I love Hatrack.
OK, if drug laws are bad, and Alcohol is a drug, then in StarLisa's Libertarian world, Mel Gibson would not have been arrested, and this whole thread should just vanish in a puff of logical smoke.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yes and no. In a proper world, the owners of streets and highways would have the right to impose rules for their use. Someone violating those rules, while he might not get arrested, would surely be stopped and banned from using said streets and highways.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
There were a whole slew of service monopolies in Somalia after the collapse of the government into anarchy. They attached themselves (or were absorbed) pretty quickly to armed militias which quickly split the country into factional principalities. After scant months of federalism, it degenerated into feudal warlordism and the place became very dangerous.
But hey, at least they had cheap telecom!
Anyway, as long as you've got an even half-functional government, most all monopolies pretty much have to develop under a buddy-buddy relationship with the government (since the government regulates the markets), so all monopolies can be associated with government coercion.
This doesn't mean that it's impossible to claim that monopolies are bad, but it probably means that it's a good thing when governments don't collude with businesses in a way that creates monopoly! So the question seems somewhat skewed. Especially given that if the government is stripped from its capacity to regulate markets, monopolies can exist in larger and more total formats than before. I sure wouldn't like that!
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
It gives me a physical pain in my breast even just to read that company's name.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't "De Beers" the chicago football team?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
Oh, for crying out loud. So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
A monopoly that becomes a monopoly without the use of coercive force, either governmental or military, is never a bad thing. Because it can only become a monopoly in such a situation because it offers the best value to its customers.
The so-called "robber barons" existed on government land grants and patronage. None of them could have attained their power without the coercive force of government. Yet the government used them as an excuse to intrude even more into the economy, where it uses anti-trust legislation as a weapon.
The government broke up Ma Bell (which screwed us all, btw) for being a monopoly, when it became a monopoly only because the government prevented competition by force in the first place.
You statists have your faith, is all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
I answered your question, lady. Apparently, there were hidden super-secret stipulations that you are now using to belittle me! Oh, okay, DeBeers counts as a legitimate answer to your challenge, but 'oh please, I scoff at your answer because X, Y, Z ..'
Please let me know in advance when you plan to play these runarounds!
quote:You statists have your faith, is all.
The irony in this kind of quote is profound to me, especially considering that any nation that runs the way you think it should be forced to is entirely theoretical.
Heh.
You are as elegant as you are dismissive, though. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were uninterested in doing anything but accelerating our discourse towards contentiousness.
Don't worry, I read you loud and clear. I'll be sure to dance carefully around this issue with you from now on!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Give a single example of a monopoly that (1) didn't become a monopoly by using government coercion to attain that status, and (2) is a bad thing.
De Beers.
Oh, for crying out loud. So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
A monopoly that becomes a monopoly without the use of coercive force, either governmental or military, is never a bad thing. Because it can only become a monopoly in such a situation because it offers the best value to its customers.
The so-called "robber barons" existed on government land grants and patronage. None of them could have attained their power without the coercive force of government. Yet the government used them as an excuse to intrude even more into the economy, where it uses anti-trust legislation as a weapon.
The government broke up Ma Bell (which screwed us all, btw) for being a monopoly, when it became a monopoly only because the government prevented competition by force in the first place.
You statists have your faith, is all.
Lisa, isn't de Beers the very model of a modern major monopoly, for libertarians? I thought you were striving for abolishing governments' monopoly of force?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Lisa, isn't de Beers the very model of a modern major monopoly, for libertarians?
How would I know?
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I thought you were striving for abolishing governments' monopoly of force?
You may have gotten me confused with libertarians. Of course, I can only assume that this is a libertarian foolishness, based on what you wrote above. But the government absolutely must have a monopoly on the retributory use of coercive force. And no one, individual or government, should be allowed to initiate coercive force. Ever.
The only case in which an individual may legitimately use force is to defend himself in a case where the government is unable to, such as an emergency situation of self-defense. Or if a government is not fulfilling its responsibilities in that area.
Anarchists are thugs.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:So the best you can do is find a company that used armed force to attain its monopoly.
I answered your question, lady. Apparently, there were hidden super-secret stipulations that you are now using to belittle me! Oh, okay, DeBeers counts as a legitimate answer to your challenge, but 'oh please, I scoff at your answer because X, Y, Z ..'
Oh, grow up. The reason I mentioned government coercion is that it's the type that people like you think is legitimate. It hadn't even occurred to me that someone would bring an example of non-governmental coercion. You might as well use the Mafia as an example.
The fact remains, that monopolies that come into existence without the use of physical force can only maintain their monopoly status by providing the best deal. Otherwise, they're inevitably supplanted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lisa, In your version of economics, do you have some sort of label for the average worker? Like, I don't know: Self-directed Economically Restricted Functionaries? We could call them serfs for short.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I was thinking human being. Someone who trades his or her labor for recompense. You know, actually earns money. Which is cool, because then you can use that money to trade for other nifty things, like food and housing and medical care.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And then pay taxes for all 3 of those things.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Which is wrong. Why should someone have to pay a penalty (and to whom?) for simply living his or her life?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I beg your pardon, Lisa. I thought you were a libertarian.
Anyway, it was a good excuse for me to write "the very model of a modern major monopoly." Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
No prob, Morbo. Unfortunately, many people make that mistake. But the G&S was cute.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
"The government broke up Ma Bell (which screwed us all, btw) for being a monopoly, when it became a monopoly only because the government prevented competition by force in the first place."
Generally I could agree. But, in the case of the Bell System, it was successful because it was, in very fact, a system. Bars to entry for competetors were not artificial governmental constructs. They were inherent in the nature of the system Breaking it up was counter productive and detremental to society. We probably will never recover. If we do it will be through the new technology, the development of which was largely paid for by the Government
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Meanwhile, back to Mel Gibson and rudeness Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: "The government broke up Ma Bell (which screwed us all, btw) for being a monopoly, when it became a monopoly only because the government prevented competition by force in the first place."
Generally I could agree. But, in the case of the Bell System, it was successful because it was, in very fact, a system. Bars to entry for competetors were not artificial governmental constructs. They were inherent in the nature of the system.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. It was literally illegal to try and set up a competing phone company.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The fact remains, that monopolies that come into existence without the use of physical force can only maintain their monopoly status by providing the best deal. Otherwise, they're inevitably supplanted.
"Providing the best deal" can include in its spectre a number of business practices which are inherently noncompetitive. Such as price bombing, which is by nature providing a deal that smaller providers simply cannot match.
You start this by concluding "The fact remains," but you're wrapping up your argument awful early. Especially considering that these are theoretical monopolies that exist in a theoretical market environment. I'd love to see this 'fact' get tested, but I never will. In the meantime, I will continue to assume that noncompetitive practices are not impossible for monopolies that could occur in a market which has been deregulated in the way you present in your ideal.
quote:Oh, grow up. The reason I mentioned government coercion is that it's the type that people like you think is legitimate.
Yup! Taxation sure seems legitimate to me. As well as The Fuzz being able to tell me that I'm not allowed to play blisteringly loud music at night (even on my OWN property, the cads!) or drive on the sidewalk just because I feel like it (even if I'm not hurting anyone in the process!).
I also totally feel that it's legitimate for the government to hold a monopoly on airspace regulation! I totally welcome their use of force and authority to coerce people into regulatory flight patterns, to tell people who is and who is not allowed to fly, etc etc.
I'm also totally cool with them coercing food producers and distributors to follow rules! Evil, government imposed rules, like what pesticides they're allowed to use. "No," they say, their evil, beady eyes gleaming in the smoky back rooms of their statist havens, "You aren't allowed to use that pesticide on your crops. I don't care if it's cheaper; our other agency has discovered and documented that it's dangerous -- you still aren't allowed to use 'caveat emptor' in this situation, you just aren't allowed to sell it on the open market. At all, since it's our market and we regulate it. And, by gum, we're coercing you not to! Bwa ha ha!"
There are about a million million coercions I'm totally okay with, and that modern societies use and will continue to use. I could go on for hours and hours. I'm sorry that they have devoured a number of moist, juicy, tantalizing liberties which I am apparently supposed to consider sacrosanct. Sadly, I'm okay with trading them inherently as part of a package deal for being allowed to live and work on land owned by this government.
You've called me a "statist" on account of my support of this coercion. I'm inclined to think that it's a blanket pejorative term, but whatever. If being okay with the fact that the government doesn't let people do certain things (like setting up a discount cocaine stand on a lot across the street from the high school) makes me a statist, then I guess I'm totally a statist. Sign me up for the newsletter. I may even start contributing by publishing a 'zine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Consider me your first subscriber.
Great post. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:sigh: I don't know what this thread is about anymore.
I'm taking my emoticons, and I'm going home!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Personally, there's only so much "caveat emptor" I can take before my eyes go glossy and I start drooling.
I guess I'm destined to be selected...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:The fact remains, that monopolies that come into existence without the use of physical force can only maintain their monopoly status by providing the best deal. Otherwise, they're inevitably supplanted.
"Providing the best deal" can include in its spectre a number of business practices which are inherently noncompetitive. Such as price bombing, which is by nature providing a deal that smaller providers simply cannot match.
You say "noncompetitive" like it's a dirty word. If the best deal can't be matched by anyone else, why is that bad? If a big company wants to do that, who suffers? The smaller companies, maybe. But the consumers wind up with lower prices for the same product. Again, how is that bad?
No one has some inherent right to compete successfully. They have a right to try. It's the difference between the right to the pursuit of happiness and the right to be happy. The latter doesn't exist.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You start this by concluding "The fact remains," but you're wrapping up your argument awful early. Especially considering that these are theoretical monopolies that exist in a theoretical market environment. I'd love to see this 'fact' get tested, but I never will. In the meantime, I will continue to assume that noncompetitive practices are not impossible for monopolies that could occur in a market which has been deregulated in the way you present in your ideal.
If someone sets a price freely, other people have a choice whether or not to buy. You still haven't managed to give a single example of a monopoly that got to be a monopoly by offering the best deal and is somehow a bad thing.
There are three ways a monopoly can exist:
1) It offers the best deal. 2) The government won't allow anyone to compete with it. 3) It prevents competitors from competing through criminal acts of violence (just to include your lame example of De Beers).
If the government enforces the law, that removes #3. If the government minds its business, that removes #2. And we're left with #1, which is only beneficial. And can only last while it continues to offer the best deal.
Your hysteria about monopolies is like some sort of medieval hysteria about demons. It's a bugaboo. It's something you use to justify governmental intrusion into our lives, but there's no substance to it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sadly, I'm okay with trading them inherently as part of a package deal for being allowed to live and work on land owned by this government.
"Owned by this government"? That's just scary. I'm a citizen; not a subject. The government is supposed to serve us; not the other way around.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Which is wrong. Why should someone have to pay a penalty (and to whom?) for simply living his or her life?
Why should you be allowed to use currency if you don't sign the user agreement? You didn't print it. And you don't guarantee its value. Part of the deal is that you have to pay your taxes. Otherwise, your only option is to try subsistence farming somewhere where no one lays claim to the land.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Woo! I love the "Goverment owns the money, not YOU!" argument. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
We don't own our own labor (which is what currency is. Portable Work.) The GOVERMENT does!
But that's ok since we, as individuals are owned by the government anyway. Just a serf, just a cog, just a prole.
All hail to the Tyranny of the Majority!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Which is wrong. Why should someone have to pay a penalty (and to whom?) for simply living his or her life?
Why should you be allowed to use currency if you don't sign the user agreement?
The government passed laws preventing people from making their own money. You may remember that.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: You didn't print it. And you don't guarantee its value.
Neither does the government. Where've you been living, Glenn?
Money is a thing that we use to symbolize wealth. When I work, I agree to accept X amount of money for my labor, in lieu of actual goods or services. I can then use that money to purchase actual goods or services.
Money itself does not come with a user agreement. It is simply a symbol that we use. If the government hadn't banned people from making their own, we'd be doing that still.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Part of the deal is that you have to pay your taxes. Otherwise, your only option is to try subsistence farming somewhere where no one lays claim to the land.
That's crap. And it isn't even an issue of taxes or no taxes. It's the government taking taxes from us to do things that are not in the legitimate purview of governments.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Sometimes, I think that USSR or no USSR, the Communists won.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The government passed laws preventing people from making their own money. You may remember that.
Yes, because people (banks) were making money that had no value and wasn't guaranteed. The people asked the government to regulate the banking industry because they'd been burned too many times.
quote:Neither does the government. Where've you been living, Glenn?
You talking about that gold thing? Or the federal reserve? In either case you're wrong, the government does guarantee that cash has value.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Sometimes, I think that USSR or no USSR, the Communists won.
The issue of the government printing and guaranteeing the value of cash was settled long before the soviet union came into existence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If the best deal can't be matched by anyone else, why is that bad?
I lock out the market and command my own prices. Easy.
quote:There are three ways a monopoly can exist:
If I own all the molybdenum mines in the world, I have created a paradoxical fourth means for maintaining monopoly which does not exist in the three 'only' ways you have described that a monopoly can exist.
I guess that makes it incorrect!
If I can think that up in maybe three or four seconds, you may want to spend some time brainstorming the many extra means by which a monopoly can exist that your first list has missed. Personally, I would include service provision monopolies, land infrastructure monopolies, production and technological monopolies, natural supply monopolies, and monopolies maintained via effective price bombing and other noncompetitive means.
Among others!
quote:Your hysteria about monopolies is like some sort of medieval hysteria about demons. It's a bugaboo.
Oh cool, I'm hysterically hallucinating bugaboos
thx for the classy quotes lisa
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:If the best deal can't be matched by anyone else, why is that bad?
I lock out the market and command my own prices. Easy.
And the moment you do that, you've unlocked the market and made it possible for competitors to enter the market.
When I was majoring in economics, one of my classmates suggested that a company could lower prices to kill the competition, and then raise them again once the competition was gone. And then when the new, higher prices made competition feasible again, they could lower their prices yet again to kill off the new competition. His idea was that they could keep doing this over and over and over again.
My reply to him is the same as my reply to you. If customers are stupid enough to put up with that, they don't deserve anything better. But in the real world, a company might get away with doing that once or twice, but even twice is unlikely.
You can't command your own prices if there isn't a government or a gun preventing competitors from entering the market. You can keep them out for a short time by lowering your prices unreasonably, but how long can you keep it up? And who loses out in the meantime? And when you can't do it anymore, and you have to raise your prices back up, what's keeping the competition out?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:There are three ways a monopoly can exist:
If I own all the molybdenum mines in the world, I have created a paradoxical fourth means for maintaining monopoly which does not exist in the three 'only' ways you have described that a monopoly can exist.
I guess that makes it incorrect!
That's like saying I have a monopoly on the market of being a 43 year old woman named Lisa Liel who programs in VB.NET. It's truem, because there are no others, but it's insipid to call that a monopoly.
What's molybdenum needed for that nothing else will serve as a replacement? It's a useful metal, but if the price is too high, there are other metals that can be used.
From Wikipedia: "Molybdenum use soared during World War I, when demand for tungsten (Wolfram) made tungsten scarce and high-strength steels were at a premium."
Tungsten was scarce, and therefore expensive. So molybdenum came into greater use. If molybdenum becomes scarce or expensive, other things are available.
But technically, you're right. You can have a monopoly on a material by owning all of that material. That's not the same as having a monopoly on goods or services, but let's put that as a fourth means of having a monopoly if you like.
OSC has a monopoly on writing his books. No one else can write his books. Does he owe it to you to write them? No. It's his right to do so or not, as he sees fit. If I own all the molybdenum in the world, I'm entitled to put it all in a vault and sit on it. No one else is actually entitled to it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's like saying I have a monopoly on the market of being a 43 year old woman named Lisa Liel who programs in VB.NET.[/quote]
No it isn't, because I percieve there to be perhaps a few differences between 'a single woman' and 'the world's supply of a transitional metal.' I am going to sit back and seriously hope that you can understand the difference in market applications that make this a bogus comparison.
Seriously hoping, here. For instance, I can easily discover that a monopoly on Lisa Liel doesn't allow you to create artificial scarcity on yourself. You are also not an important fundamental ingredient for modern alloys used in buildings and modern construction. Unless there's something totally tripped out here that I missed.
quote:If I own all the molybdenum in the world, I'm entitled to put it all in a vault and sit on it. No one else is actually entitled to it.
Or I could use this monopoly to benefit myself through artificial scarcity! The developing world gets to eat it as I charge them up the wazoo for a prime material required for high-grade steel, cutting profit margins heavily out of industrial production for my own gain.
Boo hoo for them and industrial development, but I get out great.
Anyway, a way better example of harmful monopolies entirely possible (and even enabled) by a mostly unregulated market would be big-box retail, which has been oligopolizing over the last thirty years anyway.
For demonstration, you could use a Wal-Mart esque example -- large scale, lowest prices through market aggrandization, etc, etc. Let's say it's come into near-monopoly by your Monopoly Creation Condition #1, "it provides the best deal."
When squaring off against any smaller company, it can simply price-bomb to squeeze off the competition; a reccomendable strategy is to run the store at 20% loss (at least) for a number of business quarters until the Little Guys (and/or smaller-market-share retailers) have to close off. Once they have a regional monopoly on retail, the "they have to provide the best deal to remain a monopoly" thing is totally off. They can run the place with prices above what the other retailers would have provided, had the larger company permitted them to establish themselves there.
Use the profits from the established stores to price-bomb any area in market contention. Then lock the markets up, and America's their very own Pullman Coach Town!
The hypotheticals totally work out, and they're totally possible in your market scenario! No sordid, coercive past is required for this intent and capacity.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However, I still think Ghandi was racist. Let's agree to disagree, agreed? ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)