Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We should speculate on the reasons why.
I disdain pseudo-psychology.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Does he? I'm not being snarky- while I long ago read the Bible, I'm not religious and don't actively study it. I've never heard this before which makes me question it. Where is it?
Jesus clearly states that if you divorce for any other reason that infidelity, you're in sin, and cannot remarry?
quote:But somewhere else, Jesus says...
It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. -Matthew 5:31-32
quote:... without the "except for infidelity" qualifier.
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Luke 16:18
quote:Why? Danlo's questions are valid; as far as I can tell he's sincere, and not completely disrespectful.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I wish there was some magical phrase that could prevent threads like this from gaining traction.
quote:The white chocolate macadamia nut cookies are about the only worthwhile thing they serve in Subway sandwich shops.
Originally posted by happymann:
I'm deployed right now and I would go crazy over the bland food if it weren't for the white chocolate macadamia nut cookies. Soooooooo good.
quote:It's bad form to guess at others' motives and then talk about them.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction. I myself am 0.3% gay, which is far too little to do anything about, but is there none the less.
But, that is just a guess.
quote:Serious answer:
Originally posted by Danlo the Wild:
How come republicans, conservatives and the right-wing religious don't treat divorce with the same vigor?
quote:LOL that has to be the best comment I've read all day. If I ever have kids, I'm telling them that!
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
When I was a kid, I thought "adultery" meant "becoming an adult," and wondered why God hated old people so much.
quote:I disagree. I think it is bad form to guess at other's motives and and discuss them as if those guesses were fact and not just speculation. But as long as you are clear that you are speaking from a guess and your opinion and that is only a possibility, and only part of the reason, then it doesn't seem rude to me at all.
Originally posted by Scott R:
It's bad form to guess at others' motives and then talk about them.
quote:How many prominent anti-gay politicians and clergy are going to to have to get forcibly and/or accidentally outed before you will just hush, out of shame?
Originally posted by Scott R:
I agree with Orincoro.
Argue the topic on its merits; bringing in speculation about someone's self-understanding is ludicrous and insulting.
Attaching a mollifier on the statement doesn't actually make the statement any less insulting.
quote:My toes are fine-- but the tactic of debate you're espousing is destructive to civil discussion.
as if all that it takes to make that polite is to say: just guessing!
quote:Bringing up evolution at a fundamentalist church is also destructive to civil discussion. It's also a lot closer to the truth than creationism.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Where I agree with Orincoro is here:
quote:My toes are fine-- but the tactic of debate you're espousing is destructive to civil discussion.
as if all that it takes to make that polite is to say: just guessing!
quote:We are not talking about the factual validity of the topics, but the applicability to the discussion of the individuals' self-awareness-- which is disappointing, in my opinion.
Bringing up evolution at a fundamentalist church is also destructive to civil discussion. It's also a lot closer to the truth than creationism.
Truth or politeness...it's a case-by-case choice, one that you make just as often as anyone else.
quote:We should speculate on the reasons why.
I disdain pseudo-psychology.
quote:Part of a civil discussion is acknowledging and accepting the boundaries set by any participant when it comes to them. I find your assumptions to be negative, annoying and majoritiativly wrong. I asked you in very polite and clear terms to not assume my motivations, and you have continually ignored me. I could spend my time and energy correcting you constantly about how I am not really an ignorant assbag, who specifically manipulates conversations to get sympathy and self righteous furry, but since I am interested in real discussion and not defending myself from overly aggressive and malignant people who I dislike, it's much easier to simply dismiss you.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
SW: Extemporizing on an assumption is treating it, within the confines of your extemporization, as actual fact. The only difference is that the standards by which an assumption can be challenged are different. Hint: whining about assumptionsis about as good as whining about facts. Do you see me getting my undies twisted when people make assumptions about me? They're either right, or easily corrected. But in your case, I just get a lot of "how dare you," while you do little to show that any particular conclusion isn't exactly right.
quote:I find this statement to be self delusional. You enjoy our interactions, you have said so. And even if some small part of you really wants me to grow, you are so caustic and antagonistic that your highly doubtful goal has zero chance of success.
...I actually want you to learn something, if only that it might stop you from continuing to pollute the world with ignorant notions.
quote:Well? I'm waiting.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We should speculate on the reasons why.
I disdain pseudo-psychology.
quote:I agree, but then again, no one said that so, who are you disagreeing with?
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
...I think speculations like "they hate the gays because they're gay themselves" are oversimplified hogwash.
quote:You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but your argument here runs "they have a problem with gay people because they can't accept that they, themselves, are at least partially gay." I simplified it in my post for effect, but it's the same damn argument, and it's specific enough for there not to be much room for interpretation. So either stand behind your statement, or admit it was incorrect.
I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction.
quote:Everything above the --- was addressed to you, regarding your expressed ideas about assuming motives and about Orincoro&you. At several points, including in this thread, you've engaged in some assumptions about his motives: namely, that he's behaving this way towards you because he's an aggressive, malignant bully. Other stuff under that umbrella, but it's a repeated claim.
I assume the first part is to me...and that the second part is to Orincoro...
Where did I assume his emotional motive? I said I doubt him when he says he wants me to learn, I guess that could be considered an assumption...I mean he says it's delicious when in his eyes I was saying something hypocritical, as in, he takes joy from it. In past conversations where he was mocking my ideals, my previous posts and the way I speak he said that he was having fun and glad I knew it. I don't see it as an assumption on my part. Perhaps I missed something...
quote:That right there. You know better than he does about his own intentions. And, initially in this thread, you know better than people who oppose gay marriage as to one of the reasons they actually do.
And even if some small part of you really wants me to grow...
quote:In this case, it's not even so much "God says" as "a book establishing the laws of a tightly knit group of desert nomads, written some 3400-2700 years ago (depending on which scholar you ask), says..." I find it very troubling when Christians put so much stock in a belief that has it's basis in a one verse drive-by mention in the book of Leviticus, then gets mentioned again, tangentially, in Paul's epistles. The Bible, even if you believe it to be the inspired Word of God, is by no means unambiguous enough to use as a basis for law. The disparity in private, and even denominational, interpretation demonstrate this.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Personally I think the claim 'God says...' is, by itself, a terrible reason to do just about anything, but especially to make civic policy, but that's a different discussion
quote:People's emotional states change through different situations. Do I enjoy stitching you up and watching you flail about? There is a certain satisfaction in it. Would I like you to change your ideas, and present better ones here? Yeah. I don't go around slobbering over all the great posts I see on this forum. Maybe I should do that. You'll find that the second you stop acting as if everyone around you ought to give you the benefit of the doubt despite your seemingly contributing little thought to what you say, I'll be there not saying nay. But as long as your posts and positions ramble from unclear incomplete and indignant stance to the next, I don't intend to sit around not calling shenanigans.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I assume the first part is to me...and that the second part is to Orincoro...
Where did I assume his emotional motive? I said I doubt him when he says he wants me to learn, I guess that could be considered an assumption...I mean he says it's delicious when in his eyes I was saying something hypocritical, as in, he takes joy from it. In past conversations where he was mocking my ideals, my previous posts and the way I speak he said that he was having fun and glad I knew it. I don't see it as an assumption on my part. Perhaps I missed something...
Despite our history of being at odds with each other Rakeesh, I would hope you recognize that I am making effort to be fair and polite to all, including Orincoro.
quote:With all due respect, I strongly disagree that what you wrote is a simplification of what I wrote. I never mention hate, nor am I saying that these people are gay, nor am I saying that this is the reason they do not accept gay marriage. It would be like if I said "Carbon deposits on fuel injectors are very common and can lead to reduced fuel mileage." and you simplified it and claimed I said, "All cars which don't get good fuel mileage have blocked fuel injectors from carbon deposits." Demanding that I either agree with your interpretation or admit I am wrong doesn't strike me as being very reasonable.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Um, specifically, you stated that argument. Or have you completely forgot the last 20 posts in this thread?
quote:You can argue the semantics until you're blue in the face, but your argument here runs "they have a problem with gay people because they can't accept that they, themselves, are at least partially gay." I simplified it in my post for effect, but it's the same damn argument, and it's specific enough for there not to be much room for interpretation. So either stand behind your statement, or admit it was incorrect.
I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction.
I myself am rather interested to hear how you came by the 0.3% figure.
quote:Errr...no, you never mention hate, but you say the reason religious people 'have a problem' with gay people is because they're partially gay themselves. Dogbreath's statements aren't unfair-he didn't say that you said all people who hate gays do so because they're secretly partially gay and ashamed themselves. But people who hate gays can certainly be said to 'have a problem' with them, so you are in fact lumping them in with your statement.
I never mention hate, nor am I saying that these people are gay, nor am I saying that this is the reason they do not accept gay marriage.
quote:Did you see his penis? Perhaps you would want to touch it, and have him touch yours, if you did. Since this is what we're going by-you saw a part of the male anatomy and thought it was nice. Anyway, I could think of something less compelling than 'I felt something when I saw a movie once' but it would take some thought. It is-for the purposes of accuracy and conversation, I don't mean this morally or anything-a worthless guess. It has so little substance with regards to your broader claim as to have no value.
As to the 0.3%, well, that's basically a guesstimate. When I first saw the movie Troy and Brad Pitt stripped off his armor after the beach landing, his abs were killer and I thought, "Nice!"...but I didn't want to touch his penis, or have him touch mine.
quote:You've called me a bully as well.
As to Orincoro being a bully (he is the only person I've called such) it doesn't have anything to do with power.
quote:In fact the rant came shortly after declaring your intent to be pacifistic towards me. Anyway, it's not like shoving. Words aren't pushes.
Yes this is the internet, yes we are both adults, but I've rather publicly declared my intent to be friendly and calm after hypocritically ranting about you, so, it is as if someone declared themselves a pacifist and then someone immediately started shoving them.
quote:So now he is, in your posts, not just a bully but a Batman villain. That is...well, it strikes me as very unreasonable, making that comparison, and more than a little silly. I mean, has he poisoned Hatrack's water supply with a laughing chemical? Has he staged a bird-themed robbery of Hatrack's zoo? Flipped a scarred coin to determine whether or not Hatrack posters live or die? It's also difficult to believe you when you say you don't care whether he believes it or not, when you by now frequently tell him all about it in detail after saying you've declared you're going to ignore him.
His contention that he is the Batman of the board and my "posts and positions (that) ramble from unclear incomplete and indignant stance to the next" are the true villain from which his aggression is saving Gotham from is utter nonsense. I don't care if he believes it or not.
quote:Fixed.
Which is why I think speculations like "I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction" are oversimplified hogwash. People are people, regardless of religion, and they are all complex and all have their own reasons for what they do. No doubt there are a lot of Christians who oppose gay marriage out of hatred. (Westboro Baptist comes to mind) No doubt some of those people are also gay, and some of their hatred is derived from their own, intense self hatred. But I'm willing to accept that what a person says about their beliefs (i.e, "I believe homosexuality is wrong because my church tells me so") at face value unless something strongly indicates otherwise.
Now do you care to defend your statement, good man?
quote:I say you should apply some rigorous experimentation to this to get a more accurate statistic. It may be hard on your wife, but I'm sure she'll be accepting if you explain that it's all in the name of science.
As to the 0.3%, well, that's basically a guesstimate. When I first saw the movie Troy and Brad Pitt stripped off his armor after the beach landing, his abs were killer and I thought, "Nice!"...but I didn't want to touch his penis, or have him touch mine.
quote:That was simply a demonstration of the level of attraction which causes me to guesstimate at 0.3%, and not the only thing I based it on, nor what I based my "broader claims" on.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Since this is what we're going by-you saw a part of the male anatomy and thought it was nice. Anyway, I could think of something less compelling than 'I felt something when I saw a movie once' but it would take some thought. It is-for the purposes of accuracy and conversation, I don't mean this morally or anything-a worthless guess. It has so little substance with regards to your broader claim as to have no value.
quote:If so, I don't recall it, do you remember which thread it was in?
You've called me a bully as well.
quote:My declared intent was to not speak to you, which I obviously went against. Words can be very much like pushes, in that pushes can be intended to start a fight or show dominance and intimidate and harsh words can have the exact same purpose/effect. I extremely doubt you are trying to make the point that written words are not the same as physical actions, as that point is beyond obvious, so I question what exactly is your point?
In fact the rant came shortly after declaring your intent to be pacifistic towards me. Anyway, it's not like shoving. Words aren't pushes
quote:I think perhaps you should reread what I said, as I was comparing his last post to him saying he is batman and his aggression is vigilance against my faults which are causing harm, much like a comic book villain.
So now he is, in your posts, not just a bully but a Batman villain. That is...well, it strikes me as very unreasonable, making that comparison, and more than a little silly. I mean, has he poisoned Hatrack's water supply with a laughing chemical? Has he staged a bird-themed robbery of Hatrack's zoo? Flipped a scarred coin to determine whether or not Hatrack posters live or die? It's also difficult to believe you when you say you don't care whether he believes it or not, when you by now frequently tell him all about it in detail after saying you've declared you're going to ignore him.
quote:Um, no I wasn't being evasive at all. I say one thing is possible and you put a whole lot of words in my mouth, which sounds similar but are very a different message. As to answering criticism...how about: what I said isn't hogwash? That's should address all the "criticism" I've seen. Oh, here's another...it's not ludicrous either. In all seriousness, saying that A) A small (so small it would likely never be acted upon) level of attraction to members of the same gender is very common, B) People who believe that God says homosexuality is a sin, might feel that same common feeling and C) The presence of that feeling might be a factor in their discomfort with making same gender marriage commonly acceptable, seems very reasonable and not at all condemning or judgmental on my part.
Originally posted by Dogbreath :
Now you're just being evasive. You've yet to answer any criticism directed at your ludicrous statement.
quote:I do hope this is a joke, but either way it is not very funny nor appropriate.
I say you should apply some rigorous experimentation to this to get a more accurate statistic. It may be hard on your wife, but I'm sure she'll be accepting if you explain that it's all in the name of science. [Smile]
quote:My criticism is that it's nonsensical to assume that the views held by a huge group of people (many of who differ greatly in those beliefs) are caused by a tension between their beliefs and their own homosexual desires. I don't even really think you'd be in the right to assume that about a single person, unless you had substantial evidence to indicate it.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Um, no I wasn't being evasive at all. I say one thing is possible and you put a whole lot of words in my mouth, which sounds similar but are very a different message. As to answering criticism...how about: what I said isn't hogwash? That's should address all the "criticism" I've seen.
quote:How common, exactly? Maybe 0.3% of all males? Oh wait, we've already used that statistic once in this thread.
Oh, here's another...it's not ludicrous either. In all seriousness, saying that A) A small (so small it would likely never be acted upon) level of attraction to members of the same gender is very common, B) People who believe that God says homosexuality is a sin, might feel that same common feeling and C) The presence of that feeling might be a factor in their discomfort with making same gender marriage commonly acceptable, seems very reasonable and not at all condemning or judgmental on my part.
quote:It's my way of lightly poking fun at your use of an exact percentage to describe feeling horny while watching a hot dude in a movie, as well as trying to lighten the mood. Yes, it's a joke.
I do hope this is a joke, but either way it is not very funny nor appropriate.
quote:I believe this monicker is reserved for people who have sex with both men and women and is truly not applicable to me.
...but just because you are bisexual...
quote:Just about every day, I walk past a Recon Marine (always topless, for some god forsaken reason) who winks and smiles at me and says "come on baby, you know you want it! You gonna come back to my place tonight?" or something to that effect.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
You're military, so let me ask you, how much goofing around about being gay and wanting each other is there among men by your experience? Would you say it is rare, uncommon, common or very common?
quote:Aesthetically, yes. Sexually, no.
Have you ever seen a particularly attractive male and been appreciative of their physicality?
quote:According to whom? I've always seen it used to refer to attraction, and I believe it's the appropriate word. Dictionary.com and Wikipedia back me on that.
I believe this monicker is reserved for people who have sex with both men and women and is truly not applicable to me.
quote:You're getting all twisted up here. I'm not sure if you're switching your positions intentionally, or if you really don't notice it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
It doesn't make people into hypocrites to have a very small part of them be attracted to the same gender and be against gay marriage. By Christian standards homosexuality is a sin, and so is adultery. By your standards every Christian male that admired someone who he wasn't married to physically but never said or did anything about it but is pro marriage is a hypocrite.
You can disagree with me that it is common for people to be a tiny bit attracted to members of their own gender, you can disagree with me that that if present may make people feel even more uncomfortable with common homosexuality, but I tend to think this conversation has a lot more then simple disagreement, but that perhaps you feel I'm saying that there is something wrong with anyone who feels the way I'm suggesting as a possibility.
I don't see it that way. You can have someone who thinks that getting drunk is bad and should be banned and still struggles with wanting to drink a beer or two at a party and they are not evil hypocrites.
quote:You have my humble apologies.
Oh, and here is a hint, including people's wives in jokes about how they are gay doesn't actually lighten the mood.
) changing from...considering I disagreed about your interpretation of my initial opinion.quote:Thank you kindly Sir. Your attempt to lighten the mood have worked and I officially declare the mood to be at least two shades lighter.
You have my humble apologies.
quote:lol.
I do hope this is a joke, but either way it is not very funny nor appropriate.
quote:Really?
Aesthetically vs sexual attraction is an interesting delineation. Please define parameters.
quote:Yeah, that's the thing. There's no possible interpretation of your initial post (other than opposite day, perhaps) that matches what you are claiming now. Either the homosexual desires are part of the reason for their actions, as you originally claimed, and therefore they're hypocrites because they claim one reason (religion) when really having another (shame), or those desires (present or not) are not a contributing factor - which you seem to be claiming in that last post. In that case, it completely nullifies your original statement. Now apparently you want to have it both ways - you want to believe most Americans are secretly gay and ashamed of it, but also think it's not hypocritical for them to claim otherwise. A more cynical man would assume dishonesty on your part.
considering I disagreed about your interpretation of my initial opinion.
quote:I'm not at all being holier-than-thou. I fully admit my rudeness. A certain degree of rudeness is necessary when valuing fact/truth over belief.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The second part was to steven, going on about these craaazy ignorant fundamentalists, and being quite holier-than-thou about it.
quote:perhaps he was saying that you have to keep social pressure to marry, not to keep people straight, but to keep people marrying as opposed to just having heterosexual relations outside of marriage, and marrying more and more seldomly.
I read someone arguing against ssm on the argument that without societal pressure very few people would have heterosexual marriages. I'll admit, reading that I thought, closeted gay man.
quote:Really really.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Really?
Aesthetically vs sexual attraction is an interesting delineation. Please define parameters.
quote:All right. Aesthetic admiration implies one admires something for it's beauty. I might find a deer or a house aesthetically pleasing. Sexual attraction implies sexual desire. i.e, it makes you randy, gives you wood, starts a series of processes in your body to prepare you for intercourse. I find it difficult to believe you really don't understand the difference.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Really really.
quote:Again, you seem to use a series of definitions foreign to the English language. If you are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, you are, by definition, homosexual. Colloquially, when coupled with an attraction to the opposite sex, it's often called being bisexual. This is getting pretty ridiculous.
Dude, really...one can have a feeling of attraction, and not be "gay".
quote:So you agree that their sexuality has nothing to do with their decision to oppose ssm then? You seem to be purposely obfuscating your own opinion every time you're pressed to answer this.
If one also has a strong and convicted belief that the the act of homosexual sex is a sin, then it does not make them hypocrites to want gay marriage illegal. It makes them pro theocracy and therefore in my opinion at least, silly in the head, cause you know, those work out so well.
quote:Awwwww...I missed it!
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Sa'eed's post, even though it lasted less than a minute, was appropriately homophobic, grats
quote:That's for you to decide, though seeing as you used it as an example to show how you're partially gay, I assume it was a sexual desire. You're a married man, despite your feigned ignorance I'm sure you understand what constitutes sexual attraction.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
So, you are saying that since I did -not- pitch a tent or want to engage in hot man on man love when looking Mr. Pitt's abs, I was only aesthetically attracted to him?
quote:That makes as much sense as a group of people tearing down old estates to throw up drab cookie cutter houses because they find beautiful old mansions appealing. Or, to quote C.S. Lewis, "stop talking damn nonsense."
Okay...maybe this will help you then. A contributing factor which might cause Christians to want to ban same gender marriages is that if they find the same gender aesthetically pleasing that it worries them that they might be lead down the path of sin.
Does that statement seem like a plausible possibility?
quote:(Bolding mine.)
stop talking damn nonsense.
quote:I admit to not always having a full and complete understanding of topics I comment on, but that is part of what I come here for, to get perspective on my ideas and see if they hold up in a community I respect. There have been several large issues that I completely changed my mind and my approach about after discussions here, which include but are not limited to: Women have worse situational awareness then men, 911 was a conspiracy, all violent crime should be punished by death, that rape is solely determined by the intent of perpetrator and that literally everyone should carry pepper spray.
When he makes illogical or poorly thought out posts, and is vociferously opposed and clearly shown the flaws in his argument, he never stops to consider "maybe there is something wrong me.
quote:I literally did that in this thread when Scott said my initial post was detrimental to civil discussion.
Maybe I need to accept their advice and be more careful about how I word my statements. Maybe, if I do make a ridiculous statement, I should retract it and apologize, find out what I said that is wrong or illogical, and come back with a revised argument.
quote:I have called exactly one person a bully. How you can then make that into everyone I find astonishing. I do not assume that everyone is out to get me, I mostly attempt to assume that people are honest and forthright about believing what they say they do and try and give the benefit of the doubt. When it comes to Orincoro, he has made special effort to be aggressive and rude to me, even going so far as to make a thread solely for the purpose of mocking me, and then let me know he was enjoying it and glad I knew it. The benefit of the doubt only goes so far. It went pretty far with you. I was polite and thanked you when you did give me the benefit of the doubt, and didn't mention it all when you did not, and in no way shape or form declared you a villain or refused to speak to you in the future. I did let you know when my toes felt stepped on, but not in an angry way, and thanked you when you apologized and tried to keep things light as you said was your goal. Even with Orincoro I have attempted to be polite.
No, everyone who persistently opposes him is a bully. For some reason, they're all out to get him. It makes him a victim, and therefore exonerates him of any wrong doing. Because presumptuous arrogance and rudeness, which he so despises in Orincoro, are perfectly acceptable for him when he's sticking it to the man.
quote:
I think that, at some point in Stone Wolf's life, he decided that that sort of growth was too painful to bear.
quote:Here you are preaching about how I have decided in my life (not just internet discussion boards mind you) to stop growing as it is too painful, and how it is so wrong of me to be a presumptions, arrogant and rude, but it is you who are offering unasked for advice and then assuming that instead of the possibility that you don't understand my point, that I am evasive and dishonest. Take your own advise here. Look at what my message is.
I've tried to be polite, though direct and to the point, in this argument out of hopes I could lead him to see where he went wrong. Instead, I was rebuffed with evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty. Which is sad, he'd rather lose my respect and tarnish his own integrity than admit error.
quote:I'm -0.3% gay.
I myself am 0.3% gay, which is far too little to do anything about, but is there none the less.
quote:What, you're actively repelled by other people of the same gender?
Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask:
quote:I'm -0.3% gay.
I myself am 0.3% gay, which is far too little to do anything about, but is there none the less.
quote:Dude, read. He's saying aesthetically admiring of, not attracted to. The problem is you're not keying on the different meanings of attraction and admiration.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
So, you are saying that since I did -not- pitch a tent or want to engage in hot man on man love when looking Mr. Pitt's abs, I was only aesthetically attracted to him?
quote:Dude, don't make me flex. I'll do it. You'll aesthetic all over the place.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Dude, read. He's saying aesthetically admiring of, not attracted to. The problem is you're not keying on the different meanings of attraction and admiration.
You can aesthetically admire that which does not sexually attract you. Aesthetic attraction is also possible, and is not sexual. One wouldn't typically apply that type of feeling to a human form- more to an object of craft. I am aesthetically attracted to cherrywood, and I admire certain human forms in an aesthetic sense. It's not so complicated.
quote:I'll admit it's a little unfair that I know you far, far better than you know me. The demanding nature of my career means I often go weeks or months without being able to post on Hatrack, so I've never been able to stick around for a long enough period to establish myself. I have, however, been reading this forum for 8 years now, and have read the majority of your posts. I'd wager for every post you make that someone replies to, there are at least 5 or 6 who read it and don't reply.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Dogbreath, I don't agree with your conclusions, and I am willing to take some time to point out each and every time I do disagree and why. But I do wonder why you would draw such sweeping and negative conclusions of my character based on very little interaction.
quote:Actually, so far you're the only person who has managed to provoke such a reaction from me. There are other people on this forum who annoy me (I tease Blayne sometimes because he seems to try and absorb every fan boy stereotype in existence and make it part of his personality), but your apparent inability to accept basic logic or formulate sound arguments disturbs me, not because it implies ignorance, but because, thanks to your otherwise formidable intellect, implies that you *know* what's wrong with what you're saying and yet think it's all right to do it anyway, that you should be able to get away with it.
If your respect is that easy to loose then I doubt many hold it for long.
quote:Because Orincoro is otherwise well known for his gentle demeanor and kindness and spontaneous hugs, right?
When it comes to Orincoro, he has made special effort to be aggressive and rude to me
quote:TBH, it was mostly just to get a reaction from you. I'm sorry if I got a little carried away, I have a habit of doing that for dramatic effect.
Here you are preaching about how I have decided in my life
quote:Except for one of those, they're all rather stylized versions of "cut the crap." I try hard to make my posts as short and to the point as possible; because I view every unnecessary word as distracting baggage, and because you have a penchant for seizing upon every slightly tangential statement I make in a desperate attempt to turn the conversation away from it's inevitable conclusion. I realize you may misconstrue this brevity as rudeness, feel free to mentally add whatever honorifics and polite disclaimers are necessary to alleviate this.
All these things are words you put in my mouth, and I'd like to note, in a very confrontational and rude way. ("So either stand behind your statement, or admit it was incorrect." "Now you're just being evasive. You've yet to answer any criticism directed at your ludicrous statement." "How common, exactly? Maybe 0.3% of all males? Oh wait, we've already used that statistic once in this thread." "This is getting pretty ridiculous." "Or, to quote C.S. Lewis, "stop talking damn nonsense." )
quote:I'm not sure how this follows with anything that's being discussed. What exactly am I supposed to be ashamed of?
How many prominent anti-gay ministers/activists/politicians will have to accidentally fall out of the closet before Scott, or any other person on that side of the argument, hushes out of shame?
quote:
I think it's funny that you think you know me at all. I intentionally misrepresent myself as a person, here. I do speak the direct and total truth about health and diet issues, as per my experience. Everything else is carefully painted so as to mislead people like you. It's not that I lie about the other stuff...I just present only the truths that I choose.
quote:I honestly don't know what to say to this. The first part is so cringe worthy...and yet the second so backhandedly complimentary, like saying, "You are such an idiot, but so smart it can't be unintentional." I don't agree with either part really. What I am is stubborn and prickly and not a fan of being told I'm wrong. But who is? I'm convincable. What you did in this thread was shout about how wrong I am and demand surrender, and very very little convincing with logical or any kind of argument. Maybe it says something about me that my default opinion is that I'm right, but one can hardly go around assuming they are wrong all the time.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
...but your apparent inability to accept basic logic or formulate sound arguments disturbs me, not because it implies ignorance, but because, thanks to your otherwise formidable intellect, implies that you *know* what's wrong with what you're saying and yet think it's all right to do it anyway, that you should be able to get away with it.
quote:You miss the point. It isn't that Orin is such a teddy bear to everyone else, it's that my claims of his assbagery are accurate and I'm not just a giant throbbing victim begging for an excuse to steal the high ground because my arguments are so weak I need any excuse to break off communications as you accused me of.
Because Orincoro is otherwise well known for his gentle demeanor and kindness and spontaneous hugs, right?
quote:Well thanks for that (no sarcasm). Despite your "dramatic effect" I do put a lot of effort into being open minded and willing to listen to other view points then my own and change and grow. There is nothing bad about being wrong if you can learn from it.
TBH, it was mostly just to get a reaction from you. I'm sorry if I got a little carried away, I have a habit of doing that for dramatic effect.
quote:I didn't complain about the "brevity" of your comments at the time as I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and not take it personally. In all honesty this topic is one that is very close to people's hearts and can cause thermostats to rise, so if one is going to wade into this topic, one should allow for some heat without being burned.
I realize you may misconstrue this brevity as rudeness, feel free to mentally add whatever honorifics and polite disclaimers are necessary to alleviate this.
quote:I had to go look up what you were talking about. I don't think that discussion qualifies as "going a few rounds."
Scott and I have gone several rounds on the other side thread "OSC and the criminalization of homosexuals" and while we almost never agree we are almost always polite and respectful of each other, and because of this I will usually go out of my way to ensure that though our conversations rarely end in agreement, they always end with out hurt feelings.
quote:*shrug* I remember we discussed things that we disagreed about quite a bit but where always friendly about it...perhaps my memory of it is wrong. And I was only referring to you, I don't actually remember a "Scooter".
Originally posted by Scott R:
I had to go look up what you were talking about. I don't think that discussion qualifies as "going a few rounds."
Keep in mind that I am not Scooter. (Not on this forum, anyway)
quote:My favorite reply so far. If decorum wasn't a factor, I could make it even more hilarious by editing two words. But alas, you'll simply have to speculate.
Originally posted by pooka:
I think divorce is worse than homosexuality. But divorce to be homosexual is worser.
quote:I agree. And yet...
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
My criticism is that it's nonsensical to assume that the views held by a huge group of people (many of who differ greatly in those beliefs) are caused by a tension between their beliefs and their own homosexual desires. I don't even really think you'd be in the right to assume that about a single person, unless you had substantial evidence to indicate it.
quote:I did provide logical argument... every time I showed you why your position was incorrect, however, you changed it, claiming I was simply misinterpreting your original post.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
What you did in this thread was shout about how wrong I am and demand surrender, and very very little convincing with logical or any kind of argument.
quote:This statement implies two things:
I guess that part of the problem that religious people have with the gays is that they can not accept the very small part of themselves which understand, empathizes and shares the attraction.
quote:I wouldn't say that. There are a number of established ways to test people for beliefs and preferences that they would deny having.
However, because the first two assumptions apparently contradict reality, the only way for them to be true is assumption three. But the existence of assumption three makes assumption one and two impossible to prove!
quote:Scott, all the most vocal and public anti-gay activists are being forced out of the closed by their own out-of-control desires. At some point, it becomes too embarrassing to continue to associate yourself with such a movement. It's becoming more and more true that the only people who have real problems with gay folks are, themselves, gay.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm not sure how this follows with anything that's being discussed. What exactly am I supposed to be ashamed of?
How many prominent anti-gay ministers/activists/politicians will have to accidentally fall out of the closet before Scott, or any other person on that side of the argument, hushes out of shame?
quote:Pull over, word police.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
(and using standard English words, not your own interpretation of them)
quote:On an individual basis, yes. Nationwide, though? It'd be practically impossible for individualized tests, and I don't know how much you can really draw from polls. I don't know how accurate any data derived that way would be.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I wouldn't say that. There are a number of established ways to test people for beliefs and preferences that they would deny having.
quote:Confirmation bias, maybe? It does seem like a lot of the most vitriolic, active opponents wind up being gay.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
[QUOTE]
I agree. And yet...
http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=057101;p=0&r=nfx
it seems so often to be true.
quote:I think that is a big difference. Typically you can tell a lot about a person's ambitions from their career choices (assuming they had a choice of careers, that is). If someone is incredibly passionate about their religion, perhaps they'd become a minister or a missionary or nun or monk or church accountant, depending on their talents and what secondary passions they have. So it stands to reason if you'd make a career out of preaching against homosexuality, it's possible you'd have some attribute that made you care much more about homosexuality than the average Christian. Whether that attribute is repressed homosexual feelings, or anger at a childhood experience, or maybe just a "moment of enlightenment" where you realized the horrible menace the "eviiiiil homosexuals" are to our society, or all three combined, is another question.
Again, I would differentiate between casual, armchair anti-gay people and those who seem to want to make it their life's work.
quote:Completely agree with this. I've been pretty vocally active against the DADT policy since I enlisted in the military, and despise the injustice that has been done to gays and lesbians in our society.
Also, I find that conservatives often will complain about people being rude to them regarding their beliefs on homosexuality. I would point out that denying a consenting adult the same rights that you have is (in addition to being wrongheaded and cruel and unjust) rude.
quote:
Scott, all the most vocal and public anti-gay activists are being forced out of the closed by their own out-of-control desires.
It's becoming more and more true that the only people who have real problems with gay folks are, themselves, gay.
quote:How many articles do you see saying "so and so, an outspoken opponent of SSM, is still perfectly straight and in loving relationship with his wife, with whom he maintains a healthy and normal sex life"?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Rakeesh, are you claiming that this is all reporting bias? Do you have evidence of that?
quote:It appears to be steven's position.
ETA: And I don't think that anyone is saying "always" or "only". I certainly am not.
quote:It's all relative.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
We have the same sort of problem here in Japan. The Marines stationed here, or staying temporarily (as I am) are generally *extremely* well behaved in comparison to average American or Japanese males of their age.
quote:Of course it should be noted that he's in favour of jailing prominent homosexuals in order to set an example for other people entertaining the thought of coming out of the closet.
But you'll notice, at least in my hypothetical scenario, that not a single one of his motivations has anything to do with his own personal sexuality.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:this tends to make a lot of sense, actually, as far as we can determine from biology and neurology.
I feel it is very common to have either aesthetic or sexual attraction to the same members of one's gender, but at such small quantities that it is very difficult to know the difference between the two. If one did believe that homosexuality is a sin, then if that feeling was present, it might feel like an urge to sin. With more acceptance of homosexuality and SSM in our culture, this feeling of uncomfortableness, if present, may be part of the reason why someone would be against the legality of SSM, while still the majority of the reason(s) are morality/religion based.
quote:Drinking coffee is potentially harmful too...billions of people do it every day, though.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
...I think it dangerous and potentially harmful to speculate on the orientation of any particular person whether those speculations are true or not...
quote:If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
... I suspect it wouldn't be-but I like to hope so.
quote:In your worldview, what is sin?
I have always been quite religious and I am deeply offended by the notion of a god that would be so cruel and unjust as to want us to deny gay people the same opportunity for love and happiness that straight people have.
quote:I have never understood this version of the saying and always used the one from Dune: "If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets."
Originally posted by Mucus:
If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak
quote:Sin is hurting ourselves or others unnecessarily thus damaging our relationship with God.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:In your worldview, what is sin?
I have always been quite religious and I am deeply offended by the notion of a god that would be so cruel and unjust as to want us to deny gay people the same opportunity for love and happiness that straight people have.
quote:+1
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sin is hurting ourselves or others unnecessarily...
quote:Try to what? See how wrong you are?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
When I'm eating horse, or crow;), I like to pretend I'm eating steak but it never works very well. Taste bein' a hard sense to trick.
Steven, heh, how hard do you try?
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Besides which, I'm from the rural South, where gossip is still the main form of entertainment. I try not to engage in baseless speculation, but...gossip is entertaining.
quote:To tell a rural Southerner not to gossip is like telling a Frenchman not to drink wine. It's practically culturally mandated.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Besides which, I'm from the rural South, where gossip is still the main form of entertainment. I try not to engage in baseless speculation, but...gossip is entertaining.
quote:The normal way.
Originally posted by Scott R:
How do you define "hurt?"
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:That's fine, I was just answering the question you asked Rakeesh.
Originally posted by steven:
quote:To tell a rural Southerner not to gossip is like telling a Frenchman not to drink wine. It's practically culturally mandated.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:
Originally posted by steven:
Besides which, I'm from the rural South, where gossip is still the main form of entertainment. I try not to engage in baseless speculation, but...gossip is entertaining.
quote:(I appreciate you taking the time to reword your argument.) This is certainly very possible. The biggest problem I see with it is this: if this discomfort with their own feelings is caused by their strong religious beliefs, then logically the religious beliefs have to predicate the discomfort. In other words, in your scenario one must already strongly believe that homosexuality is a sin and should not be tolerated by our culture to feel uncomfortable with their own feelings. So the discomfort cannot be a prime cause. (of course, in reality there are many different reasons why a straight man might feel uncomfortable with homosexual thoughts, most of them having nothing to do with religion)
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I feel it is very common to have either aesthetic or sexual attraction to the same members of one's gender, but at such small quantities that it is very difficult to know the difference between the two. If one did believe that homosexuality is a sin, then if that feeling was present, it might feel like an urge to sin. With more acceptance of homosexuality and SSM in our culture, this feeling of uncomfortableness, if present, may be part of the reason why someone would be against the legality of SSM, while still the majority of the reason(s) are morality/religion based.
quote:This seems to be a point of contention, and I think the reason for this is because we have wildly different ideas as to what the word "gay" means. In this argument, I use it interchangeably "homosexual", and I define "homosexual" by the standard dictionary definition. (— n 1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex) I usually soften it with the modifier "partially" to indicate that they're mostly heterosexual, but due to these desires you postulate, at least partially gay.
I do not hold that if this uncomfortably is present that it makes people "gay" or "hypocrites"
quote:Earlier in your post, you said people might conflate their aesthetic appreciation for their own sex with sexual attraction. To me, that sort of confusion seems to be a very adolescent issue - an adult generally has enough sexual experience to understand what he finds sexually desirous and what he simply finds admirable without much confusion. Otherwise, you'd find these anti-ssm Christians going crazy trying to shut down art museums because of all the beautiful depictions of male nudes in art. (*insert inevitable story of some crazy group doing exactly that here*)
as I feel this attraction to be quite common and not a driving attractive force such as one might feel for members of the opposite gender which would define them as "straight". More like there can be more then one reason why people think what they think, and this could be one of those reasons, be it small or large.
quote:As far as I know (I did a brief cursory search online), there haven't been any murders in the past 20 years or so. There have been three rape cases, including a very bad one involving a 14 year old girl in 2008. Most of the problems relate to Marines getting drunk and pushing locals around, or getting overly friendly with the local women.
Originally posted by Mucus:
]It's all relative.
The murder rate in Japan is less than 1 per 100,000. The murder rate in the US is 5 per 100,000. Take into the account the issues involved with stationing plenty of unattached young males in a foreign society, and the Japanese are fully justified in looking on the increased murder and sexual assault rates with alarm.
quote:The one key difference, though, is my hypothesis is made up of all the reasons Card has actually established in all his articles against homosexuality, as well as an understanding of his beliefs (at least as described in his books), and therefore has some weight to it. The scenario you describe would be purely conjecture. I of course think his views regarding ssm are flawed, I don't see why that has to mean he's a closeted homosexual.
It's not hard to counter your hypothetical scenario with one in which OSC proposed this because he deeply understands how best to motivate people to stay in the closet
quote:I don't imagine we have a decent chance of comprehending how they feel. It's not a binary situation. They attacked us. They lost the war after that happened. There's all sorts of layers of shame, and regret, and fealty and fear involved with that- the Japanese national character was changed drastically in the middle of the last century.
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I agree they have reason to dislike us, though. It's often explained to us as "how would you feel if the Japanese defeated the U.S. in WWII, invaded your hometown, and were still occupying it? And if their average height was 6' 8" and they were all far more muscular than you and aggressive? How would you feel if a bunch of them came into a bar you were hanging out in and started pushing you around?" Not very pleased, obviously.
quote:It's actually slightly more complicated than that--for the first several years of occupation, the U.S. actively supported the Japanese Communists, who had been imprisoned under the former regime. After all, they were some of the few politicians who definitively could be said not to have been involved in the war. They generally saw Communism as a positive force in Japanese culture; see, for example, Kurosawa's No Regrets for Our Youth, which the U.S. censors were happy to release during this period.
Originally posted by Mucus:
From what I understand, the US occupation did purge Communist politicians. Somewhat of a broader trend, the US not being particularly nice to Communist politicians even on the US mainland.
quote:You could just about cut it with a knife...
Today, racism is so utterly unfashionable in most of white society that evil people have to find other "causes" to exploit in order to gain supremacy. Evil people have not decreased in number or changed their methods; they simply use different excuses for seeking to oppress whole classes of people in the name of some supposedly noble cause.
quote:what
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Going back to the main subject:
In OSC's review of The Help, he has this to say:
quote:You could just about cut it with a knife...
Today, racism is so utterly unfashionable in most of white society that evil people have to find other "causes" to exploit in order to gain supremacy. Evil people have not decreased in number or changed their methods; they simply use different excuses for seeking to oppress whole classes of people in the name of some supposedly noble cause.
quote:look at him go man, it's ..
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 who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
quote:I think citizens are the strength of a country.
laws are the skeleton of our country, the strength on which all else builds upon
quote:Citizens are not the rigid backbone that we base our system on...yes, a county's strength can be measured by its citizens, but it can also be measured by its infrastructure, military, GDP, food produced, etc, ad nausium. That's not my point though. Laws are what we base our system of government on.
Originally posted by Scott R:
I think citizens are the strength of a country.
quote:Off the top of my head: systematic review by elected officials, where questionable laws are brought to the people, on which ever level the laws exist (local, state, federal), with the option of judicial review of constitutionality.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Stone_Wolf, how would you go about the process of getting old laws off the books?
quote:The law is constantly interacting with and being redefined by the needs of the society that wrote the law. To interpret the law is to use one's *own* judgement. The law is a device for focusing and expressing the judgement of society.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I agree in principal, not in execution. To leave outdated and harmful laws "on the books" but simply not enforce them is twofold folly. Firstly they are law, and can be enforced. That OSC is calling for oppressive and discriminatory laws to be executed only shows that point.
Secondly, laws are the skeleton of our country, the strength on which all else builds upon, and to weaken our structure by allowing it to not be resolute but instead require our government representatives to forswear their oaths to uphold our laws and instead use their own judgment on what should and should not be enforced is self defeating and a bad system.
quote:To quote West Wing, we already have such a system: they're called elections. It's not perfect, but if you think that the transition to a system such as you described would be without serious difficulties either, I think you're kidding yourself.
Off the top of my head: systematic review by elected officials, where questionable laws are brought to the people, on which ever level the laws exist (local, state, federal), with the option of judicial review of constitutionality.
quote:The problem here is that you're advocating, in the US system, even more elections when already as things stand the real biggest reason elected officials don't get a whole lot done is because they're campaigning so much. It's not that they're lazy, because goodness knows it ain't easy to get elected or re-elected. It's because, among other things, they have to work really hard at things that, well, probably ain't in the country's best interest.
Make our representatives work for their money...yes, the special elections would cost the country, but having a "tight ship" is a worthwhile expense I say.
quote:It would amount to much the same thing, or at least the same thing at one degree of separation.
Just to clarify, the special elections would be for the questionable laws, not for the representatives. I'm suggesting that this duty of legal review just be tacked on to our preexisting senators and congress-people's job description.
quote:But...again, we've got a system for this, Stone_Wolf. When such laws actually become part of the present instead of relics of the past, our representative system can deal with them.
I don't think it is a substantial problem, just a fundamental one, if that makes sense. In other words, does this cause problems on a daily basis in the lives of average Americans? No, it really does not. Is it a problem that could undermine the structure we base our system on and allow for a legal loophole for the repression of...well, depending on the law, anyone that law enforcement personnel wishes to F with.
quote:This comparison doesn't really hold up at all. As you've said in the same post, the laws don't pose a daily problem, and it only depends on a variety of factors if they're going to be a problem at all. The people on Hoarders, I've never watched the show but seen commercials, their homes are always filled with clutter. They can't ever get rid of it without help, on the show. It's always an impediment. Not like this thing with archaic laws at all.
I think of it this way: Ever seen Hoarders? They often have brand new, perfectly useable items amid the junk...and if they just cleaned out the crap they don't need, they wouldn't have such a problem which makes their whole house nonfunctional. Are our laws yet to the point of hoard? No, but let's keep our house clean.
quote:How would people voting to keep or abolish laws be nearly the same thing as politicians having to campaign to get elected?
It would amount to much the same thing, or at least the same thing at one degree of separation.
quote:Then why don't they?
When such laws actually become part of the present instead of relics of the past, our representative system can deal with them.
quote:Source.
...an old city ordinance in Cleveland, Ohio prohibits women from wearing patent leather shoes in public. The reason? Shiny footwear could afford a nearby gentleman an unintentional peep show.
If you're a woman living in Michigan, you might want to check with your husband before heading to the hair stylist. According to state law, your hair belongs to your spouse and you'll need his permission before you can alter it. When visiting Charlotte, North Carolina, don't plan on packing light. According to city law, you must be swathed in at least 16 yards of fabric before stepping out into public. Even in fashion forward New York City, there are laws concerning how a woman dresses. In the Big Apple, wearing clingy or body-hugging clothing carries a $25 dollar fine.
And in Memphis, Tennessee, women can't drive a car unless there is a man with a red flag in front of the car warning the other people on the road.
quote:As I said, we are not at that stage, and you must surely realize, that the people on hoarders didn't buy the house, move in and pile junk up to the windows, it is a gradual process whose end result is a nonfunctional house. As I clearly said, we are not there yet, but if we do not "sweep up clutter" the problem will only get worse.
This comparison doesn't really hold up at all.
quote:Source.
On Sunday (in Vermont) it is against the law for a woman to walk down the street unless her husband is walking behind her at least twenty paces with a musket on his shoulder.
In Virginia bathtubs must be installed in the yard because it is illegal to put a tub in the house.
A husband owns his wife's clothes in Michigan. He can follow her if she leaves him and legally take every piece of clothing off of her.
The birds in New Jersey are taken care of, it is the law that cats wear three bells so that birds will know where they are at all times.
There is a law (in Georgia) that requires anyone who attends church on Sunday to have a loaded rifle.
An old law in Boston says that a person is not allowed to take more than one bath per week.
quote:Who do you think would get closely involved with a constant ongoing political process like you're describing? I'm not sure how long the list would be, but I suspect somewhere near the top would be 'politicians'.
How would people voting to keep or abolish laws be nearly the same thing as politicians having to campaign to get elected?
quote:They do. It's just that you're defining 'deal with them' as 'remove them from the books entirely, whether or not they're ever enforced'. You're making a circular argument: the only way to deal with these old laws is to deal with them, and dealing with them means an ongoing series of special initiatives, votes, elections, etc.
Then why don't they?
quote:This is another circular argument. You're suggesting the problem is already really bad, and because it's really bad that proves that it's going to get worse. I don't grant your initial premise. The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described. Again, I ask: how much actual trouble does this 'problem' really cause for Americans? You admitted yourself the answer to that question.
As I said, we are not at that stage, and you must surely realize, that the people on hoarders didn't buy the house, move in and pile junk up to the windows, it is a gradual process whose end result is a nonfunctional house. As I clearly said, we are not there yet, but if we do not "sweep up clutter" the problem will only get worse.
quote:I suspect if you ask most people, "Do police and judges," and by the way, judges don't enforce the law, exactly, "have an equal obligation to enforce laws against robbery and murder as they do against patent leather footwear on women?" the answer would be, "Of course not!"
Our police and judges are obligated to enforce the law. Even the stupid, old, crazy ones. If law enforcement can simply ignore laws that they determine to be "silly" or "bad"...well, that is one slippery damn slope.
quote:Your initial objection was that, campaigning takes so much time..."The problem here is that you're advocating, in the US system, even more elections when already as things stand the real biggest reason elected officials don't get a whole lot done is because they're campaigning so much. It's not that they're lazy, because goodness knows it ain't easy to get elected or re-elected." so their "involvement" is hardly the same thing, and trying to pass it off as the same concern is dubious.
Who do you think would get closely involved with a constant ongoing political process like you're describing? I'm not sure how long the list would be, but I suspect somewhere near the top would be 'politicians'.
quote:It is not even remotely a circular argument, as I am not complaining about archaic laws being enforced, but them actually being on the books.
They do. It's just that you're defining 'deal with them' as 'remove them from the books entirely, whether or not they're ever enforced'. You're making a circular argument: the only way to deal with these old laws is to deal with them, and dealing with them means an ongoing series of special initiatives, votes, elections, etc.
quote:Again, not a circular argument...I said straight up that it isn't a big problem, but a systemic one. Nor did I say that anything proves anything. Please do not put (incorrect) words in my mouth. A crack in the dam which doesn't leak isn't a big problem, but it can be an indicator that work must be done to maintain the system integrity. That OSC is calling for anti sodomy laws to be enforced is a crack in the dam.
This is another circular argument. You're suggesting the problem is already really bad, and because it's really bad that proves that it's going to get worse. I don't grant your initial premise.
quote:You mean Orincoro telling me I am wrong? I'll just assume this was poorly worded and not a dishonest attempt to make it appear as if there were lots of people who have stated their disagreement with my thoughts, as I am trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I have asked them to do for me.
The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described.
quote:Is it hubris to ask a question like it hasn't been answered when it already has? And I didn't admit it, like it was a point in contention that I lost, I stated it so you could understand my views, which you seem to be having trouble groking.
Again, I ask: how much actual trouble does this 'problem' really cause for Americans? You admitted yourself the answer to that question.
quote:Now here at least is a real point of argument. I don't agree, but it actually addresses what I've said unlike your other comments.
I suspect if you ask most people, "Do police and judges," and by the way, judges don't enforce the law, exactly, "have an equal obligation to enforce laws against robbery and murder as they do against patent leather footwear on women?" the answer would be, "Of course not!"
Our society makes judgments like these all the time. It's a question of limited resources. We don't have an absolute equal obligation to enforce every single law in all cases. It is, in fact, built into the system: hello plea bargains.
quote:They prove that there are plenty of silly laws still on the books.
As for your sources, I'm not sure what they're intended to prove. They prove that there are plenty of silly laws still on the books.
quote:This process you're describing would become involved in campaigns. It would be something politicians would have to campaign on-their support or opposition to the latest in a constant stream of law-revision. I acknowledged that the drain wouldn't be as severe. Your claim that I'm suggesting it's the same concern is, well, flat-out wrong.
Your initial objection was that, campaigning takes so much time..."The problem here is that you're advocating, in the US system, even more elections when already as things stand the real biggest reason elected officials don't get a whole lot done is because they're campaigning so much. It's not that they're lazy, because goodness knows it ain't easy to get elected or re-elected." so their "involvement" is hardly the same thing, and trying to pass it off as the same concern is dubious.
quote:It's circular because your complaint is founded on a belief that having them on the books causes problems, and your evidence that they cause problems is that they're on the books.
It is not even remotely a circular argument, as I am not complaining about archaic laws being enforced, but them actually being on the books.
quote:You said that laws are the strength of our country, etc., therefore having bad archaic laws on the books weakens us as a country. Sounds like you're suggesting it's a bad problem to me. I haven't put words into your mouth. You're welcome to point specifically to where I did so, or revise your statement about laws being the strength of our country.
Again, not a circular argument...I said straight up that it isn't a big problem, but a systemic one. Nor did I say that anything proves anything. Please do not put (incorrect) words in my mouth. A crack in the dam which doesn't leak isn't a big problem, but it can be an indicator that work must be done to maintain the system integrity. That OSC is calling for anti sodomy laws to be enforced is a crack in the dam.
quote:Alright, man, I'm trying to be nice here and I'm disagreeing with your ideas here and not taking shots at you, but man, dude, now you're implying I might've been dishonest in something I said, and suggesting you're taking the high road by giving people the benefit of the doubt. Please drop the victim angle. You're not being victimized here, I'm not putting words into your mouth, and I wasn't being dishonest.
You mean Orincoro telling me I am wrong? I'll just assume this was poorly worded and not a dishonest attempt to make it appear as if there were lots of people who have stated their disagreement with my thoughts, as I am trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I have asked them to do for me.
quote:You've answered the question-"...it only hastens their removal from the books," and "No, it really does not."-but you're still pursuing your argument, that this is a potentially serious long-term problem that could undermine our government and our country. You haven't offered any evidence for that. The closest you've come is to provide examples of silly laws still on the books, not how they hurt actual people or groups of people or the country.
Is it hubris to ask a question like it hasn't been answered when it already has? And I didn't admit it, like it was a point in contention that I lost, I stated it so you could understand my views, which you seem to be having trouble groking.
quote:You...don't agree. What part don't you agree with? The part where judges aren't in the business of law enforcement? The part where we don't have an obligation, nor do we act like it, to enforce all laws in all cases? The part where this reality is built into our criminal-justice system? You're welcome to disagree all you like, of course. You're just wrong, though.
Now here at least is a real point of argument. I don't agree, but it actually addresses what I've said unlike your other comments.
quote:I'm almost certain that's exactly what I said. My question, again (for all your talk about not addressing things) is, "What harm do these silly laws still do?" The answer to that question is how you decide, by the way, that the silly laws need to be gotten rid of. That's the step you've skipped three or four times now.
They prove that there are plenty of silly laws still on the books.
quote:OK, hypothetical: one side of the aisle decides (as often happens) that they don't like a law favored by the other side of the aisle. Bam! Time for a committee meeting on whether it's 'questionable' or not.
I would imagine that the initial cleaning out might take a bit of time, but maintenance wouldn't be that time consuming. It would really depend on how legitimately busy people are...I would say that setting a deadline for the work instead of micromanaging how much time is spent would be effective, say, this percentage of laws reviewed by this date. Not every single law would require a vote, only those found to be "questionable".
quote:How much do you think it would be? Remember, they need to not only dig through the statutes - there a a lot of those - and come to agreement on how to vote.
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I would imagine that the initial cleaning out might take a bit of time, but maintenance wouldn't be that time consuming. It would really depend on how legitimately busy people are...I would say that setting a deadline for the work instead of micromanaging how much time is spent would be effective, say, this percentage of laws reviewed by this date. Not every single law would require a vote, only those found to be "questionable".
quote:I must have missed that acknowledgement entirely, would you please quote it?
I acknowledged that the drain wouldn't be as severe. Your claim that I'm suggesting it's the same concern is, well, flat-out wrong.
quote:My complaint is not that it causes problems, but that it is a weakness which can be exploited. Surely you can understand the difference between "causes problems" and "giant loophole which can be used against citizens and might cause an undermining of the system". The fact that some of our laws are displayed as a tool for humor should help to illustrate what I'm talking about.
It's circular because your complaint is founded on a belief that having them on the books causes problems, and your evidence that they cause problems is that they're on the books.
quote:It's putting words in my mouth when I repeatedly say, "It's not a big problem" and you say "you're suggesting it's a bad problem." When I compare it to maintaining cleanliness in a house and you say it's not hoarding. This is maintenance of the system. Maintenance is not there to overcome major problems, it's there to prevent them by never allowing problems to become severe.
...you're suggesting it's a bad problem to me. I haven't put words into your mouth. You're welcome to point specifically to where I did so, or revise your statement about laws being the strength of our country.
quote:It might not be polite, but your statement that "The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described." is misleading, nonfactual and inappropriate. So, be the big man, say you said it wrong and drop the assumptions of my motivations. You saying something out of hand doesn't make me a victim, and me pointing it out, while not the most polite thing I've ever done in my life, is not an incongruous response.
"Was that poorly worded or just dishonest?" is not a polite, neutral question to ask, and I'm not going to pretend it was, Stone_Wolf. If you're going to go that route with me again, just fast forward to the part where you insist not to be spoken to, OK?
quote:
The part where judges aren't in the business of law enforcement?
quote:Source. Judges are a part of the criminal justices system. They are sworn to uphold the law, just like police. That you are nitpicking the words "law enforcement" vs "justice system" is silly.
Law enforcement in the United States is one of three major components of the criminal justice system of the United States, along with courts and corrections. Although there exists an inherent interrelatedness between the different groups that make up the criminal justice system based on their crime deterrence purpose, each component operates independently from one another. However, the judiciary is vested with the power to make legal determinations regarding the conduct of the other two components.
quote:Again, judges, prosecutors and police are sworn to uphold the law...I've glanced at their oaths, and no where does it mention that they should uphold only the "good" laws.
The part where we don't have an obligation, nor do we act like it, to enforce all laws in all cases? The part where this reality is built into our criminal-justice system? You're welcome to disagree all you like, of course. You're just wrong, though.
quote:(bolding mine)
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
quote:"It would amount to much the same thing, or at least the same thing at one degree of separation." You even replied directly to this remark, quoting it in a post of yours. I'm not sure how you can claim to have missed the acknowledgement when you quoted the acknowledgement yourself.
I must have missed that acknowledgement entirely, would you please quote it?
quote:You also admitted yourself that when someone does try to exploit such a loophole, it will often backfire. That is to say, attempting to enforce bad, archaic laws will-when it's attempted at all-draw attention to the law, hasten its removal, and help to address lingering prejudices. We see it right here on OSC's site, when people object strongly to his advice to jail homosexuals.
My complaint is not that it causes problems, but that it is a weakness which can be exploited. Surely you can understand the difference between "causes problems" and "giant loophole which can be used against citizens and might cause an undermining of the system". The fact that some of our laws are displayed as a tool for humor should help to illustrate what I'm talking about.
quote:You're sending mixed messages on whether or not it's a big problem. On one hand, laws are the strength of our country and bad laws make us weaker. On the other hand it's not a big problem. On the other hand we're building towards Hoarders-on the other hand it's like a crack in a dam that isn't leaking. You're all over the place. On your side of the computer screen, it may seem like you're expressing your ideas clearly and consistently but you're simply not.
It's putting words in my mouth when I repeatedly say, "It's not a big problem" and you say "you're suggesting it's a bad problem." When I compare it to maintaining cleanliness in a house and you say it's not hoarding. This is maintenance of the system. Maintenance is not there to overcome major problems, it's there to prevent them by never allowing problems to become severe.
quote:First of all, I already did. So drop the 'be a big man' stuff. Second, why on Earth was it 'inappropriate'? You're going to talk about assuming motivations? I mentioned others because two people have asked pointed questions about why your idea might not be so good. Third, I challenge you to stand behind your claim that, "Did you misspeak, or were you lying?" is just 'impolite'. It's not just impolite. It's your not-uncommon martyr game, complaining-indirectly-of being attacked when your ideas are being attacked.
It might not be polite, but your statement that "The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described." is misleading, nonfactual and inappropriate. So, be the big man, say you said it wrong and drop the assumptions of my motivations. You saying something out of hand doesn't make me a victim, and me pointing it out, while not the most polite thing I've ever done in my life, is not an incongruous response.
quote:No, you're right, my expecting you to be accurate and pointing out that judges are different from cops is just silly.
udges are a part of the criminal justices system. They are sworn to uphold the law, just like police. That you are nitpicking the words "law enforcement" vs "justice system" is silly.
quote:Yes, I'm aware of that. I could've sworn, though, that our system gives the criminal justice system...what's the word...discretion about when and how they're going to enforce the law. The fact is, you know what I'm saying about this is true. You can't have watched the news and not know it's true over, well, anytime in the 21st century. Here's some phrases to demonstrate: "decided not to press charges," and "plea bargain" and "on condition of immunity" and so on and so forth. The oath you linked doesn't bind our officials to enforce all laws equally all the time. They've got discretion that must be exercised carefully.
Again, judges, prosecutors and police are sworn to uphold the law...I've glanced at their oaths, and no where does it mention that they should uphold only the "good" laws.
quote:I'm glad you have decided this and declared it. Clearly no further discussion is warranted, right? Okay then.
You can disagree all you like, but again, you'll just be wrong.
quote:Deciding to give someone a warning when the law prescribes a particular act as a crime requiring a fine or a trial is exactly a violation of your statement that started this whole falafel. Viz,
Tell me how a police officer giving someone a warning or a DA giving someone a plea bargain (people using discretion on the punishment of laws) are the same thing as them deciding which laws should and should not be enforced at all?
quote:Are you backing off of that statement now, and only saying laws that cannot be enforced at all should be removed from the books (spending rather a lot of effort for getting rid of a bunch of things that are never used)?
I myself am a believer that we should enforce all the laws on the books rigorously
quote:This is a question which answers itself, actually. It's the same thing because...well, particularly in the first case, it's the same thing.
Tell me how a police officer giving someone a warning or a DA giving someone a plea bargain (people using discretion on the punishment of laws) are the same thing as them deciding which laws should and should not be enforced at all?
quote:Well, yes, ideally, sure. All laws should be enforced and the silly/stupid/dangerous ones should be gotten rid of quickly. But here in the real world, that kind of thing involves costs, particularly opportunity costs. Why is it dangerous to society to not constantly expunge old, silly laws that are no longer relevant or even (except very rarely) an issue in everyday life? You're the one who needs to demonstrate that there's a danger, Stone_Wolf, and the answer has to be better than 'because it's dangerous to society not to enforce all laws all the time'. That's circular reasoning.
A warning, a plea bargain for either testimony or to guarantee some punishment vs the risk of acquittal, are all legal enforcements of the law. I'm not saying that all laws need to be perused to the harshest possible degree. But that they should all be enforced. That the members of our justice system use their judgment about how to use the law fairly is a blessing, but that judges, police and prosecutors can completely disregard a fully legitimate law entirely is a dangerous situation, and flies completely in the face of their purpose, the law, their obligation and not to mention their oaths of office.
quote:Police are legally given the power to warn people instead of arrest them...the only law that actually requires that an arrest be made instantly is domestic violence. A warning is an enforcement.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Deciding to give someone a warning when the law prescribes a particular act as a crime requiring a fine or a trial is exactly a violation of your statement that started this whole falafel.
quote:I'm having trouble taking you seriously...let me get this straight, you are saying that if the police ever let someone off with a warning or a DA ever accepts a plea bargain to lessor charge it's the exact same thing as members of the criminal justice system completely and totally ignoring laws which are still binding no matter how old or silly they are?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
This is a question which answers itself, actually. It's the same thing because...well, particularly in the first case, it's the same thing.
quote:I've already answered this...but I'll do it again: These laws can be enforced at any time, and while the likely ultimate outcome would be their removal, it wouldn't stop those poor people who were successfully prosecuted under these archaic unjust laws any less in jail or fined. That this does not happen is why it is not currently a problem, that it can is why it is dangerous. Surely know can acknowledge the difference between a current problem and possible danger.
Why is it dangerous to society to not constantly expunge old, silly laws that are no longer relevant or even (except very rarely) an issue in everyday life?
quote:It is totally unfair that we have them swear to uphold the laws of this country and then generate so many laws that they are unenforceable. But it is what it is.
That all over the country, for hundreds of years, people in all walks of public service have been constantly violating their oaths and obligations in the way you're describing? Or is it possible that perhaps your interpretation isn't quite accurate?
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I would love to see a huge sweeping reform of our laws, making them easy to understand, a real delineation between laws and regulations (murder, etc vs zoning laws etc). Take a look at boot's example of a small town's laws...how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that?quote:Welcome to democracy. It ain't pretty.
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Every group in the country will be campaigning yearly to get laws they find expensive removed, no matter how beneficial they are to the rest of us.
quote:Surely you know the difference between a made up danger that we could just wait until the hypothetical time there's a rash of idiots trying to enforce illegal laws to deal with and a real danger?
These laws can be enforced at any time, and while the likely ultimate outcome would be their removal, it wouldn't stop those poor people who were successfully prosecuted under these archaic unjust laws any less in jail or fined. That this does not happen is why it is not currently a problem, that it can is why it is dangerous. Surely know can acknowledge the difference between a current problem and possible danger.
quote:Perhaps a system of law enforcement officers, inspectors, criminal, and civil courts? We do a pretty great job of enforcing "all that" right now (not that there aren't certain classes of laws I would prefer heavily reformed, but my motivation has little to do with the difficulties of enforcement). What's your evidence we don't do a good job of enforcing such laws, as implied by your "how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that" question?
Take a look at boot's example of a small town's laws...how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that?
quote:Really, now? You're going with "if we don't do things my incredibly painful way despite having no particular problems with the current way, which is democracy per all traditional definitions, it isn't democracy!" as a rallying cry?
Welcome to democracy. It ain't pretty.
quote:Illegal laws?
Surely you know the difference between a made up danger that we could just wait until the hypothetical time there's a rash of idiots trying to enforce illegal laws to deal with and a real danger?
quote:You expect me to prove a negative based on an implied claim...you have high expectations. How about, since you said, not implied, that we do "a pretty great job enforcing" all that you supply the evidence? I'm sure it will super easy and prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What's your evidence we don't do a good job of enforcing such laws, as implied by your "how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that" question?
quote:You're waaaay off base here friend. Democracy is people voting for stuff...and interested parties trying to influence that vote. Just like D_M described. In no way was I saying what you have me saying.
You're going with "if we don't do things my incredibly painful way despite having no particular problems with the current way, which is democracy per all traditional definitions, it isn't democracy!" as a rallying cry?
quote:Yep. Laws can be illegal. For instance, a city ordnance that violates the state constitution is illegal.
Illegal laws?
quote:You're the one making the unusual claim, that laws there are big gaps in enforcement of laws. We have extensive systems for enforcing such laws, and if you pick any particular one of the laws in the example code, I bet I can find numerous examples of towns enforcing it (or similar laws, since they vary by locality). That there is some vast enforcement gap in the US (beyond intentional lack of enforcement, such as the speed limit, laws against sodomy, et cetera) is your claim. Where's the evidence? It isn't like subjects like that aren't frequent targets of investigative journalism.
You expect me to prove a negative based on an implied claim...you have high expectations. How about, since you said, not implied, that we do "a pretty great job enforcing" all that you supply the evidence? I'm sure it will super easy and prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.