Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban (Page 8)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I realize you want to hinge all your lies on a specific person, but you should try to stick to some modicum of reality and find someone who claims something at least in the national boundaries of what you're attacking.

In other words, you have no idea how I feel about the topic under question because I have not and will not post about it.

Everything you think you know, you don't. You made it up. Completely. And then attacked me for what you made up about me. What is wrong with you?

The crack explanation is the most charitable.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, there lies a question: have I said that lalo's not doing anything wrong?

What's funny about this is that I was about to really get on that issue when katharina soundly interrupted that with a bunch of 'hurrr u mainlining crack amoral liars'

poor old lalo got overshadowed =(

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Go ahead, then. Knock yourself out.
Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Everything you think you know, you don't. You made it up. Completely. And then attacked me for what you made up about me.
I'm sorry, I'm certainly not making up the part where you are shouting at people that they are amoral liars who might as well be mainlining crack.

Besides, when you give me the advice that 'should try to stick to some modicum of reality and find someone who claims something at least in the national boundaries of what you're attacking' you would be well suited to follow your own advice considering that neither lalo nor I have accused you of murder.

=)

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You ascribed an attitude to me based on absolutely, completely nothing. Not even something you could twist to mean that. Nothing, nothing at all.

If that doesn't make you writhe in shame, you have lost the ability to feel shame at all.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lalo: You said this,
quote:
Are you aware of the laws you've helped pass, and what they do to homosexuals? Are you aware of the discrimination, brutality, and humiliation suffered by homosexuals, all enabled by your attitude?

They're murdered. Regularly. And when they're not murdered, they're beaten. Raped. Humiliated. Alienated.

It seems pointless to then try and draw a distinction between (to use an analogy) a man who slowly approaches a victim with a knife and murders them and a person who stands next to the victim and simply observes the whole thing.

You are accusing katharina of de facto murder, by suggesting that she is involved in legislation that results in homosexuals being murdered. You are also accusing her of murder by saying that her attitudes embolden others to commit the atrocities you listed.

Now you seem to be saying that you are not accusing her of murder and yet it seems like your previous statements strongly suggest you are.

Could you perhaps clarify your position then?

As an aside you seem to be making what I believe is the classic mistake that if somebody opposes homosexuality as a lifestyle that they are by definition homophobic.

Posts: 14278 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I AM NOT INVOLVED IN LEGISLATION. I DO NOT HAVE A STATED ATTITUDE IN ANY DIRECTION ON THIS TOPIC.

Lalo made up the entire thing. Forget the finer points of the crime - he made the thing up completely. It's like he accused me of planning to bomb the World Trade Center. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for both - which is NOTHING.

Dishonest liar and his synchophantic sidekick. My stars.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
You ascribed an attitude to me based on absolutely, completely nothing. Not even something you could twist to mean that. Nothing, nothing at all.

If that doesn't make you writhe in shame, you have lost the ability to feel shame at all.

Your ridiculous hyperbole completely aside, I can assure you quite plainly that what you have accused me of doing, I have not done.

Case in point: I have not accused you of being a murderer, nor agreed that you are a murderer, nor any of the various permutations that would allow you to be credible when you say I called you a murderer.

Yet, despite my not having done this, you will not only claim that I have done so, but you use it as an excuse for

- calling me ridiculous
- calling me shameful
- suggesting I am lacking the brain power or morals to know shame
- saying that I must definitely mainline crack, if I am not one of the two most dishonest people Hatrack has had the misfortune to meet
- willfully slanderous
- calling me dishonest
- so dishonest in fact that mainlining crack would be an improvement
- calling me an amoral liar
- suggesting psychotic breakdown as a cause
- calling me a complete embarrasment


See, when you pin violent and vehement vitriol (lol v for vendetta) on such a completely bogus charge, it really, really puts you in the wrong.

For two reasons! One, for making such wildly disrespectful and hateful claims about me. Two, for having those claims be based on a complete misunderstanding of my words in the first place.

This is the point where you should back up and really, if you're hoping to come off as a mature person, say "okay, I guess those things were out of line."

Remember: just because lalo's not really being a good arguer does not mean that you have any excuse for being worse.

Which is kind of what's going on right now!

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
You ascribed an attitude to me based on absolutely, completely nothing. Not even something you could twist to mean that. Nothing, nothing at all.

If that doesn't make you writhe in shame, you have lost the ability to feel shame at all.

Haha christ, chill. It happens that I do know your political stance on gay equality, unless you've radically changed it for the better over the past decade, but my response was to your claim that it's bigoted to point out that religious homophobia is stupid.

Your hysterics aren't incredibly convincing. Religious homophobia is stupid. If you'd like nuanced reasoning as to why saying so isn't "bigoted," it's because it's I take it on as an intellectual position rather than as an identity. Religious homophobia has no substantial reasoning behind it, no scientific evidence supporting it, and incorporates the absolute worst aspects of humanity in its formulation and execution.

And yet in the eight years I've known you, though I've never seen you once defend homosexual equality, you've consistently complained about bigotry every time discriminatory laws are questioned. It's just sad.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samp - can you acknowledge that my name has been used in this discussion on the basis of absolutely nothing and there no evidence of my opinion, attitude, or actions in ANY direction on this? And that dragging me in was a completely dishonest act?

Considering you nodded enthusiastically to Lalo's lies when he said them about me, you clearly were okay with them before.

If you had any honesty at all, you would apologize for the synchophantic fawning and acknowledge the completely dishonesty of such slander.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
And yet in the eight years I've known you, though I've never seen you once defend homosexual equality, you've consistently complained about bigotry every time discriminatory laws are questioned. It's just sad.

But you can't really take this and use it as an excuse to fill in the gaps and ascribe an assumed position to someone, you know.
Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice, Lalo - insulting religion definitely makes willful slander okay!

Now it's blackmail? The choices are either to agree with you - which would be appalling under all circumstances because you slime and ruin whatever you touch, even if you were championing free ice cream on your birthday and sunshine on the fourth of July - or else be subject to your dishonest slander? If I don't take your side it's free game to lie about me?

What is wrong with you??

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Lalo: You said this,
quote:
Are you aware of the laws you've helped pass, and what they do to homosexuals? Are you aware of the discrimination, brutality, and humiliation suffered by homosexuals, all enabled by your attitude?

They're murdered. Regularly. And when they're not murdered, they're beaten. Raped. Humiliated. Alienated.

It seems pointless to then try and draw a distinction between (to use an analogy) a man who slowly approaches a victim with a knife and murders them and a person who stands next to the victim and simply observes the whole thing.

You are accusing katharina of de facto murder, by suggesting that she is involved in legislation that results in homosexuals being murdered. You are also accusing her of murder by saying that her attitudes embolden others to commit the atrocities you listed.

Now you seem to be saying that you are not accusing her of murder and yet it seems like your previous statements strongly suggest you are.

Could you perhaps clarify your position then?

As an aside you seem to be making what I believe is the classic mistake that if somebody opposes homosexuality as a lifestyle that they are by definition homophobic.

I'm quoting you in full to respond to every point you've raised.

In your analogy, supporters of discriminatory laws aren't simply passive observers -- they would be, in this analogy, people who routinely and loudly condemn the victim as subhuman, enable policies that confirm the victim as subhuman, and shrill about the victim as attacking the murderer's cherished institutions and morals (and children). In the setting created by these people, it'd be surprising if there weren't attacks on the victim.

There were plenty of segregationists who were in no way violent, but it's completely dishonest to claim their policies didn't enable, encourage, and excuse violence.

As to your second point, homosexuality is not a lifestyle, no more than heterosexuality is. I honestly don't understand how people can use that term with a straight face.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Samp - can you acknowledge that my name has been used in this discussion on the basis of absolutely nothing and there no evidence of my opinion, attitude, or actions in ANY direction on this? And that dragging me in was a completely dishonest act?
I'm well aware of where I stand on the issue. Your name has been invoked in this discussion on tenuous grounds.

Though, check this. You're trying to skip my well-founded charges against you. This is the point where you should back up and really, if you're hoping to come off as a mature person, say "okay, I guess those things were out of line."

Which leads to a counter question. Can you acknowledge where you've acted and spoken in the wrong? When you're not ordering others to follow your standard, can you at least follow those same principles for yourself?

I assure you that if I were arguing against you with the same level of hysterics and venom, you would be furious with the conduct, yet you excuse it .. for yourself.

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kat, you need to take a walk and breathe deeply. You're way over the top.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lalo: I can't respond to all of your well considered post (running off to work again). I meant lifestyle in terms of "living one's life openly with aspect of homosexuality an obvious feature."

A monk though he may feel attraction to women if he remains celibate and dedicated to his duties is not living a "heterosexual lifestyle" IMHO.

Posts: 14278 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sam, it's probably time to disengage with her. I have no problem debating different opinions, but Kat and Rakeesh aren't out for civil discussion.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lalo, you're a blackmailing liar and dragging my name into this on the basis of nothing at all.

You can run around in circles and bleat all you want, but leave my name out of it.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JennaDean
Member
Member # 8816

 - posted      Profile for JennaDean   Email JennaDean         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
Sam, it's probably time to disengage with her. I have no problem debating different opinions, but Kat and Rakeesh aren't out for civil discussion.

[ROFL]

I just find it so funny that it's Lalo saying this.

Carry on.

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Lalo: I can't respond to all of your well considered post. I meant lifestyle in terms of "living one's life openly with aspect of homosexuality an obvious feature."

A monk though he may feel attraction to women if he remains celibate and dedicated to his duties is not living a "heterosexual lifestyle" IMHO.

The issue I would have had with this sort of terminology is that USUALLY when someone is talking about the 'homosexual lifestyle' they are using this wordage as part of a belief that homosexual orientation itself is just something you 'choose' to do and its something you can give up.

What I would use to define the difference between a celibate monk and a person who has sex is to say that one is part of a "sexually active lifestyle," personally. It avoids that seeded NARTH type of connotation that exists :/

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
Sam, it's probably time to disengage with her. I have no problem debating different opinions, but Kat and Rakeesh aren't out for civil discussion.

I think you need to take a good look at where the hostilities erupted between you and rakeesh.

though it might be the most Nanners thing I've said all year, I see points in nearly all of your posts which evoke hostility where its not needed and drown your points in contentiousness.

It's all well and good when the goal is to get into a good knock-down drag-out efight, but I think it causes you to have an extremely poor estimation of Rakeesh's proclivity to default to civil discussion.

I am pretty sure if you asked him, he'd prefer one!

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lalo, I think that you are wrong about Rakeesh wanting a civil discussion.

I don't think that you are wrong about anti-homosexual attitudes, including opposition to SSM, creating an environment where abuse towards homosexuals is acceptable. I don't think that causality is as clear as you are making it seem to be.

I understand your passion about this, but if you really read what Rakeesh is writing, I think you will be better off.

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Haven't any of you ever read any existentialist philosophy? Or at least some of Peter Singer's work in modern ethics? Everyone** in the modern world is responsible for murder and deaths, at least indirectly through inaction and your particular set of priorities. Children die the world over through your and my inaction, when we could work easily enough to save their lives through some simple medicine. Other people are murdered by corrupt governments and civil wars - murders that could be reduced, if not completely eliminated if you (or I) made an effort to save some of them.

None of us should bury our heads in the sand regarding these things. People die, and if you had acted to help them, at least some of them wouldn't have.

**I suppose I should modify this to exclude children, and adults who truly lack the information or resources to make a difference outside of their local communities. But that's certainly not any adult here on Hatrack, and very few Westerners in general.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whoa, this thread took a turn for the worse.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
Haven't any of you ever read any existentialist philosophy? Or at least some of Peter Singer's work in modern ethics? Everyone** in the modern world is responsible for murder and deaths, at least indirectly through inaction and your particular set of priorities.

haha yeap! I can honestly say that I am in some way related to plenty of deaths and plenty of misery through my support of stuff like cheaper t-shirts, and my fondness for products with palm oil.
Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots,

Thanks for saying that. I know it's a little thing, and it's just an online discussion, but I really do appreciate it:)

quote:
I don't think that you are wrong about anti-homosexual attitudes, including opposition to SSM, creating an environment where abuse towards homosexuals is acceptable. I don't think that causality is as clear as you are making it seem to be.
The difficulty with this is that the matter is complicated. Granted, religious backing for anti-homosexual behavior is undeniably there, in my opinion.

However, if religious teaching is to be credited with this, why is it acceptable that religious teaching only be credited with its bad influences? After all, churches teach other stuff, too.

(Not saying you disagree with any of that, I'm more just expanding on the subject.)

--------

quote:
Or at least some of Peter Singer's work in modern ethics? Everyone** in the modern world is responsible for murder and deaths, at least indirectly through inaction and your particular set of priorities. Children die the world over through your and my inaction, when we could work easily enough to save their lives through some simple medicine. Other people are murdered by corrupt governments and civil wars - murders that could be reduced, if not completely eliminated if you (or I) made an effort to save some of them.

That's not the sort of responsibility Lalo is talking about. I suppose you could read it as such, if you really squint and try and look for a nice thing. But as he discarded your charitable interpretation there, I doubt he will fail to do so here as well.

Because after all, if he didn't, then he as an American would be responsible for all sorts of things.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
That's not the sort of responsibility Lalo is talking about. I suppose you could read it as such, if you really squint and try and look for a nice thing. But as he discarded your charitable interpretation there, I doubt he will fail to do so here as well.

Because after all, if he didn't, then he as an American would be responsible for all sorts of things.

Interesting. A scale of responsibility. Zero would be no responsibility at all but not doing anything to relieve misery. Let's say we put living an average middle class life without doing anything particularly good or bad, as a 2 on the scale of responsibility for general world misery and, say, people who buy conflict diamonds at a 5, and arms dealers at a 9.

I would say that the responsibility of someone who actively opposes SSM at about a 4, maybe a 3 if they also actively oppose violence.

Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Edit: in response to Rakeesh.

Really? I think it's exactly the same sort of responsibility, just different subject matter. My understanding of his argument is, at its most extreme, "Every time you say it's okay for homosexual marriage to not be allowed, you're responsible for helping to create the attitude that makes some people think it's okay to murder gays".

My take on that regarding poverty or the like in third world countries would be "Every time you buy small luxuries or devote your leisure time to messing around having fun, you're responsible for helping to create the attitude that makes people think that they don't have to help stop needless deaths around the world." In fact, not only are you helping to create that attitude, you're explicitly choosing your luxuries and fun leisure time over helping to save lives. If doing that is acceptable morally (and I personally think it is), then I can't see any argument that could make the (edit: the responsibility towards the murder of gays that Lalo's statement, if true, gives you) morally reprehensible.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmbboots,

quote:
Interesting. A scale of responsibility. Zero would be no responsibility at all but not doing anything to relieve misery. Let's say we put living an average middle class life without doing anything particularly good or bad, as a 2 on the scale of responsibility for general world misery and, say, people who buy conflict diamonds at a 5, and arms dealers at a 9.
I'd define it a little bit differently, perhaps.

For me personally, for example, there is never such a thing as no responsibility, because I believe we all, no matter our various beliefs, have a responsibility to try and relieve misery, even if it is completely unconnected with us.

I believe there is a scale...but who the hell knows where we fall on it except at the extremes? Not me.

------

quote:


Really? I think it's exactly the same sort of responsibility, just different subject matter. My understanding of his argument is, at its most extreme, "Every time you say it's okay for homosexual marriage to not be allowed, you're responsible for helping to create the attitude that makes some people think it's okay to murder gays".

That is exactly what he's saying, with even more implications carried on his invective and tone.

quote:
... then I can't see any argument that could make the Lalo's statement morally reprehensible.
Simply because of this: have you ever met someone whose entire reality is defined by any one thing? Much less by opposition to SSM?

As boots said, if someone opposes SSM, but also actively opposes violence? Are they to be held responsible for the first but the second will be ignored? How can someone be held responsible for attitudes that encourage violence towards homosexuals if they also foster attitudes that condemn violence, at the same level or even moreso?

For example, let's just take a paragon of nonviolence, Gandhi. Imagine him - or someone like him - opposed SSM. By Lalo's rationale, he is to be held partially responsible for violence against them, because after all he fosters the attitude that encourages it.

But he's also fostering an attitude of nonviolence as strongly as or much more strongly than his opposition to SSM.

So, call it a 4 on the scale boots mentions, but a -8 on the issue of violence, leaving a -4 overall on a scale of 1-10. Lalo makes no such distinctions. If you oppose SSM, you're guilty. That's one reason why he's wrong, and one reason why he can accurately be called a bigot on this subject when it comes to religion.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh - Zero on my hypothetically scale would be a real neutral - neither adding nor consuming anything. Basically not existing.
Posts: 10626 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Simply because of this: have you ever met someone whose entire reality is defined by any one thing? Much less by opposition to SSM?

As boots said, if someone opposes SSM, but also actively opposes violence? Are they to be held responsible for the first but the second will be ignored? How can someone be held responsible for attitudes that encourage violence towards homosexuals if they also foster attitudes that condemn violence, at the same level or even moreso?

Jeff, you just said that people are not restricted to any one thing. In that unaltered quote.

Preaching non-violence does not engender non-violence, whereas preaching hateful attitudes often does. The two don't cancel each other out. To quote what I said before, there were plenty of segregationists who were in no way violent, but it's completely dishonest to claim their policies didn't enable, encourage, and excuse violence. And this is segregation, these discriminatory laws against homosexuals.

I'm giving you a shot again, but please don't turn this back into an aggressive nitpicking case. I know we largely agree on this issue, aside from whatever flamboyant claims you make about me hating all Christians or whatever. I'd like to hear how you would justify denying homosexual couples marriage, and how you'd feel if it were denied to interracial couples when they tried to change the definition of marriage.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh - I edited my statement a little bit because I realized it could be (rightly) interpreted in the exact way you did so - and that's not what I meant.

What I meant was that if I'm partially responsible for deaths around the world - deaths I could have stopped if, for example, I gave up buying expensive teas and backpacking gear and instead donated it towards charities that provide food to starving kids - then I don't see how being partially responsible for fostering an attitude that then leads to death could possibly be worse. At the very least you'd have to make a pretty good argument to convince me that the responsibility that Lalo is giving out to people like kat is more morally reprehensible than the responsibility I already have for not doing more to stem world poverty.

If, like me, you don't believe that using money to consume luxuries is morally reprehensible, I don't see why you'd care about this responsibility about attitudes towards homosexuals that Lalo is trying to heap on you. You're already in it for the pound - the penny doesn't matter all that much.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
people like kat
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! You mean people who do not have a stated a stand on the issue? Because THAT'S who is "like Kat." That's it.

Anything else is made up, imagined, assumed, and unwarranted.

To say otherwise is willful dishonesty.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say that Lalo was right in laying that responsibility at your feet, kat, just that he was trying to. Or do you dispute that he's tried to do so?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, I thought you were using "like kat" to mean people with a specific attitude, instead of to mean "people whom Lalo is accusing."

My apologies.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
If, like me, you don't believe that using money to consume luxuries is morally reprehensible, I don't see why you'd care about this responsibility about attitudes towards homosexuals that Lalo is trying to heap on you. You're already in it for the pound - the penny doesn't matter all that much.

I don't know if the two examples are equivalent. One is a passive consumer, the other is a political activist. While buying goods made in China does enable a despotic regime, it's not quite the same as passing laws that restrict the purchase of goods not made in China.

A better analogy might be interracial relationships.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
I didn't say that Lalo was right in laying that responsibility at your feet, kat, just that he was trying to. Or do you dispute that he's tried to do so?

Ugh. Let's please not play along with Kat's fantasies -- I responded to her accusation of bigotry when I called religious homophobia stupid. Nothing more.

Kat was a vitriolic opponent of homosexual marriage back in the day, but I'm overjoyed that she's apparently taking the time to rethink her position. Beyond that, I really don't have much to do with her beyond endorsing a chill pill.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dishonest, amoral, complete and total lies and slander. You still know nothing and are making up crap and pretending that you do. You don't. You probably never will. You are absolutely wrong to ascribe to me views I have not expressed, and your lies are transparent and desperate. And pointless. What the hell? What's wrong with you?

I told you to keep me out of it, you mentally-challenged crack addict.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh, in case anyone's wondering after two pages of this, I've never actually used crack.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...when I called religious homophobia stupid.
That's not what was said.
Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:

I honestly think it might be more disrespectful to pretend mincing semantical arguments are at all impressive, or that personal interpretations of confused religious dogma are somehow relevant to secular law. Let's give people some credit to learn from their mistakes.

This is another example of the contempt that is making discussion with you kind of pointless. You just can't seem to keep it out of your posts.
Posts: 5950 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd really like some crack about now.
Posts: 4049 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I told you to keep me out of it, you mentally-challenged crack addict.

I suppose this is your effective response to the internal question as to whether or not you can act mature.

An emphatic "no, I'd rather namecall and be hotheaded"

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course I CAN.

However, I really think there is something broken in Lalo's brain if he persists in this willfull slander and insistence on involving me when I have not taken a public stand of any kind on this issue. I really think there is something wrong with him. Mainlaining crack is the most charitable and hopeful of explanations.

After all, he can always quit. If the behavior has another source (mental damage or a character flaw), that would be harder to fix.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lalo,

Since you're finally addressing something I actually said...

quote:

Preaching non-violence does not engender non-violence, whereas preaching hateful attitudes often does. The two don't cancel each other out. To quote what I said before, there were plenty of segregationists who were in no way violent, but it's completely dishonest to claim their policies didn't enable, encourage, and excuse violence. And this is segregation, these discriminatory laws against homosexuals.

So you really are saying that bad things which have roots in religion can be attributed to religion and its followers, but good things that happen with their roots in religion cannot be attributed to religion and its followers?

That's a strange but completely unsurprising argument for you to make.

Of course preaching non-violence engenders non-violence! Unless you believe no one nowhere was swayed away from violence because of what someone else convinced them was right and wrong?

Since that was the only part of your post that replied to something I actually said or suggested, that's the only part I'm going to respond to, Eddie. I guess I'm just not flamboyant enough.

Posts: 16426 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
That's not what was said.

Looks like it.

quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:
This is another example of the contempt that is making discussion with you kind of pointless. You just can't seem to keep it out of your posts.

If there's some stunning evidence I've missed -- or any -- that explains rational opposition to equal application of the law, I'd love to hear it. So far, I've only heard mincing semantics and irrational fundamentalism -- which, given the very serious consequences they have on good people, deserve scorn. It's amazing how sensitive these same people are to their own hurt feelings without giving a damn about what their victims go through.

I'm not sure what you would do in my place. If I wanted to deny you rights and alienate you from the community because I disliked your race/sexuality/height, and advanced exactly identical arguments to those used in this thread, would you pretend they were intelligent thoughts?

Find an argument in this thread, or anywhere, that you think makes an intelligent case against equal application of the law. I promise to give it my full consideration.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
So you really are saying that bad things which have roots in religion can be attributed to religion and its followers, but good things that happen with their roots in religion cannot be attributed to religion and its followers?

And this is why I don't bother discussing things with you. Intellectual honesty goes a long way toward making a civil discussion.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, I really think there is something broken in Lalo's brain if he persists in this willfull slander
So, is there something equally broken in your brain if you persist in your willful slander, or do you hold yourself to a kinder double-standard?

Honestly, you'll unleash wrath and fury at someone if they so much as uncharitably describe you yet you honestly think the appropriate response is to keep slandering them with comments like HUR U MUST MAINLINE CRACK

What gives? Is it, charitably, something I could describe as a 'do as I say, not as I do' thing? Or do you just not understand how volatile and insulting you are?

Posts: 14240 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not involved in this discussion. I have been dragged into it, against my will, and lies have been spoken about me in ALL SORTS OF DIRECTIONS.

NOTHING OF WHAT LALO SAYS ABOUT ME IS TRUE.

Nothing. He knows nothing, and to say the least, his insistence on continuing the willfull slander is indicative of something terrible. What, exactly, I don't know, but crack the most charitable of explanations.

Leave. My. Name. Out. Of. This.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sam, seriously. Stressing Kat out isn't going to help the situation.

Kat, chill.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2