Here's a letter to the editor that was printed in today's Bryan-College Station Eagle
quote: According to the news broadcasts the homosexuals are moving in force demanding they be given a marriage license. One of those people with their debased mind even stated they want to be married and adopt a child so that they could be a family.
Those poor perverts don't seem to understand that a child needs to grow up in a family situation in which they can experience both a mother and a father. What would have happened to the human race if Adam an dEve had been homosexual? Same-sex marriage is a wrong and certainly does nothing to create the family God blesses.
One of the homos standing at the courthouse rally said she is a Christian. I can't believe she is devoted to Jesus or believes the scripture. If she were she would know that God has said in the Old Testament that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, in short they will not be in heaven.
And Jesus himeself made the statement that it would be as in the days of Noah and in the days of Lott just before he returns. If she were really a Christian she would know that all this homosexual movement taking place in so many cities is just like it was in the days of Lott. Unless Jesus Christ lied, the days of Noah and Lott are upon us.
Your days are coming to an end for you perverts.
Milton Pack Bryan
Now, the reasons I have for sharing this with you are two fold, but first let me say that I didn't post it so we could make fun of Bryan/College Station. I do not believe that this man is in any way indicative of the attitudes in our community. In fact, over the weekend there was a long editorial by a local minister (Elizabeth Brown, Unitarian/Universalist Church) that basically explained her thoughts on the issue and those of her church. It was wonderful and scriptural. And several letters to the editor were written in support of her cogent views.
The reasons I wanted to post this letter were:
1) It is illustrative of what many of us think of when we hear about religious objections to homosexual marriage. That deep down inside, the Christian conservatives are all pretty much aligned with this guy. I have learned from posts here at Hatrack that my fears are unwarranted. I now believe the attitudes like those expressed above are far on the fringe of Christianity. And basically don't derive from a Christian perspective except in that they make use of the Bible.
2) I thought it was interesting that my local paper would run this letter. It is inflammatory and uses derogatory epithets. I would think that they could probably have decided not to print it on that basis alone. On the other hand, I'm more interested in free speech than stifling obvious ignorance and bias.
What would you prefer though? We were talking about it in the office a bit and most people just wished the letter hadn't been printed. Or at least that the epithets had been edited out.
I "like" it as is.
Thoughts?
[ February 23, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know the old saying, "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt?"
I want to know who the fools (or worse) are, so I'd like to see stuff like this (and similar on the oppossing side) printed sometimes. I'm just wondering if there was a thoughtful letter that was kept out to print this - that bothers me a little.
Dagonee PS, this is why I love smaller newspapers.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, it wouldn't be surprising to me (if it's even possible to know the truth of it) if the decision were made to run the letter "as is" because of the open hatred. In reality, it works for the cause of homosexuals because it makes it less attractive for middle-of-the-road Christians to align themselves with this mentality. To the degree that public perception of the "religious arguement" for restricting gay's rights to marriage can be equated with such hatred and negative feelings, the majority will cease to accept those arguements (or at least they won't publicly express them.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KarlEd...that was much the reasoning behind my recent call for religious folks to write the Congressmen to express what they REALLY felt. That they didn't want discrmination, for example, and didn't want Congress working on a Constititutional Amendment would be a good message for our elected representatives to hear right about now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It is worth noting that the letter writer makes claims about Scripture that are untrue . . . at least, I don't know of any source for this:
quote: God has said in the Old Testament that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, in short they will not be in heaven.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I can hardly believe a person of such intelligence and eloquence would misquote a scripture.
Shocking. Truly shocking. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, I think my point was more in the OTHER direction. That it takes someone who misquotes/misunderstands Scripture to so easily find hate in it.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Im not christian so I can't say anything about the views of "conservative christians" as the thread leader stated it, I am Islamic, and I would like to say before I say anything else, that my views in no way whatsoever represnt my religion as a whole, each person must make up their own mind for themselves.
Though I do not agree with the wording of the man who wrote the letter, I do agree with his point, the days of Lott are upon us, and think of it this way, god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
These are my views and not refelctive on anyone else.
Rhaegar
[ February 23, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
*shrug*
God didn't make any black or Asian people, either.
Or anyone with Down's Syndrome.
I have to say, that's one of the least intelligent posts I've read by you so far, Rhaegar. And that includes all the pro-Bush stuff.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I'm not saying anything pointless or stupid, I am simply stating my opinion, I am not trying to convince anyone, or insult anyones intelligence, as I said, it is each perosn choice, and thiers is not mine.
Rhaegar
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rhaegar, in my view, God did make Adam and Eve, but he also made Steve, and his love Bruce. They were not created from thin air. To say that "God did not make Adam and Steve" is to imply that the Devil did. To say that "God did not make Adam and Steve." opens Adam and Steve up to being seen as lesser than human.
If God did not make Steve and Bruce then who did?
If God did not make Steve and Bruce then what should we do when Steve and Bruce love each other? Hide it? Lie about it? Force them to change?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
My views in no way whatsoever represent the forum as a whole. These are my views and not reflective on anyone else.
I believe you to be mentally challenged, Rhaegar.
I'm just stating my opinion, not trying to convince anyone.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think Rhaegar is just young and energetic. Also not a forum view.
I think "Lott" only has one "t".
I think the shortened form of "homosexual" used qualifies as a slur. "Pervert" I am iffy on. Since I don't think of all homosexuals as being perverts. There are too many heterosexual perverts as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think "Lott" only has one "t".
That depends on the point you're trying to make. Maybe the rise of the former Majority Leader is upon us?
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". If you're going to quote this tripe, it's a good thing to save it to the end of your post because once you've uttered it everything else you say plays in my mind in the voice of a loud Jerry Springer-esque trailer trash woman standing, with one hand on her hip, wagging the finger of the other hand in my face.
[edit cuz ah kint spel]
[ February 23, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think I saw that episode.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think Rhaegar's mentally challenged. I think he's young, hasn't thought things through very well, and has more than a bit of sheer contrariness in him, which all result in making him act very much like his namesake, the fool.
He is, however, fairly intelligent, and when he eventually chooses to apply that intelligence will be much better off for it.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Oh, I know. I was just trying make an "I don't mean to offend you, but you're the ugliest person I've ever seen" reply.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Rhaegar...Adam & Eve is a story. A metaphor. Humans evolved from protohuman species over the course of a few million years.
In every age, there are those who proclaim it to be the dark times before the 2nd coming...or the dark days before God ends it all...or the dark days leading up to our ultimate punishment. So far, every one of them has been wrong. That doesn't mean you are wrong. But I've learned to discount such prognostications as being based mostly on people's wishful thinking (the desire to see others punished seems to run strong in humans) and perhaps the desire for something exciting to happen to break the monotony.
Humanity's endless spiral downward has been bemoaned by every generation since Adam & Eve. Suffice it to say that were this really the truth, I imagine we'd all be living in mud huts and killing each other on site for food.
People who spend a lot of time and energy looking for signs of the Apocalypse are bound to find them, whether they are there or not.
Answer me one question about your religious beliefs, if you would. What is the greatest sin in God's eyes? I'm wondering if it's the same in your faith (or your version of it) as it is in others we've explored on this board.
By the way, thanks for appointing me "thread leader." I don't deserve this honor, but I will endeavor to live up to the awesome responsibility that has been thrust upon me.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If God did not make Steve and Bruce then what should we do when Steve and Bruce love each other? Hide it? Lie about it? Force them to change?
Are you suggesting that if two people love eachother they should not have to change?
What if, for instance, it is Michael Jackson and a 10-year-old kid?
Or what if it is two individuals already married to other spouses with children?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think he clearly meant "force them NOT to be homosexuals." Why did you even bring that up? Were you actually confused by that?
I don't see how.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tres, those are amusing straw men. The first ignores the issue of consent, and the second the issue of personal compacts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Humanity's endless spiral downward has been bemoaned by every generation since Adam & Eve. Suffice it to say that were this really the truth, I imagine we'd all be living in mud huts and killing each other on site for food.
On the other hand, people have been placing great faith in the "progress" of humanity from an ethical perspective for almost as long. (Not saying you said this, BTW.) I see that view as just as flawed as the "ever-downward spiral" view.
Dagone *My God! Is there a penny on the track. Watch out, we're going to derail!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The funny thing about "mankind's great progress ... blah, blah, blah" is that those statements always sound so dated after only a few years. I mean, look at the "Carousel of Progress" at Disney for a great example of this. I think they finally closed it because the exhibit was constantly in danger of becoming a museum of out-of-date stuff instead of the cutting edge it was supposed to show.
I think the rah-rah progress talks are as insufferable as the "The End is Near" type of talks.
But the progress ones have the advantage of empirical evidence. I mean, how many people do you know who ride buggies, light their house with natural gas or whale oil lanterns, or die from minor infections.
It's only in the area of social institutions that our progress is really illusory. We're still the same shaved apes we were 50,000 years ago, apparently.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree, Bob. That's why I included "from an ethical perspective."
Of course, there's no denying that technology allows great harm as well. I'm not a Luddite, but the Holocaust was the application of modern industrial theory and technology to a 2000-year old prejudice.
But I think the harms of technology come from putting bigger stones in the hands of the shaved ape, not from technology itself.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. <<
God didn't make anyone, because god doesn't exist.
[/troll]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Which god (with the lower case) made them?
Even if one assumes an evolutionary pathway to our existence, there is some debate over whether we all could be descended from one woman.
At any rate, there was a proto mammal that in my evolution textbook all mammals had to come from, because apparently molar-type teeth could only have evolved once. This is the kind of thing evolutionists must take on faith, however. Flight was considered to be such an evolutionary one way street until recently as well.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Xap, I am talking love here, not lust.
If Michael Jackson truly loves a 10 year old boy, then he would not do anything to hurt that boy, including making any sexual advance. Further, its doubtful that a 10 year old boy is mentaly and emotionally mature enough to return that love.
If a person falls in love with another person, and either, or both, are already married, then what is healthy and most important for that other person should be primary. Having a secret affair is healthy for no one. If I loved Jane, but Jane has a husband and two kids, I would not have sex with her, because there is no way that could end without hurting her.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Oh man, we're talking about the apocalypse here? Yeah, right. That'll be the day.
...
Actually, I suppose that *will* be the day, won't it?
(I love the Daily Show)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Bwahahah! I'd forgotten!
Oh, man, I miss watching the Daily Show. I'll have to watch it tonight.
Edit: BtL, you'd be proud. I'm going to campus late tonight to put up subversive posters.
[ February 23, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".
That's true. And we all know how well that pairing went down. Wasn't it Eve who got us kicked out of Eden? If Adam and Steve were in the garden, they would be too busy fighting for the remote control to care about any forbidden fruits.
I find it hilarious that some Christians would use the "Adam and Steve" line to challenge homosexuality. For centuries the Church has blamed women for mankind's fall from grace. Women have been systematically marginalized by organized religion since day one. And now the Church wants to bring out Eve as if she is some kind of holy relic.
I really cannot understand why any women would support religious persecution of homosexuals after having suffered centuries of religious persecution themselves.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap, I am talking love here, not lust.
Yes, but perhaps that is the problem, because I suspect those who oppose homosexuality do so in part because they view it as lust, not true love. And I don't think it's entirely fair to fault them too severely for this, if you are going to automatically label the relationships in my examples as lust rather than love in the same way.
I mean, why is it socially acceptable to call Michael Jackson a pervert (it's been done on this forum), but considered downright stupid to say the same about homosexuals? I understand you all have arguments as to why one is okay and the other is terrible, but the person in this article (and many others) most likely has semi-coherent reasons why he believes homosexuality is just as terible - and I'm sure to him they seem just as correct as your distinctions seem to you.
My point is not that homosexuality is wrong, or that pedophilia should be acceptable, or that cheating on your wife is okay, or that the person in this article is correct in his claims. My point is that the difference between him and many posts on this forum is little more than a disagreement on the fine distinction between right and wrong, or the distinction between love and lust. His anger towards homosexuals should not be that surprising or difficult to understand, given the way he views the lines of morality, and given how common angry reactions are both on this forum and elsewhere towards people percieved as doing terrible wrongs. And the suggestions that people should try to change their fundamental nature when that nature pushes them to do wrong is not a very rare idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I mean, why is it socially acceptable to call Michael Jackson a pervert (it's been done on this forum), but considered downright stupid to say the same about homosexuals?"
Consent, I'd imagine.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I get so tired of that Adam and Steve thing I can scream. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
[quoe]Consent, I'd imagine.[/quote]
That distinction works for you, just as "because God say so" works for some anti-homosexuality types. But what happens when a bunch of liberals come around claiming consent isn't a good enough reason? Is it then okay for them to think you're a terrible person for thinking Michael Jackson is a pervert?
Besides... what if the child consented? Then what is the difference?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:But the progress ones have the advantage of empirical evidence. I mean, how many people do you know who ride buggies, light their house with natural gas or whale oil lanterns, or die from minor infections.
I live in Amish country. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No logical person would state that a person who has sex with a child is NOT a pervert. Furthermore this is not ancient Greek or even ancient Japan. Children are children. There's a reason why there are laws against inappropiate actions with minors. Mainly because of the damage it does... But that is an interesting point considering groups like ACLU defending child molesters -_- Which is just wrong, but the ACLU defends pretty much everyone.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So Xap, are you saying we should be ashamed of ourselves for judging this man who so hatefully is busy judging another?
I disagree. There is a difference between me and the man who wrote this article. That difference is in tone, respect, and degree.
I say he is wrong. He says that all homosexuals are wrong. Yet if I were to meet him on the street, I would not seek him out to debate this. I certainly would not get abusive. I would allow him to have his own opinoin up to the point where he would try to force it on others.
He, on the other hand, seems to want to seek out all the homosexuals he can find, and verbally abuse them. He will not allow any disagreement.
If you say that I judging him is wrong, and that caring, open minded individuals should refrain, then you may convince the caring open minded individuals from refraining, but you won't stop people like him. And if no one is judging people accept for the reactionary fringe, then they will win.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Besides... what if the child consented? Then what is the difference?"
As a society, we have arbitrarily decided that ten-year-old children are not capable of granting informed consent.
However, if you want to start from the premise that a ten-year-old child CAN properly consent to sex, I would say that there IS no problem. Of course, I'm willing to dispute your premise.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Well, let's remove the consent issue, if that's the only thing that makes a child molester a "pervert" (though I personally avoid using that word for anyone). What about simply lusting for children, but never doing anything about it that could harm or violate an unconsenting child? Should those feelings, when coupled with the selfless love and good judgment that it would take to restrain oneself from acting on them, be considered healthy, natural, or normal? Or is there something inherently bad about lusting for a young child that is not bad about lusting for a member of your same gender?
I'm just curious, here, because so many of you throw consent around like it's a trump card, and I'd like to see what you really think about the subject.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Hm. While I typed, the conversation kinda moved in the direction I was going, by itself ... Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I guess my question really is, is there something in this world that is an inappropriate target for lust?
Let's say that I come to you and tell you that X (whether it be a woman, a man, a child, a helpless victim, an animal, an alien, an open wound, or an office chair) really turns me on, and I want to have sex with X. Is there anything in this world that we can fill in for X that should be considered a warning sign that something is wrong with me, or that I have a psychological issue that ought to be resolved somehow?
And if so, what kinds of things should be on the list of inappropriate or dangerous X? What is it that makes them unhealthy or wrong?
[ February 23, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
children for obvious reasons. animals, because that's just wrong and cruel. Animals can't concent to that! But if one wants to adore inanimate objects in that way... why not? as long as they don't do it while I'm there.... Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
But I'm asking you to ignore the consent issue for a moment. Pretend that I'm not going to act on any of these urges, so no one will be affected by these feelings except me. Is there anything we could fill in for X that is inherently a sign of an unhealthy mind?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes... preying on children even in your mind is not a healthy thing...It's either a sign of pasth abuse or something else.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Syn:
So, in your estimation, there is at least one sexual fantasy or desire which is unhealthy even to want ... or which, if wanted, serves as a clear sign of a much deeper problem. When someone feels this way, it makes you wonder what makes the image of a little child, or the idea of a vastly inferior sexual partner, arousing to this individual. We assume that something terribly traumatic and scarring must have happened to him to cause him to feel this way.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I had this human sexuality textbook and the only fetish they were willing to say is definitey unhealthy is the urge to be dismembered. I think when it gets to that point, I chuck the text book and go back to Adam and Eve.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
That's making a blanket statement, Syn. Care to back that up with documentation?
<--- playing 's advocate.
[ February 23, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rat, if you are driving at some point, I would be curious what it is. Socratic dialogue is pretty boring. Can you please just say what you think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
ARND is simply saying that the bad effect on children is not the only reason we condemn pedophelia. That being the case, he wants to know what are the criteria for properly condemning a particular sexual attraction.
Dagonee
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
This is a difficult problem because there is a definite need to be able to point out "healthy" and "unhealthy" human thought patterns. It's one of the few grounds on which we can lay any secular standards for human behavior, and it's also the only way we can address true mental illnesses such as clinical depression.
The problem is the boundary line along which humans want to do things that have no clear benefits or harms, but simply seem counterintuitive or unusual. Does the counterintuitive or unusual nature of a desire make it unhealthy? Is it a sign of some deeper problem? Or is it simply a benign, harmless part of normal human variation?
Each individual desire presents a whole litany of arguments on both sides of the issue. Some people think that desiring to mate with a child should be considered normal and healthy. Some people think that desiring oral sex should be considered unhealthy. I disagree with both of those camps, and most people would agree with me ... but as we've seen, there are issues on which we as a society are much more evenly divided.
Each time we move a desire over from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" or back again, we are forced to call into question the standards we use to make such decisions. So that's why I'm curious ... what ARE the standards? Are we using any? Or are most of us simply more likely to follow the voice that shouts at us the loudest?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: ARND is simply saying that the bad effect on children is not the only reason we condemn pedophelia. That being the case, he wants to know what are the criteria for properly condemning a particular sexual attraction.
He's said that? Interesting. Where?
In any case, why else would you condemn pedophelia if not for the bad effect on children? I am not getting the logic behind this. If it were considered good for children, why would one condemn it?
I am really confused. Is he, or you, or whoever, asking whether we should or do condemn something without regard to its effects on the object? Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Storm, that's exactly right. I'm asking whether or not you think it is appropriate to consider a desire, a thought pattern, or a psychological condition "unhealthy" or assume it to be a sign of a deeper problem, when there is no clear negative impact on any outside person.
And if I'm reading your post correctly, I get the impression that your answer is no
[ February 23, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not saying anything. I was trying to clarify for you: ARND elicited confirmation from Synth that the effects on children were not the only reason for condemning pedophelia.
No one has said that pedophelia does not have bad effects on children nor that it should not be condemned on those grounds.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There are short term and long term consequences of actions. If you can't point to a probability of some bad action occuring, I don't see why one would condemn it.
ps Sorry if my previous posts came off snarky. The above seems obvious to me, and I was genuinely confused about what you were asking and whether you were trying to make a point.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pedophilia damages a child. These damages have a negative impact on society. It's that simple. Gayness doesn't compare... Unless the person is condemned for being gay and made to feel as if their sexuality is negative and horrible. Pedophilia leads to more pedophiles and people doing servere damage to themselves because of how much they have been hurt. That is what makes it wrong. Just as people having affairs without much thought is also damaging but pedophilia is much, much worse.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
See, that may be one of the widest uncrossable gaps in this debate, Storm. Your own opinion on this matter was, in your eyes, an obvious, incontrovertible fact. But there is a large number of people who think the precise opposite — that some human thought patterns are inherently flawed or unhealthy, regardless of whether they lead to any harm to an outside entity, and these people find their own opinion to be just as obvious and self-evident as you find your own. So who is right, and on what standards can we base our answer?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you can't point to a probability of some bad action occuring, I don't see why one would condemn it.
I agree. But when the bad consequence is not universally acknowledged you get into conflicts such as the one over whether homosexual actions are wrong. Most Christians think homosexual actions are ultimately hurtful to the participants.
Note, I'm strictly talking about nameing something as right or wrong here, not whether it should be illegal. There are lots of things I think are wrong that I don't think should be illegal. Homosexual actions are among these. As is extra-marital sex. (Even assuming consent in both cases.) I'm not advocating making homosexuality illegal, despite the fact that I think it is ultimately harmful.
Dagonee
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think that whatever fantasy a person may have is probably okay. If the expresion of that fantasy would hurt the person or someone else, then it should not be expressed.
That goes for fantasizing about your co-worker as well as fantasizing about going postal or some such.
Bondage, Dominance/Submission, blood play, sexual role-play or whatever are probably okay as long as the expression of those fantasies are controlled for safety. Safe, Sane and Sober is something I have heard from friends in that scene. I don't know if that's how it actually plays out, and I have no reason to know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It should be noted for completeness sake that some people make moral arguments in favor of "consensual" sex between adults and minors on the basis of not restricting the child's "freedom of choice."
I think it's generally specious to use the pedophelia bogeyman in homosexuality debates. However, ARND is not using it here to say that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. He's using an extreme example to examine how sexual mores are established. In this context I think it's legitimate.
Kind of like those "Two people are walking down the railroad tracks and you get to pick who dies" questions. They're not raised because we need to prepare ourselves for that situation. They're raised to force people to examine the underlying moral principles that inform their actions.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Gayness used to be a matter of choice and freedom, based on the idea that it didn't hurt anyone.
Then it turned into "born that way." What happened between the 80's and the 90's that caused this shift?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Good post, Dag.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dog, if someone can't give some kind of evidence for their opinion, then why should anyone listen to them? Why would anyone listen to someone who has no proof for what they believe? I am really confuzzled.
I believe in evidence, yes, and because of this, my mind can be changed because the evidence can change. The only peoples' minds who can't be changed are those who believe something is inherently bad or wrong regardless of the evidence. How do you change their minds? You can't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you Belle.
Storm, was that "Dog" a shortening of "A Rat Named Dog" or a shortening of "Dagonee" with a mistake?
Dagonee
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[Dog continues to free-associate]
How do we draw the line between a person with serious emotional problems or delusions and a person who simply sees the world in a unique and special way?
For instance, we define clinical depression as a disorder because it involves humans despairing and feeling terrible about their lives without any reasonable external cause. Some people take this too far and say that a human should never, ever feel bad about anything, ever, and that anything that makes you feel bad is unhealthy.
But humans often do have very good reasons to feel bad. If you were happy the day your dog died, or if you didn't feel remorse for committing some grievous wrong, or if losing your job meant nothing to you, most people would say that there was something wrong with you. We've decided that humans "should" feel a certain way about certain things, and when we don't, it causes us to question ourselves, and search for reasons. WHY am I miserable all the time, even when my life is going smoothly? WHY can nothing persuade me that I'm thin or beautiful enough? WHY am I compelled to check everything I do three times? WHY don't I like this ice cream flavor that everyone else loves?
Sometimes, this questioning process leads us to conclude that we are sick. Sometimes, it just means we are unique. But how easy is it to tell the difference? And when we are defining our universal, agreed-upon model of "normal" human thought, how do we determine what to include?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee,my post was directed to ARND.
[ February 23, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Thank you, by the way, Dagonee, for seeing the intent behind my posts. You're right that I have no intention of implying that homosexual = pedophile, or any such thing, and I'm doing all I can to provide a good number of obvious-positive extreme examples alongside the obvious-negative ones, so that no one gets the impression that I'm trying to bash anybody
As I said in another thread, homosexuality is a difficult issue to address because all of the analogies are offensive or useless in some way or another. I'm hoping I've gone far enough afield here that no one (particularly our resident representatives of the homosexual community) will be hurt or offended ...
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Storm, are other people's thought processes just foreign to you in general?
... aw, you edited your post, so mine no longer mocks you properly ...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not offending... just interested in different perspectives... I've got a weird way of looking at gayness and also a strange thing most would consider a disorder And stuff has been happening to me for a year that a lot of people would consider insane. There are no easy answers... just so many perspectives a person can turn neo-cubic with confusion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So who is right, and on what standards can we base our answer?
ARND, please reply to my last post where I answered yours. See, I want you to tell me the answer, because a lot of people on this board who are pro gay marriage have been putting up evidence that homosexuality can be healthy, and that there is no evidence that homosexuality or gay marriage will hurt society. I think a lot of pro gay marriage people, including myself, are really wondering if its possible to change someone's mind who believes, as you say, that some thoughts are just inherently wrong regardless of evidence.
So, you tell me, how do we change their minds?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm, are other people's thought processes just foreign to you in general?
It's funny how you sometimes ask questions that I've been meaning to ask you. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee,my post was directed to ARND.
That's what I eventually thought. But for about 1 minute when I thought it was about my post, I couldn't figure out what the hell you meant.
Dagonee
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Storm, I don't know if going into this with the express interest of changing the way the other side thinks is really the best attitude ... That's right, I'm saying your thoughts are UNHEALTHY! REPENT!
[ February 23, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm, I don't know if going into this with the express interest of changing the way the other side thinks is really the best attitude ... That's right, I'm saying your thoughts are UNHEALTHY! REPENT!
Dude, I'm just going along with what you asked. I never said that I was going into my conversations with people with the express interest of changing other people's minds or that their thinking was unhealthy.
You asked
quote: So who is right, and on what standards can we base our answer?
So, answer your own question rather than trying to potray me as being on some kind of crusade. What is *your* response to your question? What is *your* opinion? My opinion was that answers to social questions should be based on 'evidence', and not a priori absolutist thinking, since without using empirical evidence, no dialogue is possible. You can change my, and people like me, mind by giving evidence that gay marriage is 'unhealthy' because of consequences. Empirical evidence and standards are the right way to go when people with different belief systems are having a conversation, not absolutism as then dialogue and understanding and some kind of consensus of, to answer your question, what is right and wrong for society is not possible.
Do you agree or disagree with my opinion? Why? How do I change an absolutist's mind(further edit: *cough* as in engage in a debate/dialogue/conversation with them about the merits of something) if they base their opinion on the external(edit: meant to say internal) world, without referencing consequences in a way that makes sense to me, as a quasi empiricist, in a way that there can be dialogue if I don't share their belief? How is dialogue possible in an absolutist world when any response other than what is accepted as truth is wrong and why should I pay attention to what absolutists think when I know they aren't paying attention to the evidence I'm presenting them? When I know that their belief isn't based on experience, but faith?
Conversely, how do absolutists try to change, or at least prove their point to, someone else's mind who isn't a part of their belief system without referencing consequences and facts?
How can you frame an argument around anything other than experience and results in the real world?
Your question raises a good point and I am in good faith trying to engage you in dialogue. If you don't want to talk about it and instead want to just sit above the fray and toss out questions and never engage in debate, that's fine by me. Just say so so I don't waste my time waiting for a reply to my posts.
[ February 24, 2004, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Bigots are everywhere. 'Christian bigot' is, in fact, an oxymoron, but like everything in humanity, it can happen. (boy does that sound silly, heh)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Geoff, you should've been Catholic!
Bless me father for I have sinned. It's been 20mmmmmble years since my last confession. I have had impure thoughts 9 million times, AT LEAST! I'm having impure thoughts now!!!
Okay, here's the deal: dangerous thoughts is not a category worth debating. Unproductive thoughts aren't even worth debating. What's left are thoughts that become counter-productive. Literally, if we take a psychologist's definition for a moment at least (bear with me), if your thoughts interfere with your ability to function in your environment, then they are harmful. If not, what are they? Passing fancies? A bit of curiosity.
Now, let's explore what it means to be "functional." This is both a societally and personally defined thing. Societally, being functional means you can feed, clothe, and shelter yourself within the bounds of legal behavior (the limits of the law) as defined by the society in which you live. That pretty much comes first. It's the basics, shall we say.
Then, there's the personal definition of functional. That's where there is both latitude and responsibility for one's own pursuit of happiness. You don't have a choice regarding things like eating, shelter or obeying the law. Really...not if you want to be free to act and functional in society.
But beyond that, you have choices and freedoms.
Anyone who breaks the law...not functional.
Anyone who goes into vapor lock over some fixed idea...also not functional.
Someone who fantasizes about fetishized sex but remains in control of their social and private life...functional.
I find this approach highly practical. It is also independent of value judgements on things that are entirely within the realm of personal choice.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
We live by a set of rules in our society. Some of the rules are actual laws and you get in trouble if you violate them. Beyond that, society in general gives its tacit agreement that you can CHOOSE to be this way, or that way. Or whatever floats your boat.
Now...I think we can dispense with the pedophile stuff. Basically, it's against the law. There is agreement by all but a small minority that children are by definition below the age of consent. So, there can't be consensual sex with them. So, if you have sex with a child, you are breaking the law. You are a rapist. And the law should go after you.
Dysfunctional.
There's no wiggle room on this. No NAMBLA circular arguments. No "over-riding power of love." It's just not in the cards in our society. We set the age of consent at 18. That's it. Period. And it is clearly dysfunctional to act in a way that ignores that law because it is a law we -- the rest of society -- have shown ourselves willing to enforce. With a can of whoop-ass thrown in.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*Jumps into thread wearing an eyepatch and a hook*
Arrrr! I'm here to get your booty!
*looks around*
Oops. Thought this was the fetish thread. Sorry. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
See...completely functional...
You can wear a pirate outfit ANYWHERE!!!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Olivet, you better get that out of your system tomorrow. After that, it's 40 Pirate-suitless days for you! Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:dangerous thoughts is not a category worth debating
I couldn't disagree more. Thoughts are incredibly important, and dangerous ones are the well-spring of nearly all dangerous actions. I'd go further and say that immature thoughts or thought patterns are also bad, in that they prevent a person from growing.
One of the most successful methods of treating depression centers around learning to recognize, counter, and eventually do away with negative cognitions. In this case, fighting bad thoughts is a huge deal.
However, there's two big buts here. First, the thoughts themselves are not really the problem. Rather, it's the person's conscious decision to entertain these thoughts. If someone gets a shocking image or dream of them torturing someone else, that's not what I'd consider dangerous. However, if that same person keeps fantasizing about torturing people, we're getting into bad stuff territory. I'd also say that if someone keeps getting what they feel are ego-dystonic cognitions (e.g. repeated images of raping someone that they are consciously horrified by) and they don't do anything about it, this is also bad stuff.
However, and this is the second but, all this is meant from a person's internal perspective. For you to judge someone else's thoughts as dangerous takes a whole lot of arrogance. This arrogance can be justified, but even then, intervention into these issues is a huge responsibility that frankly, I don't think anyone here (myself included) has earned. There are certain, very limited situations where a person's thoughts are so obviously dangerous and are presenting an immediate danger to themselves or others that you almost have to intervene, but in nearly all situations, that's a job for a specifically trained and certified therapist. And even they don't do a great job a lot of the time.
Seriously, Geoff or whoever, how much do you think you really know about how people's minds work and what constitutes a "dangerous" thought? Do you really think you have anywhere near the qualifications to judge?
edit: I just want to make it clear, when I'm saying that dangerous thoughts are important, I'm more talking about the concept of dangerous thoughts, rather than specific thoughts. Also, as my posts here have shown, I consider a lot of thoughts dangerous and I do things to counteract them. That is, I argue against them and leave it up to the person to decide. That's pretty much the level of responsibility that I'm comfortable with.
[ February 23, 2004, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Squicky, I think he specifically wants to ignore effects on things. Your definition of dangerous thoughts seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 'is bad for the emotional well being of the person'. I don't believe this is what he's talking about. I beleive he's asking if there is a thought that is 'bad' that we can say is bad, without taking into account the consequences of having that thought.
edit: Actually, he didn't say that the happiness of the person thinking that thought wasn't something that couldn't be used as a criterion. Never mind.
[ February 23, 2004, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So Xap, are you saying we should be ashamed of ourselves for judging this man who so hatefully is busy judging another?
I think you are absolutely correct in judging his actions as wrong and his words as mistaken. I just think you are mistaken if you think he is bad as a person. I'm just arguing that his anger is understandable, even if completely wrong, as lots of other people would act the same in his position.
In truth, this is just another argument of mine against the existence of evil people.
quote:I guess my question really is, is there something in this world that is an inappropriate target for lust?
There's really two questions here:
1. Is it okay to lust after things like children or animals so long as we don't act on that lust?
I would have to say, yes. You can't really control what the target of your lust (or love) is, I think. That's one of the main arguments against calling homosexuals evil - they can't control it! I don't see any reason to think pedophiles or whateverelseophiles can control the thoughts themselves any better.
In fact, I would say people should be PRAISED if they lust after something wrong and yet do not act on it, just as an alcoholic should be praised for having the desire to drink but not acting on it. It's a noble thing to not act on one's desires because that act would hurt others.
2. Are there things that it is unhealthy to lust after?
I would have to say yes to this, definitely. I don't think it's ethically wrong to lust after the wrong things if you can't control those feelings, but I do think it's unhealthy, because it will compel you to do bad things. Going back to alcoholism, if you are an alcoholic it is not wrong to desire alcohol, but it IS unhealthy. Alcoholoism and pedophilia are diseases.
quote:There is agreement by all but a small minority that children are by definition below the age of consent.
This is the argument that always bugs me in these discussions, because it seems very clearly false to me, and incredibly unfair to children. For one thing, you can't define capacities away from people - you couldn't just define me as not being able to play basketball for instance. For another thing, children consent to stuff all the time - I've witnessed it with my own eyes, and I've consented to things myself when I was 16 or 12 or 8, so I know with about as much certainty as possible that it's not true.
It's an example of an seemingly false assertion being widely accepted just to try and shut down argument against a certain idea as quickly and clearly as possible - something that always bothers me on an intellectual level. I don't believe we should shy away from complex justifications for the truth in favor of simpler but false ones - like those who claimed the Iraq War was wrong because it was "all about oil."
Tom says:
quote:However, if you want to start from the premise that a ten-year-old child CAN properly consent to sex, I would say that there IS no problem.
Well, I have to disagree, because I think the child CAN consent and yet the act would still be wrong. I'd argue that even if another person consents to you doing something to them, it might still be wrong of you to do it to them if it will likely be bad for them. Helping them commit suicide can be another example of this. People can consent to you killing them, but it's still wrong.
And that leads me to this question...
quote:And if so, what kinds of things should be on the list of inappropriate or dangerous X? What is it that makes them unhealthy or wrong?
I think X should be wrong if it is very likely to harm people - like sex with minors normally is.
I do not believe homosexual behavior is likely to harm people, so I think it should be acceptable. However, if my religion was such that I believed a person who committed homosexual acts was condemned to hell or something, it WOULD be likely to harm people, and would be wrong.
I don't think I would create any laws against it, though, just based on my religious views alone.
[ February 23, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, If that's what Geoff is saying, don't you think that I did a good job of answering it?
One of the things that really bothers me about living in a populist culture is that people think that just because they think something, they should act on it. We've almost completely discarded the concept of intellectual responsibility. "I think this is bad, so I'm going to (vote/protest/spend my money) so that it doesn't happen." but the person believing this hasn't done any thinking or study in that area that makes them competent to judge anything about it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Squick,
You always have great replies. I just wasn't sure that Geoff wanted to use the emotional health of the person as a criterion. But I see that that is something that he did allow as a standard for basis. I think.
And you're absolutely correct that absent some action, the individual is the only person who can say what is and is not healthy for them mentally.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:One of the most successful methods of treating depression centers around learning to recognize, counter, and eventually do away with negative cognitions.
I think I disagree. Exactly what method are we talking about here and how does it stack up against treating the presumed imbalance in the serotonin neurotransmitter pathways?
But anyway, I think Mr. Squicky and I are talking about much the same thing. If someone is clinically depressed, their thoughts have become dysfunctional.
I wasn't sure if you thought you were disagreeing with me at first, but then I gathered you were in the middle of an ongoing discussion.
Sorry if I intruded.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bob, I'm talking about Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and it's descendants. I'm also talking about Martin Seligman's work on learned helplessness and his work on The Penn Resiliency Project.
I agree that I think that we're traveling down largely parallel tracks, but I was getting an impression that you and Storm were sort of implying something that I strongly disagreed with. I could see it both ways, but I thought it was important to establish that bad thoughts exist and can be dealt with.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm not familiar with the first one you mentioned. I know Marty Seligman's work with rats on Learned Helplessness. Dogs too, as I recall. I wasn't aware it'd been turned into a human therapy.
I always thought his name for the phenomenon in animals smacked of anthropomorphism.
Seemed like an interesting concept though.
I wonder how well it really works though. I mean, the problem I see is that the learned helplessness response comes into play under stress and the therapy sessions generally happen in safe environments.
(Although I hear some therapists/counselors deliberately stress out their clients).
I guess anything's better than just trying to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm hoping I've gone far enough afield here that no one (particularly our resident representatives of the homosexual community) will be hurt or offended ... "
Out of interest, Geoff, do you think your dad was as concerned about the feelings of our "resident representatives of the homosexual community" when he compared their desire to marry their partners with "playing dress-up" in his latest essay?
I know this is to some extent a low blow -- and an unfair question -- but I've got a pointed reason for asking it: because the idea that homosexual couples cannot have legitimate, healthy, and adult relationships is at the heart of this debate, and it seems impossible to me that anyone can respect a homosexual individual without also recognizing the validity and maturity of his or her emotions.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
This interests me, too. (For probably obvious reasons).
I think people here forget that the "homosexual community" consists of individuals with real lives; people to whom this discussion is not academic; people whose lives will be changed by decisions that are being made right now or will be made in the very near future.
I try really hard to not take offense where none is intended, but I wish some others on this board would work equally hard not to offend. I think there are some people who think that "I'm not trying to offend you but . . ." is license to express offensive opinions with impunity. It's as if it's some sort of magic phrase that suddenly makes one immune to charges of insensitivity no matter how vile or bigoted their opinions, and if anyone is offended, well they are just being thin skinned, after all I don't mean to be offensive.
I often wonder how many people on this board know any gay people. (And I mean in the "I know this guy Karl who's gay" and not the "There's this gay guy, Karl, at work" kind of way.) I came very close to starting an "Ask the 37 y/o male homosexual" thread. One reason I didn't is that I don't consider myself a spokeperson for gays. It's not that I think I'm atypical. It's more that I don't think there is a "typical homosexual". We are an enormously varied group of people. For many of us, what happens over the cases in San Francisco and Boston will have profound affect on our lives and how we see ourselves and how we are seen in society. It's hard for me to debate the merits of the possible outcomes of this issue (and other gay issues) when the issues are personal for me, but the opposing camp tends to retreat to the safety of generalities.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KarlEd, I'm not trying to offend you,....
but do you have any explanation as to why I'm no longer attractive to gay men?
I mean, it's not like I WANT a gay man of my own, but it used to be that gay guys would hit on me all the time. And lately, nothin! It's like I don't exist.
NOTE: Smilies are another good way to smooth over the potential offensiveness of what we post. All you have to do is put a at the end, and NOBODY can ever take offense.
Sometimes you have to add a j/k...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rat, (as not to confuse you with Dog/Dag) here is my understanding of your question.
Tomorrow we develop the perfect VR machine. You put on the suit and the goggles and enter a virtual world where you can do whatever you like to whatever you want.
You can have sex with no consequences accept those in your own mind, soul, and/or body.
I am selected to load virtual things into the machine for people to copulate with.
You do not suggest that I work for the government, and arrest people for picking certain things.
You do not ask me to say what things I would find ridiculous, disgusting, or unpleasant in what some person picks.
You are asking, which things would send me to call for psychiatric counselling for the person who makes out with it.
My answer is nothing.
It is not my business to decide what other people find attractive.
To make it my business, to say I know what is healthy and you don't, is to be extremely arrogant, unless I was a qualified mental health practicioner. Even then, a second or third oponion would be suggested before throwing tons of guilt on a person (Only an insane person would want to make out with a Barney doll. You are sick, sick, sick and we must forcebly stop your pleasure).
Sure, there would be many things that would make me sick, or make me giggle, or more likely, make me curious (just how do you have sex with a folding chair?). But I am no more a judge of mental health than the VR sex fiend. It is not my business.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Dan: Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:just how do you have sex with a folding chair?
Very, very carefully. There's a lot of leverage near those hinges.
Dagonee
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Hey Frisco,
If you think I am mentally challenged then so be it, but personally reading your posts in the anti-Bush threads, I would have to say the same of you.
Rhaegar
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You might note, Rhaegar, that just a few posts later he says he was using it as a rhetorical device; which, given the context, makes sense.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hi Bob.
(Just didn't want you to think your reply was unnoticed. I'd have replied earlier but the other thread has me so overwhelmingly depressed right now I don't feel like posting in jest and so angry I don't trust myself to post seriously without being seriously rude.)
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I do note that Fugu, yet my opinion remains stationary.
Rhaegar
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
It's arbitrary: society decides. Looks like America is headed toward some memetic self-correction, and there may be an exodus or two as a result. Interesting time to be alive.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
A very interesting time indeed David, every single norm and statute is changing, and technology is bounding, not that these are good things, but they are still interesting, quite right David.
Rhaegar
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Karl, I do know gay people. My uncle has lived with the same partner for nearly 20 years. The female dean of the high school where I teach is engaged to one of the female Language Arts in my department, and I count both of them as friends.
I understand your plight and your concerns. I also understand those of conservatives opposed to gay marriage. And my conclusion is that there is no solution, because someone's belief system is going to be butchered at the end of this, and that will create more hate, and the cycle will go ever on...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
David, do you really believe it HAS to play out that way? I mean, is this such a massive change that the anti- crowd just will simmer to boiling over?
I could see it the other way...if people's rights are curtailed for long enough, they'll rebel. But this is ultimately going to be seen as an issue of fairness by almost everyone, I think.
And as long as that's the case, even grudging acceptance would seem in poor taste.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I really hope you're right, Bob. But I'm a teacher, and I see the rampant insensitivity (and outright hatred, in some cases) that exists among a good number of teens for the gay lifestyle, and I know where this hate comes from, and I know where it is headed...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
David, I think that's pretty much normal for adolescent males who are just discovering their own sexuality.
I mean, they don't really KNOW anything, and calling someone "queer" or "fag" is like the big insult. So of course they aren't equipt to see the positive side of a person who actually IS gay.
Now, sure, some of those kids will grow up and never leave their hometown. And they'll suck down brews at the local bar and make jokes about gays until they die.
But those people are in the minority, I think. Most people do go on, broaden their minds, and at least learn toleration if not actual appreciation.
Heck, even some people who have seen the seemier side of some gay lifestyles (public restrooms on my college campus were a nightmare for a homophobe) actually learn to at least keep their derogatory comments to themselves. But most can sort it out a bit better than that.
I hope I'm right too. I hate to think that the attitudes evinced by teenage males in this country are going to be the norm throughout society.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
's advocate.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)