quote:Although... the point could be made that the listener is the butt of every single pun.
I certainly feel like that. But then, I don't have the appreciation for puns that some here do.
I find the sexual content in that joke offensive, BTW.
EDIT: Gahh. New Page. Must add substance to my post.
Kat, The difference between core ideas and skin color is that one is voluntary and changeable, and one is not. That's why it's different to criticize someone's skin color. They didn't choose it, and they're powerless to change it (apologies to Michael Jackson).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In one case, someone took a bunch of bad arguments and pointed out (not particualrly funnily in my opinion) that they were bad arguments
No, they took a bunch of arguments, changed them in ways that removed all nuance, explanation, or context, and then added pithy ironic statements that in many cases don't even refute the strawmanized argument put forth.
It's bad satire, but worse than that, it's dishonest satire.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Actually, I inclined to agree more with your description, except for the implication that there is quality to be found in the analogs of the arguments that were presented if they are given a less partial treatment. I don't think that this list was either particularly funny or well presented.
But that still doesn't make it into collecting people into a group and mocking them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it makes it collecting people into a group and lying about what they say. There's no denying that the intent of this list is to attack the views of those who oppose equal civil marriage rights for same sex couples and that it implies that these are what their views really amount to.
It's one step below the "you care more about a condemned murderer's life than an innocent child's life"/"how can you be pro-life and support capital punishment?" chestnuts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, Squicky and JT more or less just said what I was going to say in response to your question.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That something can be changed does not mean that it is okay to mock it.
Someone can change their friends and their spouse as well. Does that mean it is okay to mock them? Someone can change their nationality - is it okay to mock that?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone's saying it's OK to mock anyone, for any reason. But I think there deserves to be a line drawn between Things You Can Change and Things You Cannot Change.
You compared ideals to skin color, and I think that there is a fairly important distinction between the two. I actually think a person's ideals might be more central to their identity than skin color. This does not imply that I think one deserves ridicule and one does not.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the line is between things you have a right to and things you don't... hence religion's inclusion on the protected list.
And I'm saying it's ok to mock anyone for any reason, just don;t get huffy when they don't like being mocked...
and Squick, you don't think people can be grouped by their point of view? and you honestly believe this list did not mock a particular group of people?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I believe that the group of people being talked about are the people who make those arguments. And what's being said about them is that some of the arguments that these people make are foolish.
edit: If you want to extend it a little, you could say that he people being talked about are people opposed to gay marriage and that what's being said is that these arguments are representative of the content and quality of their arguments. It's a stretch, but I could see it. Of course, that also happens to be, from my perspective, more true than not.
edit 2: For me, saying that someone's arguments are wrong or foolish is an attack on the arguments, not the person who made them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you think they are different. I don't understand why. What is the difference between Cannot Be Changed and Cannot Be Changed Without Great Personal Pain and Loss Of One's Identity that makes the first one so much more sacred?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The statistics for single parent families after having been corrected by regression analysis for socio-economic back ground, level of eduction etc show that single parents do no worse for their childen than two parent.
Please back that up with some hard evidence. Links, if you please.
Perhaps you're thinking of studies that have shown that remarried couples that form a step family do, after a number of years together, tend to reverse many of the effects of divorce. 'Course, the statistics weigh strongly against remarriages remaining together long enough for that to happen. But if you can beat that statistic, apparently there's a better one on the way. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
However, I question Squicky's ability to distinguish between the finer points of civilization (as evidenced by his latest post), and so will not give credence to any of his comments.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I don't see how this list would constitute lying. Could you explain that classification?
There is an implication that these arguments are actually being made and the ones that are superficially similar to the distorted version are equivalent.
Simply put, the person who made this list supports (thanks, twinky) gay marriage. He put this out as if these are the arguments being made (minus the ironic support which are actually refutations).
Straw man arguing is lying, because it contains the implicit message that someone is actually making the straw man argument.
Edit: And I should clarify, this is lying because it's intentional. The point is to say, "See, this is all my opposition's arguments amount to." Unintentionally misinterpreting is not lying.
posted
Errr...those arguments are pretty much being made, close enough to fit in the bounds of satire anyway and certainly within your "superficially similar to the distorted version". And even if this wasn't true, you're claiming that these people definitely know that what they are saying is not at all true, which I don't see how you could know.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people cling to ideals like lifelines. Some change them like socks. It depends on the person, but choice is, for me, the key component.
Say I'm a Native American. Say I also am strongly opposed to abortion.* I might be reasonably expected to defend my views on abortion. No matter how well thought out they are there's no denying that there are two sides to every ideal. Not the case with skin color. There's no choice, and therefore no one right position to take.
*Neither of these claims are true, nor are they related to one another in any way.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, Dagonee? Every one of those sentiments has been made in this forum. Every one. And in close to those terms, minus the snarky additions. Head to some of the more virulent anti-gay websites and you can see even more generalized, hateful messages being presented as facts.
Many people, here and otherwise, have reasons not to acept gay marriage that are reasoned and justifiable, and to them this list is a mockery. But there are indeed people who believe such generalized, noncontextual statements. I offer Rev Phelps as an extreme example, and I can sadly point to quite a few people I know as lesser versions.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
One is a physical property of a human being, the other is not.
One can be changed, the other can't -- regardless of how fundamental a given belief might be. That is the difference, Katie. Add the weight of history and it simply boggles my mind that we're even having this discussion. Then again, it also boggles my mind that there's any debate over whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Errr...those arguments are pretty much being made, close enough to fit in the bounds of satire anyway and certainly within your "superficially similar to the distorted version". And even if this wasn't true, you're claiming that these people definitely know that what they are saying is not at all true, which I don't see how you could know.
So you'll use this standard from now on when judging OSC's columns?
quote:Um, Dagonee? Every one of those sentiments has been made in this forum. Every one. And in close to those terms, minus the snarky additions.
Please tell me you can see the difference. Please.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, didn't you mean to say "Simply put, the person who made this list supports gay marriage?" Or am I going insane?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, twinky. I was changing to "supports gay marriage" from "opposes limiting marriage to male-female couples" and apparently only made half the change.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted, the people who have expressed such blunt opinions to me would have read this list and not realized it was supposed to be funny...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, No, we really can't see the difference. These arguments have been made here. They are made with greater frequency and volume elsewhere.
quote:So you'll use this standard from now on when judging OSC's columns?
So you're admitting that you don't follow these standards when you don't want to?
I don't believe I've ever called OSC a liar. When I take his writings in a certain way, I show what led me to that conclusion based both on his column and his past writing (and now his behavior on this forum).
This is you saying, "These guys are liars." without supporting this assertion in any way when not only are the things they are saying not untrue but considering they come across murky perceptual boundaries likely to be seen as true even if they were not.
I don't hold that you can't divine motive from what people say. That's you...though apparently this is limited to when you're talking about me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're admitting that you don't follow these standards when you don't want to?
No. This is a different, and stricter, standard than the one I argue about with you when we discuss OSC's columns. If you followed the standard your attempting to hold me to now, you would automatically exclude much of what you say about OSC.
You really are bad at this snarky questioning thing as a rhetorical tactic.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no trouble separating a statementfrom a person.
Lots of really smart people say very stupid things, occassionally. Just like very stupid people sometimes say something profound. Personally, I like to think of myself as belonging in both categories. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is this stricter? You called these guys liars based on...well nothing really. I do follow the standard I'm trying to hold you to now. I would never call OSC, or anyone else for that matter, a liar without some pretty clear proof to that fact. I honestly don't see how you think doing so is no big deal.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Many people, here and otherwise, have reasons not to acept gay marriage that are reasoned and justifiable, and to them this list is a mockery. But there are indeed people who believe such generalized, noncontextual statements. I offer Rev Phelps as an extreme example, and I can sadly point to quite a few people I know as lesser versions.
I think it's precisely the point of this list to characterize those who are against SSM as being like Fred Phelps and I think that it's precisely what people are offended at. I've been wrong before...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fred Phelps is, as Chris pointed out, an extreme example. But arguments similar to these in content and quality seem, at least to many of us, to be the mainstay of the secular arguments against gay marriage.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is this stricter? You called these guys liars based on...well nothing really. I do follow the standard I'm trying to hold you to now. I would never call OSC, or anyone else for that matter, a liar without some pretty clear proof to that fact. I honestly don't see how you think doing so is no big deal.
Do you deny that this person supports gay marriage and does not believe the "arguments" he's putting forth?
Do you deny that his intent is to mock the opponents of gay marriage?
I know you deny that the representations of the arguments are inaccurate, but I'm not going to debate that with you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's precisely the point of this list to characterize those who are against SSM as being like Fred Phelps and I think that it's precisely what people are offended at.
To be clear, he looks a the correlation between high school test scores and a number of statements about their background.
Understanding that high school test scores are a limited measure of 'successful' parenting, that emotional development is also important, but that to do well in school you usually do have to be somewhat disciplined, adjusted, stable home etc so it is not a BAD measure. And it is one we have that is objective.
Statements of backgroud that he looks at to correlate are: Family is intact There are many books in the house English is the first language in the home Low birthweight Mother stayed at home until the child was over 5 Mother waited until over 30 to have children Parents read to the child regularly Parents take their kids to museums often Parents are educated to college level Parents are involved in the PTA The family have moved to a better neighbourhood recently
The following correlate with test scores: There are many books in the house English is the first language in the home Low birthweight (negative correlation) Mother waited until over 30 to have children Parents are educated to college level Parents are involved in the PTA
The following do not correlate with test scores: Family is intact Mother stayed at home until the child was over 5 Parents read to the child regularly Parents take their kids to museums often The family have moved to a better neighbourhood recently
You'll either have to read the book for more detail or find the authors papers.
Hope that helps.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you deny that this person supports gay marriage and does not believe the "arguments" he's putting forth?
Nope. I'm not sure how this constitutes them lying. Satire is a pretty well-understood thing. You've even agreed that this is what they are doing.
quote:Do you deny that his intent is to mock the opponents of gay marriage?
Yes, I do. As I've said, this list mocks arguments made by opponents of gay marriage. There is nothing in it that mocks the opponents themselves.
I don't see how either of these supports your ability to call whoever made this list a liar. You said:
quote:He put this out as if these are the arguments being made (minus the ironic support which are actually refutations).
Straw man arguing is lying, because it contains the implicit message that someone is actually making the straw man argument.
Edit: And I should clarify, this is lying because it's intentional. The point is to say, "See, this is all my opposition's arguments amount to." Unintentionally misinterpreting is not lying.
How is either of these relevant to that?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll take a shot at a somewhat less snarky list. Let's see...
01) Being gay is not natural, aside from some perverted penguins, and some swans, and the occasional monkey but you know what they're like. Oh, and this dog I once had.
02) Acceptance of gay marriage will legitimize gayness and implicitly encourage normal, moral, innocent people who totter on the very brink of sexual experimentation, to try gay sex. Sweet, sweet, gay sex.
03) If we allow gays to marry it will start us sliding on the slippery slope that zooms past polyandry and polygamy, dips sharply into incest, and lands us directly into the pit of bestiality where we can buy tickets and go do it again but with our arms up this time.
04) The concept of gay marriage violates the very definition of marriage itself, a definition that has existed since man joined together with woman. Or with several women. Or with the widow of a man the first man slayed in combat. Or with a woman attached to a valuable piece of property. Oh, and they have to be the same color and/or tribe, did I mention that?
05) Expanding the definition of marriage will devalue marriage itself, because encouraging more people to commit to one person instead of screwing around just isn't the sort of thing our country stands for.
06) The central purpose of marriage is to raise productive children, obviously something gay people simply cannot do unless they adopt, inseminate themselves, or have children from a previous straight marriage. And then it's still wrong. Seriously.
07) Children growing up in a gay household are sure to become gay what with all the, you know, gayness lying around.
08) Gay marriage is specifically denied by my religion and that law, unlike all the other scriptural laws which we have since abandoned in the face of scientific discoveries, social changes, and even just other scriptural laws made later on that kinda contradict the first laws but not really, must be strictly enforced.
09) Children need strong male and female role models to grow up healthy. So not only can't gays marry, but some of you straight people better get on the gender-stereotype bandwagon. You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak?
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Ha! Deny that one!
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before things get terribly over the top here, could I ask each person to examine their feelings to determine to what extent they are deliberately taking personal offense for things said by others that they know are not intended in that vein. Likewise, could I ask people to refrain from escalating the snarkiness of interpersonal discourse?
I think it's worth treading lightly in areas that DO touch on people's sense of self, whether that be self-identification, or their morality. We can choose to clash on this, or we can choose to discuss the points at which our arguments are talking past each other rather than addressing real concerns held to be important by the other side.
Sorry to be such a killjoy, but lately I feel like one of the kids wondering why the adults are always screaming at each other all the time, and worrying that my happy home is breaking up.
I'll refrain from saying "can't we all just get along" and say rather that I think the bigger picture is being missed here because of entrenchment and a feeling that to defend or not defend some lame joke has greater implications about ones self.
And if we're attacking each other's rhetorical style, we aren't discussing anything or getting anywhere good, IMHO.
Unless this thread has morphed to be all about debating tactics, in which case, I'll go sit in the corner banging my head on the floor until it's over.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
(Now I'm worried that you don't think what you wrote is funny and I don't want to offend you .... argh ...what should I do.)
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Chris has my vote for Thread President. His list was less offensive, and therefore, much funnier. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:03) If we allow gays to marry it will start us sliding on the slippery slope that zooms past polyandry and polygamy, dips sharply into incest, and lands us directly into the pit of bestiality where we can buy tickets and go do it again but with our arms up this time.
And you owe me a new keyboard for that one!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, both those are evidence of straw-man arguing, and I've explained why straw-man arguing is lying. I have not contended that either question alone is proof, so your piecemeal refutations are not relevant to the use to which I put them.
And your caveat about what he's mocking doesn't matter. Either way, his intent is to mock, and he's lying about his opponent's arguments to do so. So if I accept your contention that he is not trying to associate gay marriage opposition with Fred Phelps, it doesn't change one iota the credence it lends to the author attempting to use straw men to mock.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I hope it's okay, but... I'm already spamming people on LJ with your list. WITH credit to C.A. Bridges. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
