quote:Originally posted by Megan: Whereas the message I see is, "These arguments against SSM are kind of stupid. See?"
To me, the reason that it isn't just saying that is that it explicitly says that these are the best arguments against SSM.
Where are you seeing that? I'm looking and I'm not finding that. I'm not trying to be combative, honestly; I just don't see that, either in the first post or in the title.
Maybe posters after that have said that, but I don't think it's inherent in the joke (It would be if the title was actually "Top Ten," but here, at least, it doesn't seem to be.)
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. I am against SSM. 2. I take the above position quite seriously. 3. I STILL thought the original list was kind of funny, and not offensive at all. That's because I recognize that there are a lot of morons on "my" side in this debate.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
now that things have kinda been talked through, may I just say that I'm VERY tired of the "yeah, 'cause the world needs more children" bit of sarcasm...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, you're right -- in the U.S., the First Amendment trumps even incitement to genocide. Here in Canada, incitement to genocide is a prison-worthy crime. It's Section 318 of the Canadian Criminal Code:
quote: 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
While reading about this, I discovered, among other things, that many neo-Nazi web sites are hosted in the U.S. rather than elsewhere for this very reason. I'm sure you can guess what my view of this is, but then, my country's motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government" rather than "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the First Amendment. I'm all for it, and for people's right to speak without checking that it fits the government-approved list first. *waves flag*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If only we had a twinkling smiley. Something that says "I am half-mocking both you and myself, because I love us both." I'd use the tongue smiley, but I think twinky doesn't like it much.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky:(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
Twinky, just wanted to point out to you that this particular thing is a group of people being singled out for intellectual assent to certain ideas... something you distinctly argued was different than race, but which both of our constitutions identify as equally protected. Perhaps you and I are not so far apart as we might seem .
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with the tongue smiley; it's rivka who doesn't like it, IIRC.
I honestly believe that the First Amendment goes too far. I don't think that that particular right is inalienable, and I certainly don't think it is granted by some sort of creator. I absolutely believe that incitement to genocide is something you should go to jail for, regardless of whether 1) any violence ensued, or 2) you participated in any violence that did ensue. Note, however, that the Code states that the incitement has to be likely to lead to violence.
Jim, I don't think we're all that far apart. I haven't argued that ideas aren't deserving of protection; rather, I've argued that persecution on racial grounds is "worse" than persecution on ideological grounds. i.e., it's worse to make a joke about someone's race than it is to make a joke about someone's religion, or ideology, philosophy, or preference in soft drinks. Look at it this way: consider the instances of ethnic cleansing in world history as against the instances of "ideological" cleansing. I think we can agree that while both are abhorrent and happen with disturbing frequency, ethnic cleansing is both more common and historically larger in scale. This makes it a more sensitive topic and one that should be handled with additional care.
However, don't take that to mean that I'm not absolutely in favour of "religion" being on that list along with "colour, race, ethnic group, and sexual orientation." I am. I do think, though, that Katie's comparison between the opening post of this thread and a racist joke is unwarranted, and belittles the importance of combating racism.
Edit: Cleaned up the last sentence. Too many "Howevers!"
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
And look at how much divorce has improved life for children. Isn't it great?
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Exactly. So we should have more people doing it, right?
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Of course, the statistics totally support how much better it is for children to be raised by a single parent. We should definitely encourage it!
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Or easy divorce, which has been so good for society. And abortion, which has also been excellent. I'm so glad we've adapted to these social reformations so well. Those silly people who thought it might be damaging to society. Bet they're eating crow now!
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
The data on abortion and crime has shown that crime rates plummet when poor, uneducated, single mother's (the majority) have the choice to abort rather than to keep them or put them up for adoption. I know it is a horrible idea ... but that *is* the data.
posted
I've yet to see an opponent of gay marriage on Hatrack provide reasons that didn't come down to "My interpretation of God says it's wrong" that were substantially more tenable than the ones on that list, despite repeatedly asking for them. People keep claiming that they exist, but no one in the anti-gay mariage camp seems to be willing to produce them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| 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.
I'm curious as to what sources you have for this. I've read many, many things on it and none of them support this view. From all the things I've read, intra-SES comparisons show large significant differences in the physical and psychological welfare of single parented versus two parented children, with the two parented children having much better results.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess (as a single and childless female) would be that two parent happy homes are better than one parent happy homes - but two parent miserable homes would not be. It seems like it's much more complex than simply one parent versus two parents.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember correctly ... and it is possible that I haven't ... then it was in the same book as posted on the arbotion article by the same economist.
I would look it up this evening but can't as I have lent the book to someone.
Freakonomics was in fact a fantastic read. He loses his objectivity only about twice. I, of course, haven't actually seen the statistics or checked his methodology ... but given his qualifications I am willing to accept a lot of what he has written.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do think, though, that Katie's comparison between the opening post of this thread and a racist joke is unwarranted
Her point was that just because there is some truth to a joke doesn't mean that the joke is OK. I think it was a good point and it needed to be made.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But another point, which I believe is equally valid, is that no matter how a joke is phrased there is some way someone can take offense to it.
This is why a sense of humor is so crucial. Without it, we'd all have a stroke or die at knifepoint by our 20th birthdays.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've yet to see an opponent of gay marriage on Hatrack provide reasons that didn't come down to "My interpretation of God says it's wrong" that were substantially more tenable than the ones on that list, despite repeatedly asking for them. People keep claiming that they exist, but no one in the anti-gay mariage camp seems to be willing to produce them.
You've either seen them or haven't been looking... I've seen many (if not most) opponents of gay marriage justify their position using arguments based upon the negative impacts they argue gay marriage will have on society.
This is not to even mention the argument I gave - that gay marriage simply does not fit the definition of a marriage, no matter whether it would be nice of it to or not. A doughnut is not a bagel, whether we'd like to define it that way or not. The same is true for the meaning of marriage.
So, reasons do exist - whether you agree with them or not is another question.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't see the problem with telling people that if they dislike mocking jokes made at their expense, it is their fault?
I agree that a sense of humor is necessary, but how much does it suck that people pride themselves on being the person other people need to just walk away from.
quote:Even if I were to grant that the point needed to be made, it doesn't change my view of the analogy.
That's fine. I never said they were equal. My point was exactly as Porter says - "It has some truth in it." is a bad justification for a joke.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is that, twinky? Do you think that racism should never be used as an analogy when discussing something else?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, No I've seen people assert that gay marriage will hurt society, but I've yet to see them offer a tenable reason for how or why it will hurt society.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, but that implication could easily be drawn -- and was drawn, as page two of this thread attests -- from what you did say. Either you weren't clear or you meant it. Evidently it's the former, which is good news.
(See? I like the tongue guy just fine.)
That's a big part of why I think it was unwarranted, Porter -- Karl thought she was calling him a bigot. In point of fact, I thought so too, and I couldn't think of any other reason for posting such a thing and phrasing it that way. I certainly didn't "get her point."
I think racism should not be equated to things it is not equal to, because doing so belittles it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Just for the record, the list wasn't particularly funny. It lacked that oh so important ingredient to humour: subtlety.
Just for the record, this is the only thing in the thread that I found funny. (Well, that and mph's Princess Bride reference, but Jebus was funnier.)
posted
They are similar - they are not equal. Grouping people together and then mocking them has a disturbingly familiar resonance to it. However, since there is not the baggage of centuries of abuse of power behind it, it is not equal.
I probably should have been more clear - I was never attempting to say that Karl was a bigot.
On the other hand, Porter understood me perfectly and recapped it even better than I would have myself. Must not have been that obscure.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except, again, this did not group people together and mock them, but rather mocked a bunch of bad arguments.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the thing with jokes is this: they are always going to highlight something less than flattering. Whether it's sexist, racist, classist, or ageist really depends on the interpretation. When it's an especially tender subject like racism or same sex marriage, it's going to ruffle some feathers. When it's obvious that something is intended as a joke, I've found it makes life a lot easier on me if I take it as a joke.
Whether or not it's in poor taste is largely a factor of the audience. A racist joke, while never a great idea, is a very bad idea when in the company of the race in question. When none that the joke targets are there, it's the same joke but the execution is much more tasteful. Not to say that it's tasteful, because it's not. But every joke has a butt. Unfortunately.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How in the world is that splitting hairs? In one case, someone took a bunch of bad arguments and pointed out (not particualrly funnily in my opinion) that they were bad arguments. In the other, they would have said something like, those people are so dumb. And then gone on to make derogatory mocking statements about them. I see those as remarkably different situations.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And another thing - people who are against gay marriage and claim the reason is because of the damage it'll do to society are just rationalizing. They don't like it for religious reasons, or because it makes them uncomfortable and bucks the status quo. But no rational person jumps right to the "good of society" argument. It's the argument I respect the least in this whole debacle and those who hold it up like it's the trump card kind of piss me off. Be honest with yourself.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:people who are against gay marriage and claim the reason is because of the damage it'll do to society are just rationalizing. They don't like it for religious reasons
How lovely that you are qualified to read their hearts.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's qualified to read their statements though, where they've yet to give a reason that doesn't rely on religion that holds up to any critical analysis.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think he's qualified to read their statements though, where they've yet to give a reason that doesn't sound like a barely veiled attempt to disguise their religious prejudice.
There is no argument for anything that cannot be interpreted to be a veiled attempt to disguise prejudice.
Just because all you can see is prejudice doesn't mean that's all there is.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: They are similar - they are not equal. Grouping people together and then mocking them has a disturbingly familiar resonance to it.
I still think that there's a world of difference between mocking someone's ideas and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: On the other hand, Porter understood me perfectly and recapped it even better than I would have myself. Must not have been that obscure.
You and Porter are both Mormons. Karl and I are both atheists. It must be a religious schism!
Less flippantly, I think that's because you and Porter oppose same-sex marriage and the "joke" was "aimed at you," so to speak. It can be hard to tell how your words might be taken by "the other side" sometimes.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Granted, I didn't have time to catalogue and cross-reference every joke in existence, but every one I could think of had a target.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, Yeah, I changed it immediately to a less debatable statement.
edit: And again, I offer an open invitation for people to provide these good arguments against same sex marriage that don't rely on "My God says it's wrong."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no issue with people who would be opposed to SSM for:
Religious Reason Emotive reasons (It feels just plain wrong)
What I do have issue with is emotive reasons being portrayed as rational arguments with no evidence or even thought experiments to back it up.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Granted, I didn't have time to catalogue and cross-reference every joke in existence, but every one I could think of had a target.
What about the joke about peanuts being "a salted?" I'm not sure that it's offensive to the admittedly delicate sensibilities of peanuts.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still think that there's a world of difference between mocking someone's ideas and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
Why, actually? I'm not debating a point here - I think we've established that we don't agree with this. The reason I disagree is that I think someone's ideas can be as central to a person's identity as their skin color, so there isn't much difference between attacks on the two - you are still striking at the core of someone's identity.
Why do you think they are different?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Maybe I should amend my statement to say "funny jokes". Some people get a kick out of telling jokes they get off of Laffy Taffy wrappers, but those elicit more groans than laughs.
Although, George Washington Carver probably wouldn't like that peanut joke, and he's black, so it's a racist joke.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because ideas are open to critical analysis in which their quality relative to certain standards can be evaluated. We can say whether an idea, relative to some standard, is good, bad, or not even worthy of being taken seriously. THe same can not be said for skin color.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still think that there's a world of difference between mocking someone's ideas and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
I guess I don't really see the difference in mocking someone's gender/religion/sexuality/beliefs and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
Is the primary difference "ethnic cleansing is both more common and historically larger in scale. This makes it a more sensitive topic and one that should be handled with additional care."
Because I could argue that gender persecution is much more common, widespread, and socially accepted.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
