FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Question about OSC and his views (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Question about OSC and his views
exhiled
Member
Member # 13085

 - posted      Profile for exhiled           Edit/Delete Post 
If my account gets shut down, I will not return. It's ironic that this very thread was an attack on the character of OSC, the person this site was based on. I'm not trying to be "noble" but I'm absolutely certain my life experiences far exceed yours. I'm sorry that you are so close minded that sharing them offends your paradigm.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
You don't have to wait to have your account closed. You've been told that you are banned and asked not to post here. Be a grown up.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
1.

quote:
but I'm absolutely certain my life experiences far exceed yours.
even if that were true (it isn't, sorry bro) it's such a damn shame that all those life experiences resulted in such an incoherent needy dunning-krugerite coming back to the forum and trying to sling out his life experiences to validate a most pathetic attempt to fit in a "I told you so" to people who manifestly have no reason to suspect vindication re: real world events

step away from the keyboard (possibly also the hooch) and do something less pathetic with your life at the moment than trying to fill us with the arrogant narrative of "yeah I don't blame you for banning me, after all, look at how right I totally was about everything. also I'm not a racist, my wife looks "exotic" but I don't see race hur whee dee derr dee derr."

also be sure to abstrusely mention racism three or four times again because the spot just won't come off your hand and ladies must doth protest too much or something.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
2.
quote:
If my account gets shut down, I will not return.
Because you can't be a grownup and just leave when asked to by the moderator, you have to regurgitate this tired point with two (2) subsequent alts.

Swear it on a bible and actually follow through with it this time, liar.

[Smile]

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
exhiled
Member
Member # 13085

 - posted      Profile for exhiled           Edit/Delete Post 
And it's against the law to enter the US illegally but only racists use the term "illegal alien". Unlike the illegal alien, sorry undocumented worker, I've re-registered with my actual information and was accepted. Malanthrop was banned but Exhiled was welcomed. I have made no attempt to hide who I actually am.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
Speaking of which, are cannolis considered cookies?
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
exhiled
Member
Member # 13085

 - posted      Profile for exhiled           Edit/Delete Post 
No way can a connoli be considered a cookie unless we embrace the concept of a tubular oreo.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Rakeesh, that example doesn't count since it is probably negated ten ttimes over by Civil rights activists who are insulted by modern comparisons to SSM activists. The point being, anecdotal evidence can always be countered with another anecdote.

Also, if something is truly self-evident, then by definition it doesn't need any further argument to support it. Ones refusal to see something as self-evident doesn't make it any less so. It usually just highlights the refuser's willful blindness. This is a common occurrence in modern political debate as a progressive will not admit that 2+2=4 if 4 does not promote the leftist agenda.

ANYWAY, Sam, I am not arguing anything on B&B's behalf, I'm just pointing out that equality for all races is not so similar to equality for homosexuals that any argument for one can be seamlessly transposed into an argument for the other. I say the differences between the two are self-evident, but naturally this is not true for progressives so I'm just going to step away now and go back to watching the world burn.

Just so I understand, that example doesn't count? You're familiar with that case and the couple's role in it (that is, their central role!) I hope? It 'doesn't count' because (supposedly) there are more examples in the other direction? If anecdotes shouldn't be used...why were you the one to begin using them by referencing (or actually not referencing, merely stating that it was the case) the anecdotal statements of supposed Civil Rights activists from the past?

Doesn't count...man. I admit I find your casual hand-waving dismissal frustrating and irritating.

quote:
Also, if something is truly self-evident, then by definition it doesn't need any further argument to support it. Ones refusal to see something as self-evident doesn't make it any less so. It usually just highlights the refuser's willful blindness. This is a common occurrence in modern political debate as a progressive will not admit that 2+2=4 if 4 does not promote the leftist agenda.
Well it didn't take long to expose your rather blatant conservative agenda in spite of your earlier high-minded rhetoric. In fact your example of arithmetic is a very poor one for your broader point for a self-evident statement, because in fact you can demonstrate that 2+2=4 (for the purposes of arithmetic) very easily, and in fact this very demonstration is exactly how people learn it in the first place. Children aren't just told, "2+2=4, now don't ask questions," they're told that and then instructed, "Now hold up your index and your middle finger, then your ring finger and your pinky, and how many fingers do you have?" or something along those lines.

So no. Your repeated non-arguments that you've *termed* arguments don't wash. I'm not saying you're not allowed to believe there is no equivalence or something silly like that, I'm simply pointing out-very thoroughly, and repeatedly at this point-that you haven't made that case. Stating that 'it's obvious' isn't an argument. Stating 'it's obvious, and I don't have to explain it, and boy those stubborn willfully blind progressives...' is unfortunately amusing at your expense.

quote:
ANYWAY, Sam, I am not arguing anything on B&B's behalf, I'm just pointing out that equality for all races is not so similar to equality for homosexuals that any argument for one can be seamlessly transposed into an argument for the other. I say the differences between the two are self-evident, but naturally this is not true for progressives so I'm just going to step away now and go back to watching the world burn.
At least now you're making a fair statement. Yes, you say the differences are self-evident. Fine. Feel free to leave if you like, to 'watch the world burn' (God, I get tired of hearing religious conservatives talk about that as though things are just so much better when they're calling the shots), but I'll still point out you haven't actually made an argument for your supposedly very obvious case to this point, and leave it at that. I suppose I'll be one of the people lighting matches while you watch, though, advocating for homosexuals to destroy humanity by marrying and stuff.

If we're both still alive when gay marriage has been widespread and ongoing long enough to demonstrate how absurd your fears are, you'll owe an apology but I suspect it would be long in coming.

(If you object to the tone of this post, Emrecheek, chalk it up to the 'it doesn't count' and your repeatewd reliance on 'it is too an argument, and it's obvious, and I'm done' tactic.)

-------

At this point I wonder how many jobs and places malanthrop has had and been! A skeptical observer might begin to think it odd that a person who so often relies on personal anecdote always has a story or experience to relate that absolutely trumps the perspective of everyone else, is so powerful in fact it serves as its own argument. This same observer might think it strange that a person who has the kind of heroic, self-sacrificing, edifying life of meaning would lower themselves to sneering squabbles and would stake so much of their dignity on winning Internet arguments when it would seem that person would be in a position that those arguments would be a lark.

Weird.

Anyway, it's clear you're not going anywhere, whether or not you're allowed here. The moderator has asked you repeatedly to hold to your long-standing ban, and more than once you've stated you won't be, and here you are. OK, so you're an unwelcome liar, but this is hardly news, malanthrop.

I don't think cannolis can count as cookies, no.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by exhiled:
No way can a connoli be considered a cookie unless we embrace the concept of a tubular oreo.

Just for the record, if you had come back and dipped your toe in the water like this instead of continued a vain effort at crowing about how you're up on the cross, without attempting to exonerate your reputation and stick a needle in your opponents, I can almost guarantee the problems with your return would be much smaller.

It's not actually too late, technically speaking. I'd be shocked if you did anything but more of the same, though.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
exhiled
Member
Member # 13085

 - posted      Profile for exhiled           Edit/Delete Post 
You should all boycott Hatrack because OSC might be an intolerant Christian. I bet he eats Chick-fil-a.......nuff said.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by exhiled:
And it's against the law to enter the US illegally but only racists use the term "illegal alien". Unlike the illegal alien, sorry undocumented worker, I've re-registered with my actual information and was accepted. Malanthrop was banned but Exhiled was welcomed. I have made no attempt to hide who I actually am.

this is the gooniest thing i have ever read. you've just literally tried to extrapolate the issue of your auto-registration to the issue of racism against undocumented workers. (ps you're a racist)

again: even though you're really just demonstrating a lack of self control, swear on a bible that if your current third alt account gets blocked, you will never again return. "If my account gets shut down, I will not return."

Yes, swear it. Swear on it, give us a sincere promise.

Do it, now.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
Speaking of which, are cannolis considered cookies?

no, but a hamburger is a sandwich
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reticulum
Member
Member # 8776

 - posted      Profile for Reticulum           Edit/Delete Post 
You should try accentuating the degree to which your valuation of the precept of kindness guides your interactions in dealing with others.

When you are unkind, you reveal the empathy that you withhold from yourself.

Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JDickins87
New Member
Member # 13086

 - posted      Profile for JDickins87           Edit/Delete Post 
A late comer to this thread, but if I may say something... This thread demonstrates one thing to me: Some individuals simply can not be tolerant of those with views oppositional to their own.


No matter the subject matter, you will never find two people whom agree on everything. All that we should ask of one another is that we remain tolerant of those who disagree with us. Mind you, I say tolerance. Not agreeance.

Tolerance (noun): the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Agreeance (noun): A state whereby two parties share a view or opinion; agreement.


While it is clear we will never agree with anyone on every single thing, can't we be tolerant of someone whom disagrees with us about something? Or are you just intolerant?

Posts: 4 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
*shudder* I hate the word "agreeance." Let it stay dead. It's been dead for around 500 years, except inexplicably in the American Southwest.

The word is "agreement." We don't need two of them.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
J, your remark isn't very illuminating-you haven't defined what it means to tolerate something which is, yknow, vital to your entire point.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JDickins87
New Member
Member # 13086

 - posted      Profile for JDickins87           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*shudder* I hate the word "agreeance." Let it stay dead. It's been dead for around 500 years, except inexplicably in the American Southwest.

The word is "agreement." We don't need two of them.

Lol. True it is not commonly used in this century, but it's still a word. I used it for comparison due to its suffix ['chalk it up' to poetic license (or is 'chalk it up' too antiquated now that we use whiteboards far more often now?)].


Funnily enough this reminds me of the discussion between John Paul, Theresa, and Peter in Chapter 16 of Shadow Puppets (over Peter's use of the term 'lackwit').

quote:
“Mom,” said Peter, “nobody thinks you’re a Lackwit, if that’s what you’re worried about.”

“Lackwit? In what musty drawer of some dead English professor’s dust-covered desk did you find that word? I assure you that never in my worst nightmares did I ever suppose that I was a Lackwit.”


Posts: 4 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Heh. I remember that exchange as well.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JDickins87:
No matter the subject matter, you will never find two people whom agree on everything. All that we should ask of one another is that we remain tolerant of those who disagree with us.

No! Don't ask this. Like as has been used as a demonstration many times already in this thread, there's plenty that makes it so that it is non-virtuous to tolerate people who do it or believe in it.

I wouldn't tolerate someone who believed in slavery, for instance. I would be perfectly and justly intolerant of them, given the current definitions of tolerance we're working with.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
julianperez27
Member
Member # 13087

 - posted      Profile for julianperez27   Email julianperez27         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know why I writing this post because everything about this subject is repetitive. And, as OSC said, the battle is lost: the generalized marriage will be the law of the land. Perhaps Obamacare will be repealed some day because a lot of people are already realizing that it was not that good, but this will not be repealed as neither Roe vs Wade was repealed (even when "Roe" changed her mind and became a pro-life advocate)

Let's start with an statement: unlike OSC, I don't think an homosexual behavior is "wrong". OSC doesn't hate homosexuals, he is not "homophobic" but he clearly thinks that it is a wrong behavior. It's not my case. I have known enough gay people, and have enough gay friends, to know that a lot of them (not all) are born with such orientation and fighting against it only leads to considerable suffering.

However, I don't think the redefinition of marriage is a good idea for society and I'm constantly hearing that such opinion is being "homophobic" (like opposing to Obama politics is being "racist") Such repetition made me lost lose part of my sympathy for the gay cause: it's becoming a political cause.

Being my parents divorced when I was 2 years old I was raised by three women. I know by my own experience that the ideal environment for raising children is a man and a woman. Children need both influences. My mother and my aunts did their best and I grew surrounded with love but that is not enough. There are still flaws in my personality that I have not being able to fix (for example, I have a trend to passive aggressivity). The situation of the black community, a big percent of them raised in mono-parental houses is another example of that. And a couple of same genre parents is emotional equivalent to mono-parenting: it's sort of an emotional incest, and we know that brothers don't produce genetically healthy children.

Let's give gays access to health security plans, common declaration for the IRS and other benefices with another kind of union not called "marriage". Unlike a rose, marriage, with other name, doesn't smell the same. Why that? Because calling it "marriage" removes the base of the institution, that is not "love" but the breeding of the offspring and makes all marriages equivalent for adoption. And they are not. Children are better with gay couples (and even with singles) than in institutions but different genre couples must have preference.

Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
julianperez: Thank you for posting your thoughts, your background is quite fascinating in that it's unusual. But might I ask do you think a male presence would have solved everything? There are for example plenty of passive-aggressive males. That trait isn't really tied to sex so much as tied to traditional gender roles, i.e women shouldn't speak their minds.

I don't think women or men are innately more likely to be passive-aggressive, either sex can be programed to be that way to some extent.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Being my parents divorced when I was 2 years old I was raised by three women. I know by my own experience that the ideal environment for raising children is a man and a woman.
quote:
And a couple of same genre parents is emotional equivalent to mono-parenting: it's sort of an emotional incest, and we know that brothers don't produce genetically healthy children.
This has been studied quite significantly and has never borne true. There's actually, by now, a preponderance of evidence pointing to the fact that there's no significant positive element of a mixed-gender couple that is essential and unreproducible by same-gender couples that makes it so that mixed-gender couples should have preference, or inherently makes them better parents in a way that same-sex couples can't be.

The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry even did a meta-study and declared: "There is no scientific basis to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents."

quote:
Children are better with gay couples (and even with singles) than in institutions but different genre couples must have preference.
Again, this is made up. And it is actually homophobic discrimination, very straightforwardly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm just wondering how on Earth 'I was raised by three women' equates to some sort of fact 'one man one woman parents are universally best'. No one can avoid this sort of anecdotal bias entirely, but it's something to hear that advanced as a plank in what is meant to be an argument relying strictly on reason.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
julianperez27
Member
Member # 13087

 - posted      Profile for julianperez27   Email julianperez27         Edit/Delete Post 
>>But might I ask do you think a male presence would have solved everything?

Of course not! Each particular case is a world. I'm thinking in trends. There are a lot of dysfunctional families and a lot of a cases where the presence of the father makes the situation worst. And there are abusive teachers and even pedophile teachers. That doesn't mean that the majority is neither that is better not to send the children to schools.

My point is that it's better not to give the same name to things that are different in essence. Same genre couples join for love, not for having offspring (they can do that by adoption or insemination, but not in a natural way) And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together. They don't need to get married to do that. IMHO the main purpose of marriage is to create an appropriate environment for the perpetuation of the specie. Of course, I could be wrong. It's only a personal opinion, not something that you read in the books of history.

About a man an a female being the optimal environment (in general, not in particular cases). I'm not thinking only in my case but, of course, personal experience is always important (all opinions is first based in personal experience: it's the first source of knowledge). Consider the situation of the black community in USA: the percent of them in jail is much bigger than the percent in the general population. And there is a high percent of mono-parental black families. Are these two facts unrelated? It could be, but I don't think so.

I think that the effect of mono-parental families (ore one-genre families) is not completely known. Recently I read an interesting theory: the percent of black players in the MBL decreases but the percent in the NBL doesn't. Why? The theory of the author was that baseball traditionally is taught from father to son, but basket is taught peer to peer and that was another result of the lack of fathers. Could be true or not, but it makes sense.

But I'm amazed that even an opinion about a man and a woman being better for children, even when it's also said that it's OK that gay couples adopt and raise children is attacked. Something is very wrong when such things happens. Don't blame me if I consider it intolerance.

Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
julianperez27
Member
Member # 13087

 - posted      Profile for julianperez27   Email julianperez27         Edit/Delete Post 
>>But might I ask do you think a male presence would have solved everything?

Sorry. I didn't answer exactly the question. In my case, yes. I'm sure of that. Not "everything" (nothing solves everything) but a lot of things.

Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Julian,

quote:
My point is that it's better not to give the same name to things that are different in essence. Same genre couples join for love, not for having offspring (they can do that by adoption or insemination, but not in a natural way) And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together. They don't need to get married to do that. IMHO the main purpose of marriage is to create an appropriate environment for the perpetuation of the specie. Of course, I could be wrong. It's only a personal opinion, not something that you read in the books of history.
A few questions, then. Shall the very elderly who get married, men and women that is, should society get out of the business of labeling that 'marriage'? No procreation possible there, after all. Or younger couples who have no intention of procreation, or for whom procreation is biologically impossible without those artificial methods? Furthermore, why does your perception of that the 'primary' purpose of marriage has historically been need to be the universal legal idea-in terms of the species I think you're right, of course, but are you seriously arguing that's the basis on which we acknowledge marriage? And why cannot this definition change, as it has repeatedly throughout history?

quote:
About a man an a female being the optimal environment (in general, not in particular cases). I'm not thinking only in my case but, of course, personal experience is always important (all opinions is first based in personal experience: it's the first source of knowledge). Consider the situation of the black community in USA: the percent of them in jail is much bigger than the percent in the general population. And there is a high percent of mono-parental black families. Are these two facts unrelated? It could be, but I don't think so.
You're skipping over quite a few things here. Is it possible that various sociological problems in African-American communities can be attributed to a lack of fathers? Well sure. But does this point as strongly to the idea that the 'mother-father' parenting setup is so important, and so superior to 'f-f' or 'm-m'? Or does it point to ideas such as 'when one parent is missing because of crime', or 'when one parent is missing with a major loss of income', etc.? Those seem to be strong contenders for the causes of the problems you're describing, but you appear to have skipped straight to the explanation which suits you best.

quote:
I think that the effect of mono-parental families (ore one-genre families) is not completely known. Recently I read an interesting theory: the percent of black players in the MBL decreases but the percent in the NBL doesn't. Why? The theory of the author was that baseball traditionally is taught from father to son, but basket is taught peer to peer and that was another result of the lack of fathers. Could be true or not, but it makes sense.
Seems pretty thin basis to legislate some people's inferiority on the basis of sexual preference.

quote:
But I'm amazed that even an opinion about a man and a woman being better for children, even when it's also said that it's OK that gay couples adopt and raise children is attacked. Something is very wrong when such things happens. Don't blame me if I consider it intolerance.
That's not actually what happened.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But I'm amazed that even an opinion about a man and a woman being better for children, even when it's also said that it's OK that gay couples adopt and raise children is attacked. Something is very wrong when such things happens. Don't blame me if I consider it intolerance.
You said it was OK that gay couples adopt and raise children ... and then you said that straight couples must have preference. That's wrong.

That's like saying that it's okay if mixed race couples adopt and raise children, but same race couples must have preference. Either one is a clear discriminatory policy, neither has any legitimate grounding, neither should have any presence in law. None. Zero. Especially when what's mustered as some sort of anecdotal base on which to base such discrimination is something like calling it 'emotional incest.'

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together.
I disagree with you. And here's the problem: your entire argument is predicated on this belief. The idea that it is necessary to have gendered marriage in order to promote "traditional" family arrangements is not one that's backed by any kind of research or logic; it's just an open-ended appeal to "common sense," where common sense is really just traditionalism coupled with a vague dislike of "ickiness."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
julianperez27
Member
Member # 13087

 - posted      Profile for julianperez27   Email julianperez27         Edit/Delete Post 
About some men being passive aggressive... Yes, I know that's true: Unfortunately I'm one of them.

>>straight couples must have preference. That's wrong.

Perhaps it's wrong, I don't know, but I don't think it's discriminatory. In this case the point is not the interest of the couple but the interest of the children.

After divorce, judges give the custody of children more frequently to mothers than to fathers. Is that discriminatory with men? I don't think so. It's just trying to do what they think is best for the interest of children. They think that single mothers are better for children than single fathers (and I must say that I agree with that). That doesn't mean that in particular cases is not better to give custody to the father. Such cases exist and are not rare.

My point is that, in the general case, not in particular cases, the best environment for children would be with a man and a women because they receive different influences and a richer environment. And, if that is true, calling marriage to a different kind of union, gives it equal range for the adoption and that is not a good idea.

But I repeat: it's only my opinion. Do you think that an opinion is "wrong" just for being different? Do you think that everybody must have the same opinion and think the same? Well, I was born in Cuba, I lived that several years and it still makes me sad. Then you are saying that those that say homosexuality is "wrong" just for being different are right?

Probably that's the the human nature. People that received hate because of what they are start hating those that have different opinions as soon as they reach an upper position. But it's sad.

[ November 10, 2013, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: julianperez27 ]

Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
julianperez27
Member
Member # 13087

 - posted      Profile for julianperez27   Email julianperez27         Edit/Delete Post 
But well, I give up. I don't know why I wrote that first post. I knew what was going to happen. And nobody is going to change their mind here, so it's useless. Thanks for the conversation. This will be my last post.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Perhaps it's wrong, I don't know, but I don't think it's discriminatory.
No, it is. It is very, simply, straightforwardly, as clear as you can get on this issue, discriminatory. It discriminates against same-sex adopters by preferencing a mixed-gender adopter over them. If you don't understand how that's discriminatory, that's less about any sort of nuance in the situation you're describing, it's that you don't understand that things which are discriminatory don't cease to be discriminatory when they happen to gay people.

quote:
My point is that, in the general case, not in particular cases, the best environment for children would be with a man and a women because they receive different influences and a richer environment.
Thus your point is invalidated by a preponderance of evidence in studies that have shown that this is not the case and that same-sex couples do just as good as parents and are not lacking any sort of essential component of having both sexes represented that irreproducibly makes their parenting better. What do you want, cited studies? I can provide them. Journaled consensus? Meta-study in orthopsychology? Pediatrics? Layman-friendly sciam articles?

quote:
Do you think that an opinion is "wrong" just for being different? Do yo think that everybody must have the same opinion and think the same?
If you review our posts, this is straightforwardly irrelevant to the points we are actually making and do not resemble what's being said here at all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
also when we combine these two parts

quote:
My point is that it's better not to give the same name to things that are different in essence. Same genre couples join for love, not for having offspring (they can do that by adoption or insemination, but not in a natural way) And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together. They don't need to get married to do that. IMHO the main purpose of marriage is to create an appropriate environment for the perpetuation of the specie
with this

quote:
Let's give gays access to health security plans, common declaration for the IRS and other benefices with another kind of union not called "marriage". Unlike a rose, marriage, with other name, doesn't smell the same. Why that? Because calling it "marriage" removes the base of the institution, that is not "love" but the breeding of the offspring and makes all marriages equivalent for adoption. And they are not.
it traduces down to saying that 'gay coupling should not be allowed to use the word marriage because that takes it away from the core of the institution, which should be reserved for procreational function'

which means that under this system, infertile couples should not have access to couplings called 'marriages' because 'marriage' is reserved for those naturally capable of the purported point and base of the institution of marriage.

would we have to re-term marriages after the woman in them hits menopause? or are they essentially grandfathered in because they got married while still fertile?

yeah, the whole tying marriage to procreation thing doesn't fly, essentially.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Dismantling racism with tolerance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
It's certainly an interesting story, but I don't think it really serves as much of an exemplar for your broader argument, BB (not necessarily that you intended it to).

The Klan had been worn down by decades and generations of less...courteous non-violent resistance, and in any case it's just one man.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It's certainly an interesting story, but I don't think it really serves as much of an exemplar for your broader argument, BB (not necessarily that you intended it to).

The Klan had been worn down by decades and generations of less...courteous non-violent resistance, and in any case it's just one man.

I respectfully disagree. The KKK may not be the major player it used to be, but white supremacy isn't on the way out. I had a lot in common with that guy in the article. He too was raised overseas, and had to be explained to while in the US that things were different. But having had experiences with kids from numerous countries at school (again like me) it was obvious to him that when people interact, they work out differences, even when there are deep cultural or philosophical differences.

He has proof of changed minds. How many people who only shame others can quantify their results?

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Can point to an individual who acknowledges having changed their mind? That's a tough question. It would've involve someone willing to admit-to an antagonistic rival, no less!-that they were wrong and had changed their minds. Tough sell.

Not that that's the point of working to see that virulent racism or other prejudice is considered shameful. It serves other purposes as well-such as not giving it the same respect as respectable ideas. Furthermore, you speak as though anyone has advocated a 'shame only, shame always, shame excessively' approach when to my knowledge they haven't. That's certainly not what your opponents in this discussion have suggested ought to be done.

All of that said, though-how many dead or injured people do you suppose happened for this lone African-American man who encounters a member of the KKK and directly challenges him, BlackBlade? You seem to be examining the approaches on unequal grounds.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Can point to an individual who acknowledges having changed their mind? That's a tough question. It would've involve someone willing to admit-to an antagonistic rival, no less!-that they were wrong and had changed their minds. Tough sell.

Not that that's the point of working to see that virulent racism or other prejudice is considered shameful. It serves other purposes as well-such as not giving it the same respect as respectable ideas. Furthermore, you speak as though anyone has advocated a 'shame only, shame always, shame excessively' approach when to my knowledge they haven't. That's certainly not what your opponents in this discussion have suggested ought to be done.

All of that said, though-how many dead or injured people do you suppose happened for this lone African-American man who encounters a member of the KKK and directly challenges him, BlackBlade? You seem to be examining the approaches on unequal grounds.

Some in the opposition have posited that to be respectful of people with abhorrent views, is to allow innocent people to be hurt and even killed, so shaming is a faster track to the ideal where an abhorrent idea is no longer current. Overall suffering is minimized, and better yet (to them) most of the suffering happens to people who don't deserve any sympathy.

And he has encountered many members of the KKK, not just one. Further, it doesn't sound like he tolerates bad ideas, he explains just how stupid the idea that black people have a gene for criminality is. But it is in the context of actually caring about the person he is conversing with. Wanting to understand what makes them believe as they do. And for many of them, they eventually came to see that they had been brainwashed. So many of us are to some extent or another.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How many people who only shame others can quantify their results?
This strikes me as an inaccurate portrayal of the discussion. From what I can see, no one is advocating everyone only shaming others. Rather, it seems to me that you are objecting to anyone ever attempting to shame others (I see this as calling them out on their perceived bad behavior) or visiting them with social consequences for that behavior.

---

As to changing people's minds through shaming those persecuting gays, that was the cornerstone of two of the most significant advances in gay rights.

First, as we discussed in this thread, was the impolite, intolerant protesting and hijacking American Psychological Association's national conferences in the early 70s. To borrow a phrase, polite members of a small, oppressed minority rarely make history. As a result of getting in the faces of and disrupting the workings of a powerful groups that was promoting oppression and bigotry against them, gay activists exposed the emptiness and perniciousness the APA's classification of being gay as a mental disorder. This led to the APA removing this classification in 1973, blowing massive holes in the case against gay rights.

As an aside, as I went into greater detail about in the linked thread, this also was a major cause in what I consider the most beneficial revolution in thinking in the study of psychology and had incalculable benefits to the study and treatment of mental disorders and society as a whole.

But yeah, they were really intolerant of people saying they were sick, incapable of living a healthy life, a threat to the public, and deserving of being involuntarily committed or locked up in jail, based on little more than poorly supported theories and outright bigotry.

to be continued...

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This strikes me as an inaccurate portrayal of the discussion. From what I can see, no one is advocating everyone only shaming others.
We aren't talking about only shaming. We are talking about the relative value of shaming compared to tolerance. I don't think this thread contains the relevant comments, but we've covered this ground in other threads. If I have time tomorrow morning I'll look at quoting.

And which has been typical of this thread, we seem to be talking about tolerance differently. That said, I would have to listen to the episode linked in that thread. At first blush I wouldn't call protesting intolerance, even if done angrily. I wouldn't call doctors pushing for a definition of normal being hashed out and then bouncing homosexuality off it to demonstrate it couldn't be an abnormality.

quote:
But yeah, they were really intolerant of people saying they were sick, incapable of living a healthy life, a threat to the public, and deserving of being involuntarily committed or locked up in jail, based on little more than poorly supported theories and outright bigotry.
Yeah, you are only demonstrating just how horrible intolerance is in all its forms. Why would anybody want to buy even a little bit into the spirit that drove people to commit, lock up, and otherwise molest people they did not understand?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post 
As a side note, I am related to John Fryer, MD, aka "Dr. H Anonymous," the late psychiatrist who testified about his homosexuality (under masked disguise) to his peers in 1972.

He changed many minds. He was an extraordinary man.

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
You've got great blood in you CT. [Smile]
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post 
His sister married into our family, but I accept that compliment with no small amount of pride.

She has been an extraordinary woman in her own right, and she was a second mother to me.

Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post 
BB, I love the story you linked, by the way. Thank you.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yeah, you are only demonstrating just how horrible intolerance is in all its forms. Why would anybody want to buy even a little bit into the spirit that drove people to commit, lock up, and otherwise molest people they did not understand?
I realize you're pursuing a point in a debate, but surely you don't mean to suggest that all forms of intolerance are to be utterly rejected, lest one fall in line with the 'spirit' of its worst examples?

It's been awhile so perhaps this ground has been covered before, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting that this is the case? That if I were for example to be openly antagonistic and hostile to, say, a proponent of compulsory birth control to lower human population growth and spat at my pregnant sister's feet in public (I was straining to avoid the Nazi example)...then I am in keeping, in a small way, with the 'spirit' of intolerance?

Because if so, I cannot say I agree that these are two similar things. I'm very capable of being openly and with hostility opposed to a given idea or practice, but recoil with disgust at the idea of locking its thinkers or practicioners up, or commit them, or harass them (aside from meeting their ideas with my own).

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Yeah, you are only demonstrating just how horrible intolerance is in all its forms. Why would anybody want to buy even a little bit into the spirit that drove people to commit, lock up, and otherwise molest people they did not understand?
I realize you're pursuing a point in a debate, but surely you don't mean to suggest that all forms of intolerance are to be utterly rejected, lest one fall in line with the 'spirit' of its worst examples?

Nope, I'm not saying that. But I am warming up to the following ideas.

1: People (Western Civilizations) are not actually very good at tolerance, and as a general rule need to work on it.

2: People are far more likely to use shame inappropriately as a means to scorn people, rather than as a tool, by which people, who at some level know they are doing wrong, are forced to look in that mirror and see who they are.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
We are talking about the relative value of shaming compared to tolerance. I don't think this thread contains the relevant comments, but we've covered this ground in other threads.

We have indeed. We've had it so often that I've boiled it down into revisions of prior posts:

1. when you make the issue of respect for repressive, discriminatory beliefs an argument of utility in a battle for hearts and minds over the issue, your version of "tolerance" loses. In terms of the competing effectiveness of various strategies in terms of combating bigoted discrimination in society, there's excruciatingly minimal benefit in trying to respectfully court older generations away from the entrenched bigotry of their era, and excruciatingly profound benefit in choking the life out of the generational impressibility of these views by treating them with shame.

2. The way you have defined "tolerance" makes "tolerance" into something which has no inherent virtue and actually is markedly flawed in that it suggests that a person who suffers discrimination is taking a less virtuous path if they elect not to be polite to their oppressors.

3. You ask victims of oppression to judge their oppressors as "good people" based on that they believe that their oppression is a good thing.

4. You frequently make an argument that boils down to "when you insult these people's beliefs, you get them to dig in and become harder to convert" — and this is fatally flawed, per #1. Bigots are not going to be converted by the respect of society, they're going to have their ideas emboldened and preserved by the respect of society. This really isn't an issue of fence-sitters in the way that it was presented. It is an issue of the entrenched ignorance of a bygone era and the degree to which it is permitted to infect new generations.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by CT:
As a side note, I am related to John Fryer, MD, aka "Dr. H Anonymous," the late psychiatrist who testified about his homosexuality (under masked disguise) to his peers in 1972.

He changed many minds. He was an extraordinary man.

Thanks for the link, CT! I wasn't familiar with him and enjoyed reading it.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile]
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
Instead of unworkable definitions, I'd like to see an example of how two people with divergent views show tolerance for one another.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Part 2 of 4

I conceived of these posts as a whole, so I'm going to avoid reading the following posts until I finished getting them out. I thought I'd have more time today, but my son decided he didn't want to nap at all today.

---

The second major shift in gay rights had a much longer time brewing. The APA was a small, focused change among experts. Over the last two decades or so, there's been a massive revolution in public perception of gay people. There are obviously many reasons for this, but the overwhelming most significant is pretty simple: people were meeting gay people are realizing that they're pretty much just like anyone else.

As I said, this relied on outspoken intolerance of bigotry against gay people, of shaming those who engaged in it. I can unpack this, but the simplified version is small sections of safe spaces were established that were supportive and protective of gay people and thus where people expressing anti-gay views were unwelcome and would be attacked (generally with words). This spurred people to come out as gay, to live publicly as they were. This spread the safe spaces as more and more people got to know people who were publicly gay.

A friend of mine put it to me this sort of like this. Coming out was a little like standing up to a bully. It was a lot less scary knowing that so many people had your back.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

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


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

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


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2