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

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » old man blogs at cloud (Page 27)

  This topic comprises 37 pages: 1  2  3  ...  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  ...  35  36  37   
Author Topic: old man blogs at cloud
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Because I don't see what good it will do. I attempt to define white culture, and concept that has become steeped in negative things because of misuse, and because nobody has really made a serious attempt to define it outside of what it "is not". So it's already freaking hard (Which isn't to say I haven't been trying, I've just been unsuccessful), and say I manage to point out some things we then nit pick those things for whether they are or are not anti-other race, and we haven't made any actual progress as to whether it's right to protect heterosexual marriages.

It's the underlying assumptions behind both that make the difference, though. Your belief - that it's necessary we protect heterosexual marriages - is predicated on the belief that heterosexual marriages are at a stage where they are relatively disadvantaged compared to homosexual marriages. That there is some special factor that makes heterosexual marriages separate and distinct and more worthy of protection. (because they are under-protected) Because if there wasn't, you would just say "protect marriages." In that special case, the black lives matter analogy is relevant - the statement "Black lives matter" only makes sense in the context of "our society is one that is indifferent or even mildly approving of police violence against blacks." "White lives matter", while a technically true statement, is one that we can (hopefully!) agree is sort of nonsensical in our society, not because white lives don't matter but because that's sort of the default assumption. White lives are already given the highest value, do saying "white lives matter" is a specific call to increase the value of white lives in comparison to black lives, thus increasing the disparity.

Here, let's break it down by assigning imaginary numbers to the overall "points" currently earned by each "team." (I know this is sort of silly, bear with me) This is a consideration of the legal and cultural momentum and support straight marriages have compared to gay marriages - and you can consider everything from "legal history" to "there are a lot more positive media portayals of straight parents than gay" to "parenting books, medicine, education, etc, etc, etc * 10 social and environmental factors that default to already giving de facto preferential treatment straight couples because it is the default" as comprising the points.

OK, so we give team Straight Marriage a score of 8 and team Gay Marriage a score of 3:

S --- G
8 > 3

So looking at the inequality there (a literal mathematical inequality in this case [Razz] ), you can see Straight Marriage has a +5 compared to Gay Marriage. They're doing pretty good!

Now you make the statement "I think we should protect and safeguard straight marriage." Lets assume those protections and safeguards add +2 points to whoever gets them.

Ok, now lets look at what that does for our teams here:

S --- G
10 > 3

You have actually *increased* the inequality between straight marriage and gay marriage to 7 by putting those special protections and safeguards in place for straight marriage.

Now lets say you just say "I think we should protect and safeguard marriage" and the score gets split:

S --- G
9 > 4

The relative inequality stays the same, but hey, they both get points, so not bad!

*** Now here's a situation that trips a lot of people up, but this is the absolutely critical thing to understand. ***

What if I say "I think we should protect and safeguard gay marriage"? What if I say "black is beautiful?" What if I say "black lives matter?" What if I hold a parade celebrating gay pride? What if enforce affirmative action for African Americans at Universities? What if I say "we should have a black history month so our students can understand the profound, shameful, triumphant, complex, and overall, empowering story of how black people were treated by America, and the culture they formed, the oppression they overcame"?

S --- G
8 > 5

Do you see?

Posts: 2212 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is she actually interested in your having an emotional investment in same sex couples? Or is she trying to point out, based on your own words, that you are not actually neutral on the question of whether or not straight couples are superior to homosexual couples if you believe the former have a mystic importance that the latter lacks?

Seems to me to be the second one. And for the record, with the whole steaks and asparagus thing, you don't really fit into just the 'I prefer steaks myself' category. Again, based on your own words, you fit into the category of 'steaks are innately superior in reality' category. Which isn't to say you've claimed asparagus is *bad*-but it's been explicitly deemed inferior.

Posts: 17142 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Really not.

Yet you seem to have formed an opinion of them as:
quote:
...aligned with the ansesteral life awareness of being a link in the chain which bonds modern man to the prehistoric ansersters of man, back indeed to the birth of life itself.
In a way that SSM, according to you, are not. You would be "shocked if its [adopting in a SSM] the same experience or connectivity with the infinite".
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Because I don't see what good it will do. I attempt to define white culture, and concept that has become steeped in negative things because of misuse, and because nobody has really made a serious attempt to define it outside of what it "is not". So it's already freaking hard (Which isn't to say I haven't been trying, I've just been unsuccessful), and say I manage to point out some things we then nit pick those things for whether they are or are not anti-other race, and we haven't made any actual progress as to whether it's right to protect heterosexual marriages.

It's the underlying assumptions behind both that make the difference, though. Your belief - that it's necessary we protect heterosexual marriages - is predicated on the belief that heterosexual marriages are at a stage where they are relatively disadvantaged compared to homosexual marriages. That there is some special factor that makes heterosexual marriages separate and distinct and more worthy of protection. (because they are under-protected) Because if there wasn't, you would just say "protect marriages." In that special case, the black lives matter analogy is relevant - the statement "Black lives matter" only makes sense in the context of "our society is one that is indifferent or even mildly approving of police violence against blacks." "White lives matter", while a technically true statement, is one that we can (hopefully!) agree is sort of nonsensical in our society, not because white lives don't matter but because that's sort of the default assumption. White lives are already given the highest value, do saying "white lives matter" is a specific call to increase the value of white lives in comparison to black lives, thus increasing the disparity.

Here, let's break it down by assigning imaginary numbers to the overall "points" currently earned by each "team." (I know this is sort of silly, bear with me) This is a consideration of the legal and cultural momentum and support straight marriages have compared to gay marriages - and you can consider everything from "legal history" to "there are a lot more positive media portayals of straight parents than gay" to "parenting books, medicine, education, etc, etc, etc * 10 social and environmental factors that default to already giving de facto preferential treatment straight couples because it is the default" as comprising the points.

OK, so we give team Straight Marriage a score of 8 and team Gay Marriage a score of 3:

S --- G
8 > 3

So looking at the inequality there (a literal mathematical inequality in this case [Razz] ), you can see Straight Marriage has a +5 compared to Gay Marriage. They're doing pretty good!

Now you make the statement "I think we should protect and safeguard straight marriage." Lets assume those protections and safeguards add +2 points to whoever gets them.

Ok, now lets look at what that does for our teams here:

S --- G
10 > 3

You have actually *increased* the inequality between straight marriage and gay marriage to 7 by putting those special protections and safeguards in place for straight marriage.

Now lets say you just say "I think we should protect and safeguard marriage" and the score gets split:

S --- G
9 > 4

The relative inequality stays the same, but hey, they both get points, so not bad!

*** Now here's a situation that trips a lot of people up, but this is the absolutely critical thing to understand. ***

What if I say "I think we should protect and safeguard gay marriage"? What if I say "black is beautiful?" What if I say "black lives matter?" What if I hold a parade celebrating gay pride? What if enforce affirmative action for African Americans at Universities? What if I say "we should have a black history month so our students can understand the profound, shameful, triumphant, complex, and overall, empowering story of how black people were treated by America, and the culture they formed, the oppression they overcame"?

S --- G
8 > 5

Do you see?

I see that you think if we do all these things then the institutional inequality between the two persists but it produces the shortest gap out of any of these arrangements, yes? I don't know that I buy it will always be so, but let's say for now that's true.

The contention that we need to protect families is not exactly analogous to white culture ought to be celebrated because the former is arguably essential to our survival as a species. If white culture naturally disappears (Assuming it wasn't crushed into extinction) one day, it doesn't really matter.

I've pointed out how various things affect different marriages differently. I would say heterosexual marriages require defending because when they fail our entire society is upended. If every homosexual relationship broke up there would not be even close to the same impact if every heterosexual one did. We do not depend on gay marriage as a means to persist as a civilization.

That doesn't mean it isn't necessary that we get out of the way of people wishing to live according to the dictates of their conscience and form a family however they feel is right, and the day may yet come where science permits anybody to reproduce absent a member of the opposite sex assisting, necessitating a reconfiguration of societal priorities.

Maybe it's the use of the words "under attack" that are problematic because I don't think anybody is consciously thinking, "I hope nobody gets married and has children, and I'm willing to see to that happening!"

Rather, we are organically reaching a point where people are marrying later, having fewer children, social inequality in increasing, and all of those trends if left unchecked worry me because they are unsustainable. We can already see the effects in countries like Japan, China, and Sweden, where an aging populace eclipses the rising generations. No matter how much I battle to defend same-sex marriages, it's not going to accomplish the survival of our civilization.

I believe marriage is essential in providing the security necessary for children to come into the picture. I believe children being conceived and raised are essential to our civilizations survival.

I don't think marriage is "under attack" from homosexuals because they wish to participate in it. I also think it's wonderful many of them choose to bring children into their families and raise them. But I do think it's possible for marriage as an institution to be eroded, and for children to be seen as less necessary than they are.

I guess in the end I think marriage and children are concepts that are less promoted and protected than they ought to be.

Posts: 1068 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
This is just an observation and I might be entirely mistaken about this, but it feels like discussion between you guys, BlackBlade and Dogbreath, has become increasingly personal and antagonistic? While I admit I tend to side with Dogbreath in those disputes, the facts on the ground do also seem to be growing mutually more hostile and unfriendly.

I've actually been using this thread somewhat to try and demonstrate this to BlackBlade in the hopes of maybe getting him to realize I'm not deliberately antagonizing him. It provides several good examples.

For example, take his post about the hypothetical America where black people were never enslaved and segregation never happened. You, Kate and I all replied with remarkably similar posts.

Now evaluate those posts objectively for markers like how terse, angry, mocking, or just generally antagonist they are. Keep in mind we each have our own posting styles as well - you are somewhat more parenthetical than I am in your arguments, Kate is somewhat even more direct than I - so correct for rhetorical style as needed.

Does one stand out as markedly more aggressive or unfriendly than the other two?

Either way, my post was the one BlackBlade took to be offensive. He thought my post - specifically asking him to answer an important question (which you an Boots asked him to answer repeatedly as well) - was me being unreasonable and just trying to "take him to task" for ignoring my posts. (to be clear, that was not at all my intent) He made no such complaint to you or Kate for functionally identical posts and requests.

Likewise, his earlier response to me saying "you very well know" as a rhetorical device to remind him of something he quite literally claimed he knew half a page back, with the whole "don't tell me what I do or don't know!" Lockean freakout.* And assuming that me jogging his memory that way was accusing him of arguing in bad faith. (even though I specifically said it wasn't. That got ignored)

So at this point I actually striving pretty hard to hit the "reset button" by consistently pointing out to him that no, my posts are not an indication that I am angry with him or trying to antagonize him. That I am posting with approximately the same tone and style as other people, and addressing him just like everyone else is. A particular thing I'm trying to get across is that if I remind him of something he missed or something he said that he had forgotten - which he specifically asked me to do last week instead of just assuming he knew it - that it is not a criticism of his mental abilities. Everyone else does it as well, to everyone else. It is just something that is absolutely necessary to keep the integrity of a discussion intact.

(Something I realize just now as I write this, as I've talked about integrity in discussion once before with BlackBlade, is that I should probably specify that by "integrity" I of course mean "internal consistency" or "soundness", not "honesty" and certainly not "the honesty of the participants.")

That may be a futile effort at this point. I don't think so, though. And I should say, without trying to get into the weeds or dredging things up that should be left to die, there is personal history between us regarding some stuff that mostly happened at Sakeriver. Stuff that is resolved and done with and not worth repeating, but that is probably informing both of our tone and perceptions of each other, consciously or otherwise. Stuff like that sometimes just requires time to get past, and in the end I think BB is a great person and a good friend, so I'm not really worried about it.

*Yes, this is meant as a very bad Lost joke. [Razz]

Posts: 2212 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh: I'll try to get to your remarks some time soon.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
..you believe the former have a mystic importance that the latter lacks?
I bet I did not represent this well...at least judging by reactions then I'm definitely not communicating very well.

Seeing my first child birthed changed my life in a way that I still struggle to communicate the degree of magnitude (except to other parents ).

It was something that changed in my understanding...not the world.

Could a non birth parent reach this understanding I did but in a different way...absolutely!

Could another parent see their child born & not experience anything profound? I'll bet it's common!

Do I think that children raised by "non traditional" parents are at a deficit? Absolutely not. All things considered, gay /infertile parents are likely in a -better- position to raise children, as they do not have "unplanned" children.

I was responding to a direct question about...was it my white lifestyle?...something.

Anyway. I do not claim any special connection that any other human could/does have bc there is nothing special about me vs every other single individual of the 7 billion of us.

If I said otherwise...I was wrong or misspeaking.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The exchange can be found here. "Pro straight...aligned with the ansesteral life awareness of being a link in the chain which bonds modern man to the prehistoric ansersters of man, back indeed to the birth of life itself."

And on that same page, this exchange:

quote:


Stone_Wolf_: Living the "pro-straight" "lifestyle"...quality time w/ wife & kids...nest building...4x4x7x52 meals a year...dishes...laundry...trash...parental contols...vomit clean up...vacuuming...play dates...relating to other parents at kid parties...etc...

KB: What about that is particularly straight? I know plenty of SS parents who have lifestyles that could be described just like that.

Stone_Wolf_ :It's something that can't be explained...I hadn't experienced it til about six years back...the birth of our first born. Changed my life. A part of me & a part of my wife...but its own little lifeform. We knew a baby was in there...duh...but life altering when "it" becomes a real life baby.

Never having adopted w/ my gay husband, I can't imagine it...but I'd be shocked if its the same experience or connectivity with the infinite.

KB: Do you think that is true for straight parents that adopt? Do you think that all straight people have children? Are heterosexual people without children not straight?

And instead of taking the opportunity to rethink - or respeak - then, you responded:
quote:


Stone_Wolf: Probably not "pro straight" like me...I got a cool badge & a secret decoder ring.

Would you like another chance to answer those questions?
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
It's impossible for me to do anything but wildly speculate to answer that. Which doesn't sound useful. Can you bullet point it for me?


Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SW, they are your own words. What do you need bullet-pointed? If you don't know what "pro straight" means, why, for all that is holy, would you identify yourself that way?
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lol. You would have to speculate wildly in order to know whether all straight people have children, or that straights without children aren't straight?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.

Would you please explain what this means exactly? How does it practically work? If your goal is to be pro human, why add the "straight" at all?

Would you suspect a group that identifies as pro white as being a tad racist? If someone was wearing a "white power" t-shirt, for example, would you think that he meant power for everyone?

This is all a thought exercise to demonstrate that in some ways the established rules (or at least the one you seem to advocating) are illogical or at least counter intuitive even if they justified or appropriate bc of special curcimstance.

However you seem to be very resistant to this idea.

I do accept that you disagree, tho.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My "decoder ring" comment was an attempt at humor.

There is no such thing as "pro straight"...it's a thought exercise.

I am pro human.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
I see that you think if we do all these things then the institutional inequality between the two persists but it produces the shortest gap out of any of these arrangements, yes? I don't know that I buy it will always be so, but let's say for now that's true.

Going strictly on the racial side of the argument here (since, as I'll get to later, I think you're right that the analogy isn't mapping perfectly, especially with regards to your own perspective):

I think focusing on the present, actual situation is the best way to ground our arguments in reality, though. Because when you start getting into hypothetical "what if segregation never happened and we therefore never developed race as an arbitrary cultural construct" territory, or "it won't always be this way" territory, it can be problematic. And this is something I still struggle with wrapping my head around too, being born with the privilege of not having to struggle with bigotry every day.

We can acknowledge, for example, that "race" is not actually defined scientifically, and that discrimination based on the color of one's skin is just as silly as discrimination based on the color of one's eyes. That is true enough, and few people will actually debate you on that.

The problem with asserting that, though, is where we live in a society where race *does* exist as a social and cultural construct, to the point where centuries of abuse, segregation, and marginalization has actually created the concepts of "black people" and "white people" in America, and where "black" doesn't just mean the color of someones' skin, but is also a people group with it's own culture, music, food, slang, social mores... etc.

So while the conditions that created black American culture are terrible, the fact of the matter is the culture was created. And it's a beautiful, vibrant, powerful culture that provides a source of identity and solidarity to an entire group of people. So when we act annoyed or exasperated that black people identify themselves with a racial category when we obviously know race doesn't exist... it's a means of, intentionally or not, denying them their heritage. I'm sure you've seen similar arguments like "it's not like I don't like black people, I just don't like rap" or whatever. It's this idea that black people need to get with the times and get over that silly "racism" thing since you (generic you) obviously are past it.

*** I should pause here to say that up to this point, these are not things I think you don't already agree with me on. I'm just stating them to build a common foundation between us for what comes next. ***

So this is the point where we need to discuss what White Culture actually is. And as I think you now agree, in the United States in general "White Culture" doesn't actually exist. Not as a discrete entity from American culture, at any rate. There is Irish culture, and German culture, and Norwegian culture to be sure, but as far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there is no real definition of "White Culture." The only time I've seen the term actually used is as a corollary - "if we can celebrate black culture, why can't we celebrate white culture?" And the only answer to that is because *we already do*. It's just called American culture. So an attempt to deliberately "celebrate white culture" is, in fact, an attempt to increase the prominence of the already dominant culture in proportion to marginalized cultures. Since we already swim in, live, eat, and breathe white culture, the only way we can "celebrate" it even more is at the cost of others.

That's not to say White Culture can't exist. White Culture as you mentioned exists in China (because it's distinct from the general Chinese culture), it exists in some form here among the local descendants of early European immigrants to Hawaii and is actually distinct from both the local and national culture.

Nor is it to say Black Culture's existence is something that will necessarily always be. Cultural drift and adsorption happens, and it's happened at an increasing rate now that black culture is not (so badly) stigmatized and kept separate from the general American culture at large. Maybe in 100 years or so, black culture will be so integrated into American culture as a whole that racial designations like "black" or "white" will seem as antiquated or odd as, say, "lighteye" or "darkeye." ( [Wink] ) But recognizing that as a possible - even a good! - future doesn't mean we can just start acting that way now, because it's kind of a dirty move to insist on rigorously enforcing the rules equally now when you ran up the score by cheating during the first half. In that case, the term that was behind will always stay behind - the score needs to be reset first before fair play can commence.

(This is on a broad, society wide level when talking about concrete things like affirmative action or reparations or housing assistance and so forth. In day to day interactions, obviously, I try to just treat everyone the same as much as possible while remaining cognizant of my own biases and racism)

quote:
The contention that we need to protect families is not exactly analogous to white culture ought to be celebrated because the former is arguably essential to our survival as a species. If white culture naturally disappears (Assuming it wasn't crushed into extinction) one day, it doesn't really matter.

I've pointed out how various things affect different marriages differently. I would say heterosexual marriages require defending because when they fail our entire society is upended. If every homosexual relationship broke up there would not be even close to the same impact if every heterosexual one did. We do not depend on gay marriage as a means to persist as a civilization.

That doesn't mean it isn't necessary that we get out of the way of people wishing to live according to the dictates of their conscience and form a family however they feel is right, and the day may yet come where science permits anybody to reproduce absent a member of the opposite sex assisting, necessitating a reconfiguration of societal priorities.

Maybe it's the use of the words "under attack" that are problematic because I don't think anybody is consciously thinking, "I hope nobody gets married and has children, and I'm willing to see to that happening!"

Rather, we are organically reaching a point where people are marrying later, having fewer children, social inequality in increasing, and all of those trends if left unchecked worry me because they are unsustainable. We can already see the effects in countries like Japan, China, and Sweden, where an aging populace eclipses the rising generations. No matter how much I battle to defend same-sex marriages, it's not going to accomplish the survival of our civilization.

I believe marriage is essential in providing the security necessary for children to come into the picture. I believe children being conceived and raised are essential to our civilizations survival.

I don't think marriage is "under attack" from homosexuals because they wish to participate in it. I also think it's wonderful many of them choose to bring children into their families and raise them. But I do think it's possible for marriage as an institution to be eroded, and for children to be seen as less necessary than they are.

I guess in the end I think marriage and children are concepts that are less promoted and protected than they ought to be.

I don't think increasing numbers of gay marriages is going to lead to decreasing numbers of straight marriages, though. It may in the very short term, especially when it comes to religions that encourage people to hide their sexuality becoming more tolerant, but in the long term I think the number of marriages overall - including heterosexual couples who choose to have children and heterosexual and homosexual couples who choose to adopt (or have test tube babies, or get artificially inseminated for lesbian couples) will stabilize.

That being said, I do have to say I think your fears of civilization collapsing because the birth rate is falling is entirely unwarranted. Literally every study I've seen on the subject shows that the world population is projected to continue increasing rapidly at least until 2050, with the population of Africa doubling in that time period.

The problems you're seeing in Japan are related to the low immigration rates to Japan. The US would also have a negative population growth if not for immigration, incidentally, and most western countries with low or negative population growth figures will continue to have their population supplemented by immigrants from the developing world for the foreseeable future. Honestly, considering the huge global population we currently have, and considering how incredibly quickly that number is growing, I think not enough people having children is the *last* thing we should worry about.

Posts: 2212 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
My "decoder ring" comment was an attempt at humor.

There is no such thing as "pro straight"...it's a thought exercise.

I am pro human.

Life is not a thought experiment. There are real people whose lives are ruined or whose happiness is forbidden by people who are pro straight. Progress is thwarted by people who think like you do. It isn't some game for you to play at, insulated from the real consequences of your "thought experiment".
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't be sorry. Change.
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not that kind of sorry.

Change what exactly?

Being pro human? Not a chance in hell.

I'm sorry that I couldn't get my point across to you...I'm as pro gay as a straight gets.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you were being dishonest in your earlier answers?
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, you aren't. Because you can't be motivated to set aside your selfish, lazy pride to learn why it's problematic, much less act any differently. You're perhaps as "pro-gay" as it's possible for someone who couldn't be bothered to care gets.
Posts: 37366 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So you were being dishonest in your earlier answers?

Never! I was trying to explain with examples...I've been -very- consistent about my actual beleifs...I'm pro human.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No, you aren't. Because you can't be motivated to set aside your selfish, lazy pride to learn why it's problematic, much less act any differently. You're perhaps as "pro-gay" as it's possible for someone who couldn't be bothered to care gets.

This is a very harsh criticism, and I don't agree a bit.

I fear I have failed to communicate here somewhere along the way.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is no one else wondering about what it means to be pro human? Like is there a significant anti-human movement?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So all that crap about mystic ancestral pro straight connections that adoptive gay parents don't share was...what?
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
..you believe the former have a mystic importance that the latter lacks?
I bet I did not represent this well...at least judging by reactions then I'm definitely not communicating very well.

Seeing my first child birthed changed my life in a way that I still struggle to communicate the degree of magnitude (except to other parents ).

It was something that changed in my understanding...not the world.

Could a non birth parent reach this understanding I did but in a different way...absolutely!

Could another parent see their child born & not experience anything profound? I'll bet it's common!

Do I think that children raised by "non traditional" parents are at a deficit? Absolutely not. All things considered, gay /infertile parents are likely in a -better- position to raise children, as they do not have "unplanned" children.

I was responding to a direct question about...was it my white lifestyle?...something.

Anyway. I do not claim any special connection that any other human could/does have bc there is nothing special about me vs every other single individual of the 7 billion of us.

If I said otherwise...I was wrong or misspeaking.


Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have an odd way of defining "consistent".
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you sure? Sounds like a misunderstanding to me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Is no one else wondering about what it means to be pro human? Like is there a significant anti-human movement?

Being pro human is being for ALL of humanity...so yea...I'd say there lots of tons of stuff that persecutes & oppresses folk...mostly others of us...but yea...significant.

Also things like disease, hunger, disasters, etc.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Is no one else wondering about what it means to be pro human? Like is there a significant anti-human movement?

Being pro human is being for ALL of humanity...so yea...I'd say there lots of tons of stuff that persecutes & oppresses folk...mostly others of us...but yea...significant.


Well, that's a pretty low bar to clear. What I'm trying to get at is saying you're pro-human is like saying you're pro-happy. It's basically pointless because it includes just about everyone. Unless you're talking to a terrorist, I guess. And I imagine if they think what they're doing is for the good of humanity.

quote:
Also things like disease, hunger, disasters, etc
Are you anti those things?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Being a humanitarian might be better termanology if you prefer.

Yes...exactly...anti oppression, anti disease...etc.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dude. It's not a misunderstanding. If we are to take your latest explanation of your meaning, then since you said something profoundly different earlier, that means you miscommunicated quite badly, repeatedly.

Which no problem, that happens! Seriously. I don't have a beef with that aside from the short-term frustration. What is different, and what is actively uncool, is when along the way these contradictions were brought up you either outright didn't respond to them, pivoted to whimsy*, or asserted that the other party was being unreasonable asking for clear details.

And frankly, the lazy charge sticks pretty well too. Case in point African Americans in the 1800s versus the Irish. First it was very similar. Then it was similar. Then it was 'they were both poor and lived in bad neighborhoods'. At no point did you say something like 'ah! I thought I knew this but I was mistaken, my bad'. Instead at every point you just say 'oh I didn't mean *that*' even when your words plainly communicated the meaning you rejected. When I went down to the simplest level of food comparison, the only part you initially referred to was the one which appeared to endorse your position!

It's exasperating. Of course you're entitled to your opinion-everyone is. But an opinion isn't *magic*. Just because you thought about it for a minute or two after the question and don't mean anyone any ill by your opinion doesn't make it somehow *valid*. That's one of the things discussions are for, to hash out ideas and cast aside those ideas that have mistakes.

There is a mystic connection, now there's not. Pro straight now pro human. Pro straight was always a joke even though you never gave an indicator it was. You want people to challenge you but then you pivot to whimsy. You admit a situation is complicated yet persist on generalities.

All of which, ok, cool, but geeze if you could skip the part where you complain when others find that style of discussion difficult?

*Also, this doesn't read as whimsy. Not to me and I suspect not to boots either, though she can speak to that herself. To me it reads-given that it happened repeatedly-as a deliberate evasion.

Posts: 17142 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Try reading it over from start to end...boots misunderstood me from the get go...I'm very sorry that misunderstanding leads to frustration...to show you I'm not lazy...I'll demonstrate with an example...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I was explaining the logic behind it...not expousing its virtues. I'm all for any kind of marrage...I've often longed to be a part of a line marage like the main character in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress by RAH.

It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.

Before boots first question...I'm pro human...consistancy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pro straight is & all ways was was a thought experiment...not a joke.

The joke was the that we have decoder rings...and my serious answer is RIGHT BELOW IT.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dude! How is it consistency if you say one thing, then another, then sort of move back to the first thing, and then back to the first thing entirely?

You weren't consistent. You communicated badly, probably due in part to your tendency to respond to complicated arguments with two-sentence replies.

Posts: 17142 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I couldn't disagree more...just read it from start to finish. I was consistent.

You convinced me that a direct comparison of the hardships of the free blacks & irish in the 1800s wasn't helpful to my argument so changed what I was saying. You asked me to!

Other than that I have not flipped on any major issues.

I was always pro human.

I was always for gay equality.

Pro anything else was me trying to make a point...one that I bet only the conservatives in the group will get. But despite that I was always clear...I am only speaking positively about my own group...from my personal experience.

That you guys have dragged me through a field of weirdness is not my fault.

I stated my point clearly before any of this started...that being pro things isn't the same as being anti it's opposite.

I have put real effort into pointing out when we agree & praising your efforts...

I do not deserve your comments of mistrust bc of this one incident...so I must assume it was the years & years I wasn't as consistent or forth coming that are causing your strong feelings of mistrust. Well...I guess I earned those so...okay. I'll lie in the bed I made.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You communicated badly, probably due in part to your tendency to respond to complicated arguments with two-sentence replies.

To be fair here, you guys write crazy long posts. Being able to articulate the way you and DB do is not a common skill.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CT
Member
Member # 8342

 - posted      Profile for CT           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

So while the conditions that created black American culture are terrible, the fact of the matter is the culture was created. And it's a beautiful, vibrant, powerful culture that provides a source of identity and solidarity to an entire group of people. So when we act annoyed or exasperated that black people identify themselves with a racial category when we obviously know race doesn't exist... it's a means of, intentionally or not, denying them their heritage. I'm sure you've seen similar arguments like "it's not like I don't like black people, I just don't like rap" or whatever. It's this idea that black people need to get with the times and get over that silly "racism" thing since you (generic you) obviously are past it.

Great post. I'm struggling with saying something about context and meaning, and I'm not there yet, but this entire post was quite helpful. Thank you.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I stated my point clearly before any of this started...that being pro things isn't the same as being anti it's opposite.
Are same-sex marriages the opposite of heterosexual marriages?
Posts: 37366 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I couldn't disagree more...just read it from start to finish. I was consistent.

You convinced me that a direct comparison of the hardships of the free blacks & irish in the 1800s wasn't helpful to my argument so changed what I was saying. You asked me to!

Other than that I have not flipped on any major issues.

I was always pro human.

I was always for gay equality.

Pro anything else was me trying to make a point...one that I bet only the conservatives in the group will get. But despite that I was always clear...I am only speaking positively about my own group...from my personal experience.

That you guys have dragged me through a field of weirdness is not my fault.

I stated my point clearly before any of this started...that being pro things isn't the same as being anti it's opposite.

I have put real effort into pointing out when we agree & praising your efforts...

I do not deserve your comments of mistrust bc of this one incident...so I must assume it was the years & years I wasn't as consistent or forth coming that are causing your strong feelings of mistrust. Well...I guess I earned those so...okay. I'll lie in the bed I made.

SW from my personal point of view of you did well.

Anyway, I think I finally understand from where all these - wrong - claims "that SSM proponents and gay rights activists want to destroy the old fashion way of defining marriage", no, it did not come from you, in my opinion it came even from people like me, who clearly have misunderstood the argumentation at first point.

The neo conservatives - yes they call themselves that way - have often interpreted the defenses as attacks due to the passionate argumentation and obviously they fear that. "Conservative" seems to be now a word that arouses a lot of fears as well. What I just want to tell in terms of marriage is that the old fashion way is fine for me. SSM marriages also are fine for me.

I think I have struggled with these concepts in the past months because some of the stronger voices against our corrupt government ( who uses Socialism as means to benefit themselves ) are conservatives that "preach" that. At these times of moral and ethical crisis permeating the Brazilian society it is easy to accept suppositions as evidences.

Even though I admit that the power of the word "conservative" can inappropriately convey an offensive meaning but in my case most of these ideals are related to the way criminals have been defended by the left be it corrupt politicians, child abusers, kidnappers, robbers or murderers in detriment of the regular us regardless of our sexuality.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Are same-sex marriages the opposite of heterosexual marriages?

Nope. I'd say the opposite of heterosexual & SS marrage are the "confirmed batchelor"...(reguardless of gender)...i.e. single people who like to party & dislike commitments.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the point that you "clearly stated before any of this" was that you're not anti single people who party?
Posts: 2212 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My point was being -for- something is different than being -against- something that might be considered the opposite of that something.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
Syn, I have just got

DAWN (LILITH’S BROOD – BOOK ONE) from Kobo.
( 5 bucks for it )
Thanks for the tip.

Ooo I hope you like it. I love that series. Though the third one is my favourite.
Posts: 9937 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
My point was being -for- something is different than being -against- something that might be considered the opposite of that something.

In the abstract, sure, maybe.

In the real world of colors and sexualities and consequences, favoring one thing more than another tends to mean that second thing suffers because of it. But I suppose it doesn't really matter, since you've so modified your original statement to be so general and vague as to be basically mewningless.

Posts: 17142 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I strongly disagree that I was inconsistant.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have been consistent about that.
Posts: 11165 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I try.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the real world of colors and sexualities and consequences, favoring one thing more than another tends to mean that second thing suffers because of it.
How would this work?

Bob: "I enjoy my hetero lifestyle."

Gay Rob: "Ouch, right in my civil liberties! "

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 37 pages: 1  2  3  ...  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  ...  35  36  37   

Quick Reply
Message:

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


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


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

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


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2