User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 130

  1. #31
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle99 View Post
    I realized this might have come off the wrong way - my thumbs-upping isn't directed at anyone on this forum - just on the general idea that some people think things they say/do aren't offensive, but sometimes those people are wrong. Actually I had some people in another forum in mind.

  2. #32
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    You know, even back then, it was silly, because they have even less means to enforce it then than they do now!
    Nevertheless it was still on the books, so there is a precedent.

  3. #33
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Nevertheless it was still on the books, so there is a precedent.
    There is also a precedent for slavery. Doesn't mean it would be reasonable to reinstate it.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  4. #34
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I think they all need a sloppy wet blowjob.

  5. #35
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    There is also a precedent for slavery. Doesn't mean it would be reasonable to reinstate it.
    Well there are several angles from which could argue the issue of slavery, but that would derail from the topic here. We're discussing laws concerning sodomy, and my point is simple, there is a precedent for their existence. So much of the sensationalism found in this thread is unwarranted; whether or not one agrees with reinstating them.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle99 View Post
    I realized this might have come off the wrong way - my thumbs-upping isn't directed at anyone on this forum - just on the general idea that some people think things they say/do aren't offensive, but sometimes those people are wrong. Actually I had some people in another forum in mind.
    I didnt imagine that for a moment you where trying to do that, on the other hand you make an interesting point, if as you say "some people think things they say/do aren't offensive, but sometimes those people are wrong" how do you define offensive? Who is responsible in that scenario, the unconscious author of the offense or the person who has been offended?

    It interests me in part because I'm intrigued with old duelling manuals and read a lot of old naval historical fiction and fantasy in which people frequently fight a dual to the death over offence and insult but also because I believe that maxim that no one can make you feel a certain way without you first giving them permission to do so.

    What one person finds offensive another doesnt, simple as, promoting homosexuality is a good case in point.

    Personally I dont believe that we should be aiming to create a perfect consensus, hunting accidential bigots or aiming for a unanimity of opinion, if the serious and organised and deliberate kind of bigotry is abscent then that's great, dont some how resurrect it or cause it to manifest by some fool behaviour provoking people who dont care one way or the other.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well there are several angles from which could argue the issue of slavery, but that would derail from the topic here. We're discussing laws concerning sodomy, and my point is simple, there is a precedent for their existence. So much of the sensationalism found in this thread is unwarranted; whether or not one agrees with reinstating them.
    The simplist response is that there is no moral equivalence between arguments about homosexuality and slavery. I know that lots of black civil rights campaigners dont appreciate the analogies and comparisons either.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    Expectations like what?



    Uh.... What about all those times when the government has dealt a hand to racism?
    That not everyone, for a variety of reasons, is going to be supportive, in agreement, want to promote your personal identity as the norm.

    What about all the times when the government has dealt a hand to racism? What about all the times it hasnt for that matter? Seems a bit off topic to me.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Remember when you first came here and complimented me in private because of my fairness and civility? If my opinion of you has shifted, I'm surprised you are not curious as to understand why.

    I get angry whenever someone cloaks their gut feelings as rational arguments and refuses to engage the discussion at hand. That's pretty much the long and short of it. If I feel that someone has proven themselves not to have intellectual integrity, then I have a lot of trouble dealing with them.
    OK, I've got to admit that my opinion of you has changed a great deal but then so have the opinions you've expressed in the threads, I'm not going to go search as a result of the political differences that have arisen on this topic I've pretty much seen your philosophy and even spiritually change direction. For my part I've tried to maintain my view as I always have without responding to militancy by adopting militancy of my own but who knows.

    I have tried to be respectful to you without suggesting that your views are mere prejudice dressed up as polemic or employed thinly veiled accuastions of bigotry or suggestions about intellectual integrity. That goes a bit far and I hope you'll think about it. As a representative of your choosen politics you are coming of pretty poorly and I have to say that it has given me cause to question some of the things about American liberalism which I've read without giving any credience to before now.

    I would say in your performance as mod you continue to be civil and fair, a lot of your posts on topics other than politics, particularly, almost uniquely those relating to the minority sexual and gender identity issues are commendable.

    Are you a right-wing shmuck?
    Do you know the right-wing schmuck I've read about and am specifically referring to?
    Do you have any idea what specifically goes on in a foreign country you're not part of, enough to try to intervene?
    If I called this particular man a "right-wing schmuck," I did not mean it as a general pejorative -- I meant that this man in particular (and not necessarily anymore else) is a "right-wing schmuck."
    Pardon me if I think this comes of a little defensive.

    Again, there are right-wing people who are my friends, and right-wing people I respect.
    Some of them are on this forum, and they know I respect them.
    If anyone is reading too far into my words, it's you.
    Alright, I'm not trying to suggest any meaning that's not there or catch you out or anything like that.

    Exactly. So please do not make it sound as if your conclusions are derived from a rational basis. They are not. They are just your own gut instincts on the matter, and you habitually resist any rational analysis of them. That's fine... but only if you 'fess up to it and stop pretending any of it makes sense or is thought through first; it's not. From what I can tell, you just have the gut reactions, then seek to justify them as rational.
    I'm not understanding this, I do consider my opinions to be rational, in so far as I think that reason commands authority because its not the only source of authority and not always the most enduring.

    By rational analysis I think you mean that I dont reach agreement with your own positions on minority sexual identity, or do you think this holds true for my opinions on philosophy, economy, political identity such as the tea party or sovereign citizens threads?

    Why is it important that you portray my perspective as irrational gut reaction? I think its clearly because you're trying to denigrate or ridicule my opinion and you engage in some name calling like this, its no substitute for a sound argument and its not very persuasive. Infact its a bit of an emotionally charged reaction to say the least, not saying thats wrong, just saying think about it.

    Which is fascinating to me, how you create your own rules here. What's interesting is how you tend to create your own rules for everyone else. It shouldn't matter to you whatsoever that any of these people have to deal with this issue. It doesn't impact you whatsoever. Yet you would impose a rule like this on people, without even being able to express modicum of understanding of the experience and reasons why said people might want to approach things differently than you!
    I can appreciate how they approach things differently from me, can you appreciate how I reached my conclusions? I mean besides attacking it as so much evil or prejudice?

    So tell me Lark: Why should transsexuals expect to be labeled in irrelevant ways (since if they are physically and socially and legally the gender they've transitioned to -- to the point they can marry people of the opposite sex of their new gender, even in conservative states -- the only reason to retain the old gender marker is as a mere book-keeping issue) that serve no purpose except to permit discrimination against them and/or make their private business public, and/or place them under some level of physical risk depending on locale, simply because of an unfortunate matter of birth that YOU happened to not be subject to?
    So what you're suggesting, right, is that transexuals following their sex change be given something akin to witness protection programme status? To me personally I seriously question A LOT of the trans movement, which is similar to the homosexual rights movement and even feminism in so far as it has attracted a lot of intellectual attention and effort which can at times be pretty unrepresentative of the populations they theorise about in the first place.

    How did people conduct themselves before there was even the prospect of a sex change procedure? How did they conduct themselves before the kind of special treatment in terms of identity protection existed to serve them?

    What do you get out of that?
    Why is that important in the least to you?
    To put another entire group at a terrible inconvenience and possible worse, so that you can feel.... what, exactly?What's the rationale here?
    Oh, oh, wait, I'm sorry, I didnt realise that you thought it was only a matter of inconvenience, well, if that's the case then I'd suggest to you that your entire argument is that the people who've never experienced gender confuse and identity issues should be prepared to make special allowances for the population of people who are, if anything you have a blind spot for one pretty significant populations inconvenience.

    And now I'd question your motives, why, whe presumably you've not had any direct experience or purchase on this issue do you have to profess and belief, argue it and agitate in favour of it? Is it about being righteous? Doing the right on kind of thing? What if you discover that the right on thing wasnt what you thought it was? That you've managed to enable some pretty distressed people to mess their lives up even further?

    (aside from all the gay baggage you're carrying -- you already have stated numerous times you resent whatever Politically Correct forces in your country have tried to force you to "accept" about gays -- but I'm still not sure what that has to do with the situation in the United States)
    I'm not sure what gay baggage you're talking about, if anything you've got the baggage because my failure to adopt an unambiguously supportive line of homosexuality has seriously poisoned the once cordial exchanges there where between you and me, to the point where you've complained at any new thread I start.

    Did I ever say I expected that?

    As far as what I expect: I expect to be treated fairly under the law and not discriminated against for a job and everything else.

    That's what's ironic here -- for all intents and practical purposes, I am the person I claim to be, and that's how I'm perceived -- yet some people would place restrictions and impositions on me and treat me in a completely different fashion because of something for all intents and practical purposes I am not.

    That's pretty irrational, to me. That's distinguishing and targeting a class of people not for merit or deserved restrictions but for who they are.

    I don't have to have the law enforce respect for me, because the huge majority of people take me at face value as the person I am, and I behave in ways that earn their respect... even the same people who are passing laws against people like me. And believe me, I have given people in my life the freedom to accept or reject me, despite some the rejections hurting pretty hard, so you can knock off your false notions here of what I expect; I've taken the lumps to prove I've given people liberty to respond to me how they want.

    Right now, in this thread, we're talking "LEGAL SYSTEM" and people who are trying to issue bans against entire groups of people, not about whether the cops are going to try and force you to attend Joe Schmoe's gay wedding as a sign of respect. So why are you involved again? Why is this issue so far away from you and so irrelevant to you so important?
    You're right, the thread has meandered about a bit, so thanks for bringing it back to the topic of the legal system. I originally said that I felt the policy was stupid, I intervened because I also felt it was not inexplicable as you suggested. My motive clear enough for yah? Or would you prefer that I say nothing? Bit close minded to suggest people who dont agree automatically butt out, wouldnt you say?

    Nice -- first in assuming I was specifically referring to you instead of to the Texans in the title of this thread, and second, in doing the typical "Lark dodge/dismissal" of anything you don't seriously want to contemplate.

    You've got it down pat -- downplay, poke fun, dismiss, make the person who disagrees with you sound like the extremist. Anything but actually discuss a topic on its own merits.

    To avoid me saying anything really stupid at this point, I'm going to self-moderate and leave this thread. Have fun. Damn. I just tried to Ban myself from the thread but it won't let me... arg. I'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.
    You know what IS amusing?

    That first paragraph followed by the final one, hows them apples?

    Physician heal thyself.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Also, if they were enforceable, they would be wrong to enforce anyway.

    Yes, a number of states still have sodomy laws in the books, but they are defunct now. People don't ge incarcerated for sodomy, it isn't brought up in court, etc. For the two reasons above, we can be happy for that.

    The fact that in Texas they are pressing to bring this back obviously means they do not want a defunct sodomy law, they want an active one, and that's ridiculous.
    Treating it as simply ridiculous is pretty dismissive, instead of doing that I'd think it would be a better idea to engage with just why this situation has come about.

    If it proves to be hate, ignorance, blind spite all the usual things liberal prejudice would suggest it is then well and good, not much can be done about that, for some people I dont doubt that that actually is the case but if there a sense of grievance as a consequence of social fragmentation and fissures and how that's been handled both culturally and politically wouldnt it be a good idea to examine that?

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Polygamy and Gay Marriage
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 08:59 PM
  3. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  4. Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 12:58 PM
  5. Gay rights, marriage, and adoption
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO