User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 130

  1. #71
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    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.



    Pardon me if I think this comes of a little defensive.



    Alright, I'm not trying to suggest any meaning that's not there or catch you out or anything like that.



    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.



    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 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?



    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?



    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.



    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?



    You know what IS amusing?

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

    Physician heal thyself.
    Hey, fella - why don't you go for gold and pop Jennifer on your ignore list, just like you threatened the owner of this website.

    You're a clever guy, in your own head. Congratulations - you are first on my ignore list. What you have to say is utterly worthless.

  2. #72
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Approval and awareness are two separate things.
    Nevertheless, as we're seeing with some closer examination of the historical record, Wright's generalization doesn't hold up much.

  3. #73
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Nevertheless, as we're seeing with some closer examination of the historical record, Wright's generalization doesn't hold up much.
    Maybe. Wright has said elsewhere that the issue is so complex he would have to write 700 pages to deal with it properly. While one could spend 700 pages on the issue I doubt one must spend 700 pages. Nonetheless, I really did wish he would do the research and write a book on same-sex relations regardless of which side he comes down on. Few writers deal with this issue with intellectual integrity and I have hope that he would.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #74
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    True it certainly would be interesting to read what his research would show.

  5. #75
    Junior Member oxyjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    19

    Default

    These conversations always tickle me. There is the inevitable guy who is advocating to limit human rights to a whole sect of people (or in this case, sympathizing with the thought of criminalizing private consensual acts between adults), and he has the audacity to think that him maybe getting called a name is the biggest offense ever.

    It really makes my head explode.

  6. #76
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oxyjen View Post
    These conversations always tickle me. There is the inevitable guy who is advocating to limit human rights to a whole sect of people (or in this case, sympathizing with the thought of criminalizing private consensual acts between adults), and he has the audacity to think that him maybe getting called a name is the biggest offense ever.

    It really makes my head explode.
    LOL!
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  7. #77
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oxyjen View Post
    These conversations always tickle me. There is the inevitable guy who is advocating to limit human rights to a whole sect of people (or in this case, sympathizing with the thought of criminalizing private consensual acts between adults), and he has the audacity to think that him maybe getting called a name is the biggest offense ever.

    It really makes my head explode.
    I am glad that I am not the only who sees the irony.


  8. #78
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    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.
    That's funny. Maybe you just misunderstood my spirituality and philosophy from the beginning. I try very hard to be polite and give credibility to everyone I meet and respect them, usually because I feel I'm not yet sure of who they are as an individual. Few people typically lose my respect, but the more information I get on someone from their posts, the more my opinion can change.

    I found it very odd you had similar accusations leveled against you in other forums (by your own words) and that you had been glad I and others had been more accepting, at the beginning. The more you posted, the more I could understand why you had had trouble at other forums and venues (such as Amazon, I think you've described months ago on this forum).

    If a wide spread of people of people of varied personalities all start to arrive at the same conclusions about you, then maybe it's worth actually trying to understand why they all end up viewing you a certain way. I've been really disappointed in seeing you continually stonewall and blame others for any hostility you've been receiving around the 'net.

    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.
    I do think about it, honestly, and that's why I have you on Ignore... because I'm so frustrated with you as a poster at the moment that it's just better for me not to engage you anymore. I've actually had you on Ignore for months, but occasionally someone will quote you and I'll stupidly feel compelled to respond... yet again. It's usually a waste of my time.

    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.
    You should not be using me as a basic for American liberalism, since I'm far more moderate in my politics. I also dislike the way that you assume our friction is all my fault... instead of also challenging yourself. I've already tortured myself sufficiently for becoming exasperated with you the other day. I would apologize, except I feel like no one ever just says what you need to hear.

    I am also not a "transsexual poster child." I often disagree with people on trans support forums and certainly do not support the more extreme political opinions I see. I also take issue with cultural critics who frame EVERYTHING as some sort of cultural oppression of transsexuals or gays. Despite how I've faced some prejudice in my life, I think they go way too far and need to relax a bit.

    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.
    Well, thanks. And when I don't like someone, I try even harder to be fair. I have infracted and moderated people because they broke the FAQ in their communications with you, because that's my job... even if I felt like your comments really deserved the response they got. And after our last exchange, I happened to run across another thread where someone insulted you directly and I made sure a member of the Mod staff dealt with that situation as per the FAQ. I take my job very seriously regardless of how I feel about someone personally, and perhaps even moreso when I dislike someone. I police myself pretty hard.

    Maybe you should take that knowledge into account of how you read me on this topic. It seems rather odd for me to be crazy on one topic and very objectively everywhere else; usually madness/lack of perception will infiltrate someone's entire vision.

    Pardon me if I think this comes of a little defensive.
    You don't have to wear kid gloves for me. I'd actually like to see you cut loose once in awhile. Civility doesn't mean your points are actually correct. I feel like it's just a defense of yours -- "They can't claim I'm being a jerk if I'm nice in terms of social etiquette, even if the inherent content of my post is really offensive." What hogwash. I might be able to perceive the world through Fe and be etiquette minded, and I like people to generally be civil in groups; but my rationality is offended by that sort of thinking, etiquette is NOT a free pass for saying anything that comes to mind. Ideas have inherent implications, and some of those implications can be offensive, and you must be prepared to explain and defend your views and also engage the other viewpoint and see why it might seem offensive.

    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?
    No. I think you are consistently misinterpreting me as to being angry that you would deny people rights I think they should have -- i.e., your stance on specific issues like LGBT rights. That's NOT it.

    As I said, I can speak very constructively with friends and family who hold very different opinions from me, and I can actually argue to support their view if I so desired, when I think they are unfairly being criticized by outsiders.

    I don't hate your views, even if I don't like that; I don't like how you arrive at your views, and I don't like how you discuss things (or worse, don't really discuss them). My feeling is that you are merely a list of talking points. That's it. You come across as a list of talking points, and in a discussion all you seem to do to me is find ways to dismiss, trivialize, or sidestep any issue someone has with one of your talking points. There is no actual communication or give and take. I have a very small number of members here on Ignore, and that is the common denominator among all of you. I don't honestly know why you bother to post. You already know what you believe, and from my perspective you use this forum as a soapbox for your views, and then claim you're being silenced or mishandled if someone tries to tell you you're full of it.

    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.
    Here's another issue I have with you: I've been tolerating your posts on this forum for months but lesser confrontations between us have had no effect... so when I finally blow a gasket and yell at you... now it's my fault yet again. As I said, instead of dealing with my content and thinking, "Gee, I used to respect Jen, and she's so level-headed elsewhere, she rarely yells at anyone else on this forum... why on earth would she be upset with me now? I want to understand why she's so upset, maybe it's something important."

    No, instead I get, "she's just trying to denigrate me, she's calling me names, it's not a sound argument, it's an emotionally charged reaction. There, now I can just dismiss her comments without thinking about them, because she's obviously gone off the deep end."

    Dude, stop coddling. Don't downplay my blowout. I had a blowout the other day. I hope my comments today, after I've had time to work through things, sound more civil and measured to you. I'm trying. Partly it was my fault for letting my frustration with you as a member of this forum bottled up for so long... and I had finally just had enough of the way you approach things that I let you have it...even though I was still trying to keep a grip.

    I am going to try and just focus on your process. It's your process that frustrates me. I wish you actually would seem to engage, rather than just soapbox.

    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?
    I said earlier that I do not devalue gut reactions. Some people operate from that method. I have experienced rejection from family and friends that have hurt me immensely, yet in my conversations with them, they state it more clearly than you -- "This doesn't have to make sense, I just feel it's wrong and I don't want to accept it or you." I can respect that far more than how you seem to cloak things in fake arguments and act as if you have some sort of rational basis for your belief. As far as I have seen, your line of reasoning is habitually used not to reach conclusions, it is used to justify conclusions after they have already been made.

    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.
    Vague. If you want to explain this further, feel free, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

    I'm simply saying that biologically even a gynocologist can't distinguish a post-op transwoman from a biological woman who has had a hysterectomy. From a medical standpoint, she has to get mammograms. Legally, a transwoman is considered and accepted as a female. Socially, a transwoman has lost male privilege in society and has no more male status whatsoever, she is treated as a woman; and no one who knows her past. In many cases, no one will ever recognize she used to be male. If nothing is ever said about it, she is perceived completely as a woman, and since she identifies completely as a woman... what's the point of making an arbitrary distinction? To me, it's about as relevant as forcing someone who has been divorced and remarried to stamp on her ID that she is on her second marriage -- it might be TRUE but it's IRRELEVANT and it serves no purpose except to enable potential discrimination.

    If a transwoman wants to be "out," she can be. If she doesn't want to be, she shouldn't be forced to be. There is no practical reason for her to have to be habitually outed; and outing her against her will anywhere she has to show an ID is not just irrelevant (since in every aspect of life, she's a woman, aside from a record of birth long in the past) but even dangerous. It just opens her up to potential discrimination. The government doesn't even ask for male/female anymore on job applications, honestly; they are forbidding to discriminate because of gender, and at core this is all this is. It doesn't matter to anyone except those who would discriminate what gender someone is (aside from personal romantic relationships).

    Does it make sense yet how I have arrived at the likelihood that someone who would so strongly try to out transwomen for no practical purpose whatsoever is not acting out of rationality but some sort of discriminatory basis? If there is another reason, please tell me; but the ONLY one I can think of that has validity is in regards to dating... because you don't want to inadvertently get involved with someone you later find out spent the earlier part of her life as a male, and that would bother you only if you still saw her as a male and not as a woman.... OR if you had some sort of religious/ethical value where you believe people cannot or should not undergo this process.

    That's another topic, and in this case I am not discussing personal feelings within personal relationships, we have just been discussing the legality and fairness of codified law (i.e., the sodomy thing and related issues).

    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?
    BTW, thank you for asking these questions. I feel like you are engaging me within this segment of the conversation, and if you want to respond to these points, I'll of course listen. I need to know if I've misunderstood the rationality behind your views here, or if what I said above is actually fundamentally correct. Right now, I have trouble seeing it any other way.

    Right now, dude, is the time to explain and support your views if you are able to rationally do so. You have everyone's attention and a chance to get it all on the table.

    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.
    So what inconvenience would you suffer by accepting people as they appear to be in society? I'm still not sure on this. Someone who appears and who in all ways seems to you to be a woman or a man -- if you are not involved in an intimate relationship with them, why do you need to know what gender they were born as? It does not affect you at all. If you don't like it, why can't you just ignore them and not associate much with them, or keep things on a professional basis? Or, in regards to the sodomy issue, why do you care what sort of sex people are having in their homes? When het couples have non-missionary sex? Or gay couples have some sort of sex? Why should you care enough, especially from a foreign country, to comment on people over here on what they do in the privacy of their homes? Why do you feel comfortable policing people you will never ever meet and whose lives never will impact yours?

    I'm still trying to understand what you have at stake. It's not like the law is saying you have to change your own gender, or you have to make transpeople your best friend, or that you have to have a gay marriage or attend a gay marriage -- it just means you have to allow people to have the same rights as you, and you have to allow them to live their lives just as you live your life.

    What is your inconvenience here?
    Please, spell it out for everyone in this thread to see.
    If you're going to fight this hard on this issue, you should be able to explain your reason and be willing to support it.


    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?
    Okay, here it is:

    Lark, I grew up within conservative Christianity. I grew up feeling like I was an abomination and that something was wrong to me. I experienced crushing depression. I tried to accept that transsexuality was sick and I just must be a sexual pervert of sorts.

    I also tried to accept that gay people were just products of bad parenting and confused and broken, and that God wanted everyone to be straight. I did not want gay people telling me what to do. I felt that endorsing same-sex marriage was wrong and just 'enabling them to be unhealthy.' I wrote pieces on it. In discussions, I would side with that perspective. I was always gracious and kind about it, because I really empathized with gay and trans people (for obvious reasons), but at that time in my life, based on what I had seen so far and what I had been challenged with, that was my conclusion.

    As I got outside of that single mindset as an adult and allowed myself finally to entertain new viewpoints and look at things from other perspectives, my views slowly changed. I became horribly confused that I might be wrong on such a large important topic. It took me another decade or more to work through all that. This has been a very long, arduous, painful, shame-wrestling process for me to challenge my original beliefs and allow myself to change in accordance with what I started to see actually being in accordance with experiential reality rather than someone's abstracted and imposed sense of truth. I had cognitive dissonance and I had to resolve it. I had intellectual integrity. Although it cost me my family's respect (they used to ask me to explain their faith to them and no longer trust me), cost me my church family (because I hold views that differ now somewhat politically from theirs), and it cost me having to allow myself to change, I did so because I believe it was right... and not just because I happen to be trans. In every fiber of my mind, I saw finally that I had to accept this, or I would not possess integrity.

    At this point, you seem to be assuming I wholeheartedly support anything that shows up in a gay political agenda. That's not true at all. I don't really agree with LGBT thinking that "queers up the Bible" (for example, insinuating that Jesus was gay, or David and Jonathan) or people that try to say the Bible explicitly endorses transsexuality. The truth is that I do not know the answer to that, and I don't feel like the Bible speaks directly at all about transsexuals. All I know is that I was in terrible bondage, it was destroying me, I was very unhealthy as a person despite my best efforts and open heart, and over time I have found freedom and become healthy. If you would compare who I am today to who I was even ten years ago, it would be ridiculous to suggest I was more healthy then as a human being; just absolutely ridiculous. I also know many same-sex unions that show as much love or more than many het unions, and they raise healthy kids. It offends me when people keep insisting that these acquaintances and friends are "unhealthy" without ever having met them, when I can look at the accusers and view them as even aside from LGBT issues being unhealthy in some ways. Maybe you have dealt with a segment of your population where it seemed unhealthy to you; I cannot speak on your experience; but in mine, I haven't seen the same things.

    So, yes, I do feel that I understand your POV. I used to believe that way myself. Over time, as I allowed myself to actually reason through things rather than just believing what I was told had to be true, I realized in a lot of ways that perspective made no sense anymore.

    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.
    See? I must have the baggage -- how predictable.

    I think I've just explained some of my baggage above, and if you ask me what my baggage is, I can tell you even more in excruciating detail, until you'd probably get embarrassed and ask me to shut up. I always look at myself first and am far more critical of me, before I'm critical of others. In contrast, I don't think you like doing much self-analysis. I don't see it in your writing, at least. You seem to focus far too much on why everyone else is wrong, as a way to protect yourself against self-analysis. Again, another reason I was very frustrated with you.

    As far as your gay baggage: Your biggest complaint that I can see is that you feel that you are being forced to accept gay politics in your country/life, that they are imposed on you and others, and you hate that. If I misread the countless times you have said this on this forum, please correct me.

    What you then do is project that framework and experience of yours on the culture of a different country, where you do not really understand nor have experienced the same forces at work. You make an assumption that your culture's experience is the same as my culture's. You also don't seem to really appreciate how bad the discrimination was here a few decades back, you don't really seem to understand the nuances. You just say, "Well, they're trying to force approval of same-sex marriages over there, and I hate it when gays push for their rights here because I feel violated -- so it must all be the same!" and then you feel warranted in trying to comment on our situation when I personally feel you don't have any real clue, nor take the time to really understand.

    Again, the GAY ISSUE is not why I really dislike your posts nowadays. I just loathe your typical soapboxing process. I don't like it when people don't actually engage.

    In the center of this post, you actually did ask questions and engage. I appreciate that. If you would do that more often, I would not have an issue with you.

    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?
    Again, you did not understand what I meant, even if I tried very hard to clarify it for you. It was not about the fact you disagree with me, nor has it EVER been. It is about how you choose to enter discussions. If you think that I would tell someone to shut up just because I disagree with their opinion, you don't know jack; I usually only want people to shut up, if they consistently like to bullhorn their views without actually engaging in discussion.

    You don't need a forum to do that on. Go write a journal if you don't want to actually engage other human beings.

    Physician heal thyself.
    That's pretty much been my focus my whole life, thanks.

    But I'm going to stick up for this forum if I think someone is not playing well with others or just using it as their own soapbox without engaging.

    I hope I sounded more reasonable and measured in this post than I did the other day. I should have PM'ed you far earlier and hashed this out in private, until waiting until it blew up here. I also apologize for a partial derail of this thread, which was specifically focused on Texas sodomy laws and I tossed in a comment about Michigan (?) politics on the trans angle and suddenly it became a point of contention, I should have been more careful.

    I hope you have a better understanding now of why I strongly disagree with you, and I hope you are able to find it within yourself to actually answer the questions I have once again asked you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well that's common image many would like you to think. Certainly it did occur and in some instances tolerated, although again one has to be careful where you wish to pursue with it.

    The passive role was seen as shameful for any male free citizen to engage in. It was best reserved for women, slaves, or young boys. We already noted how same-sex relations with slaves was largely done for purposes of punishment and intimidation. It seems to be widely acknowledged that the most common form of same-sex relations that occured in Ancient Greece-Rome was often between an adult male and a younger boy. Although while this tended to be more tolerated among the upper classes, it was generally seen more negatively among the lower classes.
    If it helps, learn from Peguy. He and I might not come to the same broad conclusions on topics like this, but I listen to him and typically respect his opinion because of how he engages. And I almost always learn something in the process.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oxyjen View Post
    These conversations always tickle me. There is the inevitable guy who is advocating to limit human rights to a whole sect of people (or in this case, sympathizing with the thought of criminalizing private consensual acts between adults), and he has the audacity to think that him maybe getting called a name is the biggest offense ever.

    It really makes my head explode.
    If that's about me, sorry, catching up on the thread since my last visit I'd like you to evidence who is advocating to limit human rights to a whole sect of people because if you carefully review what was said, as opposed to the standard outrage reaction, you'd see that's patently untrue and a misrepresentation.

    Although hey, if that's how you want to act, between that accusations of bigotry and what have you I'm pretty impressed.

  10. #80
    Junior Member oxyjen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If that's about me, sorry, catching up on the thread since my last visit I'd like you to evidence who is advocating to limit human rights to a whole sect of people because if you carefully review what was said, as opposed to the standard outrage reaction, you'd see that's patently untrue and a misrepresentation.

    Although hey, if that's how you want to act, between that accusations of bigotry and what have you I'm pretty impressed.
    I reviewed what you contributed in the thread (post 15 and post 20) and didn't read any further since all the evidence was already present in those initial posts of yours. I confirmed my original reaction was spot-on.

    When you say "that's how you want to act," if you mean "summarizing what is going on and stating my feelings about it," then I will continue to do so. Sorry?

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