User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 205

  1. #151
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think that is reasonable, I'd add the caveat that legal couplings of homosexuals should be termed civil partnerships and not marriages, that's with no disrespect to homosexuals, its just that I feel the english language has been abused enough without conflating terms for political purposes.

    There is already the distinction of homosexual rather than heterosexual so there is presumably an acceptable level of distinction and difference when it comes to the identification of pair bondings and sexual orientation so I dont see any reason what so ever for objecting to a legal and literal distinction and difference.

    To be honest, and this is what I think much of it boils down to, at root there is a problem here with expectations. Expecting that everyone else will abandon their norms and shape their opinions and views to suit your own private choices and identity is a problem.

    There has always been an unspoken understanding in most minority-majority relations of reasonable adjustment, not to conflate disability, or perhaps differences in ability, but I think this illustrates my point, none but the insanely radical would suppose that, for instance, someone who needs to wear spectacles to see should instead of using the spectacles to adjust their vision should stop wearing their spectacles and expect every billboard or piece of printed matter etc. used by everyone, those short or long sighted like them and those with 20/20 vision alike, to be adjusted for them.

    That's just one example I can think of, others I could list, just from my own personal experience, would include that I identify as a catholic and a socialist and a dozen other things, I dont expect anyone else to adopt the norms that I associate with those aspects of my identity or exercise any sort of defference to them. I even know there are going to be people sharply disapprove and disagree even resist those norms, and that's alright.

    The whole idea that the heteronormative status quo could or should be over turned to please and placate what is proportionally a small, small section of the community, and their probably much larger politically interested fellows, without consequence, for all, and every chance negative consequence is bogus. I really cant help but think if there could be less emoting about this, if things like religion could be set to one side and it considered wholly rationally and reasonably, that it be considered with full possession of the facts and consideration from all angles the conclusions people would reach would be a lot different that what's usually spewed out.
    By and large I would agree wholeheartedly. However the distinction I would draw would be in terms of "reasonable adjustment". To extend the title of "married" to homosexual couples does not really inconvenience us much as the language is a living thing and has far more grievous enemies in the shape of "real life" shows giving us stupid terms like "ream" which when explained in terms of what a "reamer" is, is often more associated with insulting people using homophobic inferences than telling someone they look nice in their clothes.

    I still recall discussing "hench" with one such youth who used the word but when asked "Does this derive from 'henchman' or something" only responded with "what's one of those?". Sigh. Mind you, compared to the epic quote of "Are people from Japan called Japaniens?" it's quite mild really.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #152
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    For what its worth I do think that the idea that you can through behaviourism, conditioning or any other sort of therapy change someones sexual orientation is totally bogus, from my own experience of being a heterosexual I know that for a fact, no amount of anything could reassign or reorientate me. I'm sure it would be possible to fuck with anyones head, alter their brain and body chemistry in attempts to change that but ultimately they wouldnt be themselves by the end of that. Its like Orwell's depiction of Winston Smith in 1984, the joke is ultimately on Big Brother because while Winston is tortured into believing 2 plus 2 equals 5, he's a broken man, no use to anyone including Big Brother.

    Although my own belief that sexual orientation is fixed like that isnt going to please bisexuals or any of the male and female homosexuals I've actually known in person, all of whom have insisted pretty much upon anything, anything at all, bar the legitimacy of heterosexuality, preferring instead, for reasons they never held forth on with me personally, to believe that you're bisexual or you're homosexual and there's no accounting for how heterosexuality has existed or persisted up until now. Personally, I think that could be overcompensating, I dont know, seems to be a lot of that in the same community, as I've witnessed much more in the way of steady affirmation, reaffirmation and reinforcement among homosexuals about homosexuality than I've ever witnessed of heterosexuals about heterosexuality.

    It strikes me as kind of stupid that the courts need to take a position on this kind of thing in the way that appears to have been the case, there really ought to be less obvious cases of snake oil sales that they can find to focus upon were consumer knowledge is much more imperfect than would be the case here.

    Which in turn makes me suspect its a case of people finding the most WTF story they can to deploy as evidence to support their own predetermined conclusions and convictions about there being terrible attitudes, oppression and injustice which desperately needs some kind of amelioration, action or change.

    Like I've said before finding the WTF stories and addressing or attributing the worst possible, as in moronic or ignorant, views is unhelpful, you're starting out from the position of already believing there's no reasonable or rational concerns or point possible besides your own. Before long you've got ignrant change and ignorant opposition at logger heads.

    And everything fucks up.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  3. #153
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    By and large I would agree wholeheartedly. However the distinction I would draw would be in terms of "reasonable adjustment". To extend the title of "married" to homosexual couples does not really inconvenience us much as the language is a living thing and has far more grievous enemies in the shape of "real life" shows giving us stupid terms like "ream" which when explained in terms of what a "reamer" is, is often more associated with insulting people using homophobic inferences than telling someone they look nice in their clothes.

    I still recall discussing "hench" with one such youth who used the word but when asked "Does this derive from 'henchman' or something" only responded with "what's one of those?". Sigh. Mind you, compared to the epic quote of "Are people from Japan called Japaniens?" it's quite mild really.
    I dont think that the redefinition of marriage is just a matter of semantics, if it were I'd say knock yourselves out and who really ought to care, you know?

    I'm not that worried about others think or how they live or what their own thoughts are most of the time, its when they want to reshape societal norms or have grand designs beyond themselves that it starts to bother me. Which is what this is.

    Maybe the impressions I've got from what are the expectations for change most of the people who think abandoning time honoured understandings of what a marriage is are mistaken but I cant see them being satisfied for the most part when it doesnt seem to have the hoped for wider societal or normative changes.

    The sources I've read written by some pretty embittered and enraged persons about heteronormativity, originally and still used as a prejorative label, and a supposed invisible heterosexual dictatorship arent encouraging, to begin with I'd considered them pretty unrepresentative and imagined that most tendencies to change anything produce a few fruit cakes, like Valarie Solanis (or however its spelt) and SCUM (the society for cutting up men) isnt representative of feminism, but it doesnt take much in the way of someone stalling or saying "I'm not quite sure about this" to bring that side of things out.

    I saw a debate about gay rights on the Irish republic's broadcasting network in which a member of the TV audience who was a gay man himself said that he was concerned that it appeared to him that there was no way anyone could make a reasonable objection to how homosexuality had become politicised, within minutes a heterosexual woman who described herself as a queer theorist had labelled him as self-hating, possibly a bigot and unceremoniously lost her temper in the process. Again I'm not aiming to suggest that this which may have been an isolated incident is representative but surely there's something not quite right about that.

    I dont want to get sidetracked but I've got a theory of my own that a lot of this is BS associated with affect and emotion driven responses to keywords, with people just being totally and utterly triggered to fuck and losing sight of everything altogether, now obviously the keywords arent restricted to homosexuality, a couple hundred years ago I bet they'd have been different, a couple thousand years before that the same story, I think it was Low Tech Redneck (missed) who said things threaten to get like some sort of bad eighties highschool and they werent wrong about it.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  4. #154
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    OK your emoting and aggressive pitch has persuaded me, for how long have you been a master of communication now?

    Far be it from me to try and break your stride there, I'll leave that to, I dont know, reality.
    Are you trying to insult me or something? It's not working.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  5. #155
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont agree with you, on a number of points but I dont think you're that interested and are more interested in deploying a kind of preprepared statement, maybe you've heard some place of picked up a little from a long time ago but I didnt so much as mention "agenda" in this thread so I'm suspiscion that you're responding to something other than what I actually wrote. Its fine, you maybe had a burning desire to do so and that's alright. It's just less of a conversation or discussion and more of a matter of talking at someone, which if you've ever exprienced it, and I think we've all expereinced it at some point, you'll know is no fun and not something you'd volunteer for. I used to feel much more compelled to volunteer for that sort of thing, imagining it was some sort of "stepping up to the plate" than I do today.

    I also think its curious that you think any of that would be new information or that I wouldnt have thought of it from that angle. That's kind of disappointing. Just because you dont agree with someone shouldnt be automatic grounds to insult their intelligence with assumptions of their ignorance.

    I'd encourage you to think about this a bit more and rethink what you're saying but its a free country and you might decide you're satisfied with the conclusions you've reached. That's fine. I find it singularly unpersuasive.
    This post reminds me of George McClellan's characterization of Robert E. Lee as "too cautious and weak under grave responsibility -- personally brave and energetic to a fault", "wanting in moral firmness when pressed by heavy responsibility" and "likely to be timid and irresolute in action", which utterly fails as a characterization of Lee but gives a strikingly accurate description of McClellan himself.
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

  6. #156
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bizarro Lark
    I think that is reasonable, I'd add the caveat that legal couplings of Catholics should be termed civil partnerships and not marriages, that's with no disrespect to Catholics, its just that I feel the english language has been abused enough without conflating terms for political purposes.

    There is already the distinction of Catholic rather than non-Catholic so there is presumably an acceptable level of distinction and difference when it comes to the identification of pair bondings so I dont see any reason what so ever for objecting to a legal and literal distinction and difference.

    To be honest, and this is what I think much of it boils down to, at root there is a problem here with expectations. Expecting that everyone else will abandon their norms and shape their opinions and views to suit your own private choices and identity is a problem.

    There has always been an unspoken understanding in most minority-majority relations of reasonable adjustment, not to conflate disability, or perhaps differences in ability, but I think this illustrates my point, none but the insanely radical would suppose that, for instance, someone who needs to wear spectacles to see should instead of using the spectacles to adjust their vision should stop wearing their spectacles and expect every billboard or piece of printed matter etc. used by everyone, those short or long sighted like them and those with 20/20 vision alike, to be adjusted for them.

    That's just one example I can think of, others I could list, just from my own personal experience, would include that I identify as a socialist and a dozen other things, I dont expect anyone else to adopt the norms that I associate with those aspects of my identity or exercise any sort of defference to them. I even know there are going to be people sharply disapprove and disagree even resist those norms, and that's alright.

    The whole idea that the non-Catholic status quo could or should be over turned to please and placate what is proportionally a small, small section of the community, and their probably much larger politically interested fellows, without consequence, for all, and every chance negative consequence is bogus. I really cant help but think if there could be less emoting about this, if things like religion could be set to one side and it considered wholly rationally and reasonably, that it be considered with full possession of the facts and consideration from all angles the conclusions people would reach would be a lot different that what's usually spewed out.
    How do you feel about Bizarro Lark's opinions on Catholic partnerships, Lark? Or, being a rational man, what do you think about them? Do you think that Bizarro Lark is right to place more importance on language and norms than on people? Do you perhaps see a potential for Catholic discrimination in Bizarro Lark's opinion that Catholics ought to be satisfied with civil partnerships?

    Bizarro Lark sure does feel strongly that Bizarro English has had its feelings hurt, and he seems certain that Catholics and Catholic-supporters are just conflating two separate terms for political purposes! I guess Bizarro Lark's feelings and vague suspicions trump all other concerns in the Bizarro universe, eh?
    Likes 93JC, Hard liked this post

  7. #157
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    What's wrong with thousands of high paying temporary full time jobs? Most of the jobs created by Obama's stimulus bill were temporary.
    About as much as offering a starving person a carrot. It's not that there is anything wrong with it, it simply doesn't count for much in the argument in favor of a pipeline. There are much better arguments to be made. This is a red herring at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    China lifted about 400 million out of poverty via Reaganomics. By relieving the regulatory burden (roughly $1.7 trillion/year) on businesses, that allows businesses more money to expand, to raise salaries, and to hire more people.
    How many people in China remain in poverty? Chinese society is much different than ours, historically and presently. Have you any evidence that this method will make a significant impact on poverty in the U.S., or it is only a theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    No I don't. Competition drives businesses to respond to the wishes of their customers; businesses that ignore the wishes of their customers don't survive long.

    You said "good restaurant"; by definition, a "good restaurant" is one that looks after their customers.

    There's a demand for tasty, processed shit.
    The desire to make a profit drives businesses to steer consumer demand toward what they can produce and deliver cheaply. Slick, manipulative advertising is more cost-effective than developing and turning out a high quality product. Consumers individually are hard-put to resist this, and generally succeed only by grouping together in consumer watch organizations and the like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think that is reasonable, I'd add the caveat that legal couplings of homosexuals should be termed civil partnerships and not marriages, that's with no disrespect to homosexuals, its just that I feel the english language has been abused enough without conflating terms for political purposes.
    The legal partnerships of heterosexuals should be called civil partnerships as well. That's all the government can offer to any domestic partnership. Leave anything beyond that to religious and cultural groups, where they can make their own rules, and people consent to them freely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    To be honest, and this is what I think much of it boils down to, at root there is a problem here with expectations. Expecting that everyone else will abandon their norms and shape their opinions and views to suit your own private choices and identity is a problem.
    Just what norms do you think "everyone else" will be expected to abandon? The norm of marrying someone of the opposite sex, or the norm of expecting everyone else to live as they do? I don't hear gay folks criticising heterosexuals for marrying someone of the opposite sex, just for expecting that they (gays) do the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    There has always been an unspoken understanding in most minority-majority relations of reasonable adjustment, not to conflate disability, or perhaps differences in ability, but I think this illustrates my point, none but the insanely radical would suppose that, for instance, someone who needs to wear spectacles to see should instead of using the spectacles to adjust their vision should stop wearing their spectacles and expect every billboard or piece of printed matter etc. used by everyone, those short or long sighted like them and those with 20/20 vision alike, to be adjusted for them.
    We already build lecture halls with about 10% of the desks designed for left-handed people. Do you think gay couples, once married or civilly joined, will need more accomodation than this? I doubt they will need even as much. Blacks, Jews, Muslims, and people with peanut allergies already receive more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That's just one example I can think of, others I could list, just from my own personal experience, would include that I identify as a catholic and a socialist and a dozen other things, I dont expect anyone else to adopt the norms that I associate with those aspects of my identity or exercise any sort of defference to them. I even know there are going to be people sharply disapprove and disagree even resist those norms, and that's alright.
    You never did explain just what you mean by a "norm". Is it a statistical average over some population or sample set? Is it a rule of thumb for living? Something else?
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #158
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Not sure about this one Kyuuei. If you term marriage as the legal arrangement then I'd agree wholeheartedly, it's insane. No set of rules should define who forms a legal coupling other than to protect society (hence you can't marry someone under age of consent). However if you mean the religious ceremony then I'm sorry but if you sign up to the religion then you should abide by it, not just the bits you agree with.

    I've seen the arguments played out over here and I can't fathom why someone would follow or care for a religion which demonises them for their heartfelt choices. It's kind of like buying a bike as an agoraphobic and then complaining it works best outside and it should be changed to work better indoors. If you made the choice to join said religion then you should live by the consequences of your choice. I'd even call it reasonable.
    If marriage was purely religious, I'd agree. But it is not. A LOT of financial, political, and other connotations come with marriage.. and on top of that, many people marrying now-a-days are not christian. Atheists are allowed to marry one another. They don't require a church, or proof of worship, nothing like that. Taxes, housing, children, and all sorts of things are tied to marriage. Which pushes it into a clear realm of non-religious. And the non-religious aspect is what I see. I don't agree with forcing churches to marry gays.. no one is saying that here, and I definitely did not imply that.. but I do believe in forcing the government to recognize same-sex secular marriages (JP-style marriages, etc.) as legitimate as religious ceremonies.

    So far as the demonizing..a lot of it depends on interpretation. Someone mentioned earlier how easily a book can be interpreted to mean both 'gay sex is okay' and 'gay sex is bad'.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge
    Likes ReadingRainbows, Passacaglia liked this post

  9. #159
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    9,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    To be honest, and this is what I think much of it boils down to, at root there is a problem here with expectations. Expecting that everyone else will abandon their norms and shape their opinions and views to suit your own private choices and identity is a problem.
    I have never heard a single person speaking for gay marriage state that they are working towards getting others to abandon THEIR norms. They are asking for the same norms heterosexuals embrace. That's the biggest issue I have with opponents of this. Gay folks marrying will have absolutely zero impact on any other marriage, beliefs, expectations, etc. I have no idea why this conversation is still going on anywhere.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  10. #160
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    I have never heard a single person speaking for gay marriage state that they are working towards getting others to abandon THEIR norms. They are asking for the same norms heterosexuals embrace. That's the biggest issue I have with opponents of this. Gay folks marrying will have absolutely zero impact on any other marriage, beliefs, expectations, etc. I have no idea why this conversation is still going on anywhere.
    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10204098913453064
    Likes Passacaglia, ceecee liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-24-2017, 10:49 PM
  2. Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-02-2015, 01:28 PM
  3. all scans says my computer is clean
    By prplchknz in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-08-2014, 07:07 PM
  4. What type would you say this guy is?
    By Samvega in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 05:01 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