The Clockwork Mansion

Quote from: Mao Laoren on December 31, 2008, 07:57:45 AMWhile many may not see Gabi's character as a symbol of attraction it's still refreshing to see a picture that shows it as a possibility.

Hey, now you're making it sound like my character is completely unattractive!

At my previous work they got mad if I watched ANYTHING that wasn't work-related. At university, they don't care what I watch as soon as I get the job done. Neither of them would have found that offensive.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on December 31, 2008, 07:57:45 AM
Stupid ultra-conservative scared of offending anyone (except for non-Christians) work place.  *wanders off muttering to himself*

Scared of offending anyone except non-Christians? Now that is offensive.

Quote from: Gabi on December 31, 2008, 12:27:52 PM

Quote from: Mao Laoren on December 31, 2008, 07:57:45 AMWhile many may not see Gabi's character as a symbol of attraction it's still refreshing to see a picture that shows it as a possibility.

Hey, now you're making it sound like my character is completely unattractive!

I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

Quote from: Gabi on December 31, 2008, 12:27:52 PM

Quote from: Mao Laoren on December 31, 2008, 07:57:45 AM
Stupid ultra-conservative scared of offending anyone (except for non-Christians) work place.  *wanders off muttering to himself*

Scared of offending anyone except non-Christians? Now that is offensive.

Indeed.. beings how I'm one of those people they don't mind offending.  Sure, it's against company policy to offend anyone really, but I assure you from personal experience that they'll let a lot (if not all) of the ones against non-Christians slide.

I'm admit I'm bit of a racist, I don't approve of gay people, I hate environmentalists and am completely against feminism (though I do think men and women are equal, feminism goes beyond that as being fanatic in its core) but I would never deliberately insult anyone on those reasons! For I don't think it's my right to do so!

Quote from: Kipiru on December 31, 2008, 12:44:40 PM
I'm admit I'm bit of a racist, I don't approve of gay people, I hate environmentalists and am completely against feminism (though I do think men and women are equal, feminism goes beyond that as being fanatic in its core) but I would never deliberately insult anyone on those reasons! For I don't think it's my right to do so!

Quite straightforward, but it's good to admit what you are. Of course most people have a little prejudice against races, especially when the group gets more represented negatively over time. Though, the others standings I would myself just disagree with, though feminism should be limited to equality, which at present time I think only truly exists in Sweden. ( Being the most gender equal country in the world~)

but meh. Everyone their own.  :B

Oh, Of course this is a Art thread of course, I should comment on the image as well.

Well, I like it.
Merry chistmas indeed. :3

And the Gabi picture is quite nice as well, though not my personal taste.  :U

Just to make it clearer, I do not disapprove of people being different, but of people who parade their difference and expect the world to treat them differently!

Quote from: Kipiru on December 31, 2008, 05:54:11 PM
Just to make it clearer, I do not disapprove of people being different, but of people who parade their difference and expect the world to treat them differently!

Differently? As far as I know most of the world treat gays differently ( In a bad way.) The same applies to racial minorities within a country. People should stop giving a shit about other peoples sexual preferences, as well as stay realistic in racism instead of having blind hate. I do not know what you have against environmentalists, as long as their arguments are well supported I think the world needs to listen to them, CO2 should not be our focus, however we do need to invest in renewable resources I think ( even if it isn't going to repay itself, advancement comes with sacrifice sometimes.  But this is not the topic we should discuss this in, my apologies.

I believe that gays should have the right to be married and have the same benefits from it etcetera.
I believe that if a woman works and as much and hard as a man with the same job she should be payed just as much, not less.

cake.

I applaud you, Aiyno. I wanted to say that myself, but couldn't find the words.

But it's true that this is meant to be an art topic. Maybe we could take the discussion elsewhere?

This discussion started accidentally in my art thread, but it seems people have something to say about it so lets give them a chance! I said that I'm against people who parade their differences and expect the world to treat them differently for that. I'm talking flashy faggots( not ordinary gay people who harm noone and should have equal rights as anyone else, but the in-your-face obscene type), environmentalists (not people with a sense of ecology, but eco-terrorists who put nature ahead of mankind), feminists( women are equal to men, but feminists are often fanatic about it) and racism( when some minorities tend to abuse their status as such and start aggravating the general public).
Share your opinion if you wish!

Quote from: Gabi on January 01, 2009, 08:51:03 AM

But it's true that this is meant to be an art topic. Maybe we could take the discussion elsewhere?

  Done! (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php/topic,5508.msg253739.html#new)

Would you like me to move the posts here?

So you start a thread with the Title "Tolerance issues!" and then say you won't stand for people who annoy you.
Hello Irony!

Ah. Now that's different. I do not approve of terrorism of any kind, but when you said you hated environmentalists I thought you were in favor of highly polluting industries, killing of endangered species and the likes.

Similarly, when you said you did not approve of gay people, I thought you were against all of them, like those extreme religious groups who say homosexuality is an aberration.

It's amazing what the wording can do.

Anyway, I don't like people who consider themselves superior to others and want others to submit to them. Show-offs are something different, I often find them distasteful but I don't mind as long as they don't bother anyone (such is the case, for example, of cross-dressers who use extremely high heels, short skirts and heaps of makeup, and swing their hips as they walk as if they were dancing the conga: distasteful, but harmless).

Racists, xenophobes and religious intolerants I just can't take. I know some people who are otherwise nice but seem to have a phobia against Asians or Bolivians or whatever. I try to get around that and to make my point kindly whenever the subject comes up, but the truth is I lose some of my respect for a person if I find out he or she has that kind of attitude towards others.

Oh, and Sofox... even as bluntly as you put it, that is a tolerance issue.

Meh.  I tend to say to each his or her own, but I can't deny that people who flaunt their sexuality really bug me.

People who flaunt their heterosexuality tend to bother me more than people who flaunt their homosexuality, though.  I can generally just ignore gay PDAs, but the meathead heteros wound me personally, because I'm supposed to be one of them.

I find it kind of funny that some people are kind of wary of other races, when that's as far as it goes. Sometimes that comes form people living in a population of mostly one race, like the state of the USA I live; people in another state where the people are much more divers would probably have little to no issues or phobias.

As for gays, people of my religion are often accused of hating them in every possible way when in reality, from what I recall, the main issue is the marriage. That doesn't mean I think gays who are married are not people, it's just not the kind of thing I believe in or would recommend.   :januscat

<admin>
I've merged the threads, after splitting out the posts that seemed appropriate. Note that some of the content is applicable to the art thread, so I've tried to be careful about how I split it, but there are some cases where I've moved the post here.

Please don't take it personally; I'm not picking on anyone, just doing the best I can. Any comments about the art, you're welcome to make another post in Kipiru's original art thread with those comments in it - and, indeed, any other comments you'd care to make.
</admin>

<personal>
I'm severely racist against stupidity. It irritates me immensely to have to deal with it on a regular basis. :-/

Having said that, I do my best to keep my irritation in check, since it's my problem and not anyone else's...
</personal>

Let me elaborate on the racism issue! I for instance have no problems with Afro-american, Asian or Latin people! The form of racism I suffer from(yes I'm not proud of it) is one caused not from difference in skin or any other anatomic features, but from mentality! We have in our country quite a significant minority of gypsy folk. They are the most hostile and degraded kind of people anyone can imagine! They live off of theft and beggary and are completely reluctant to follow any laws or take up jobs especially provided for them by the government! They are completely unwilling to coexist with anyone and by being such have become a major thorn in our society!

Okay, time for my opinionated ranting.

For me, I really, really dislike feminazis, or extremists in general. REALLY. I really believe in the concept of equality, so I don't like the idea of one group totally belittling the other. (Weirdly, when I told my Chemistry teacher that during a discussion, he thought I was talking about Communism.  :erk I have a strange history of being misunderstood when I'm too vague about my opinions IRL. This is why I like keyboards so much.)

I think that feminism should be about the empowerment of women and supporting women's rights, which is necessary in some societies in the world. So the idea of feminazis and feminists being considered in the same group is a little insulting. So Kipiru, keep that in mind.

I don't care much about sexuality. I really hate it when people just act obnoxious in public, though, regardless of sexuality. A lot of people seem to think that promiscuity and homosexuality is mutually exclusive, for some reason. Some people in Congress agree with that misconception. God, how embarrassing is it when you hear a grown woman who was elected into her current seat talking about why gays shouldn't be allowed in the army because they would seek body heat from other men or distract other men by wantonly flirting? I wanted to say to the television screen, "They're not animals who think with their genitalia, you bitch."

I also don't see why some people seem threatened by the idea of gay people obtaining the same rights as straight people, or when people equate homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia or something. Why is that? Are some people just willing to overlook the fact that homosexuality is practiced between consenting adults just because it disgusts them on an irrational level?

<virulent sarcasm> Ooh, oh no, gay people want to be treated like human beings! How threatening and vile!</virulent sarcasm>

I needed to get that off my chest. Cue the negative karma!

Also, Kipiru, why do you keep using exclamation marks at the end of every sentence in every post? No offense intended. It's just something I noticed.

Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 01, 2009, 01:41:48 PM

I think that feminism should be about the empowerment of women and supporting women's rights, which is necessary in some societies in the world. So the idea of feminazis and feminists being considered in the same group is a little insulting. So Kipiru, keep that in mind.

Also, Kipiru, why do you keep using exclamation marks at the end of every sentence in every post? No offense intended. It's just something I noticed.

OK, Keaton, I honestly didn't know there was a thing like feminazis and it's difference from feminism, though by the sound of it, it is what I so despise. I'll know from now on!

As for the exclamation marks- I tend to think of myself as a very emotional person, so I use the marks to try and relate some of that nature of mine in the lifeless text. Sorry if it's bothersome!

Quote from: Kipiru on January 01, 2009, 02:06:29 PM

OK, Keaton, I honestly didn't know there was a thing like feminazis and it's difference from feminism, though by the sound of it, it is what I so dispise. I'll know from now on!

As for the exclamation marks- I tend to think of myself as a very emotional person, so I use the marks to try and relate some of that nature of mine in the lifeless text. Sorry if it's bothersome!

Feminazi is usually just a derogatory term, but I feel it kind of separates the extremist feminists from the more reasonable counterparts.

And oh no, the exclamation marks aren't bothering me at all; don't worry. I just wanted to know what the purpose behind that was. :B What you said makes sense.

And so does what you said, Keaton. :3

Quote from: Gabi on January 01, 2009, 02:23:15 PM
And so does what you said, Keaton. :3

In agreement.

Looks like everyone's in agreement. I love a happy ending. :3

And to throw my hat in, I don't discriminate. I hate everyone equally. c:

 Well ain't that comforting!  :)

"oh my God. i'm a racist"

"oh i understand now!"

somebody had to say it.. still i'm in total agreement!

Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 01, 2009, 01:41:48 PMAlso, Kipiru, why do you keep using exclamation marks at the end of every sentence in every post? No offense intended. It's just something I noticed.

He must have felt that the writing lacked certain emotion and intensity.

For example, ``It was damp and chilly afternoon, so I decided to put on my sweatshirt!''

And to throw some more oil into the fire, what about vegetarians!? Have you ever been in a situation where you are having a meal along with a vegetarian and he is constantly commenting on your choice of food, trying to make you see how wrong you are for eating meat! I mean, for god's sake, if your choice is to eat greens only, then fine, but don't go shoving your idea on others as well, especially if they have clearly stated they don't want to have nothing to do with it! Humans eat meet and vegetables by nature- period! If one chooses to go with one or the other it's their business, it doesn't make others who don't discriminate between food groups wrong!

NOTE: Humanity's brain has evolved only after he started eating more meat!

I'm sure there are such people, I think I might have heard of some myself. But again, not all vegetarians do that. I have, in fact, had a lunch with meat with people who were vegetarians, and if they had a problem with my eating meat, they weren't shoving it in my face.

I think in any group with an opinion, there are bound to be people who take the stance that any other opinion in inherently wrong, and there are going to be others who act on that feeling. What's important is to not lump anyone with that opinion into the last group there.

Summing up modlin's point, the great Amber Herself put it best: (http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_252.php)

Quote from: Kipiru on January 01, 2009, 05:16:52 PM
And to throw some more oil into the fire, what about vegetarians!? Have you ever been in a situation where you are having a meal along with a vegetarian and he is constantly commenting on your choice of food, trying to make you see how wrong you are for eating meat! I mean, for god's sake, if your choice is to eat greens only, then fine, but don't go shoving your idea on others as well, especially if they have clearly stated they don't want to have nothing to do with it! Humans eat meet and vegetables by nature- period! If one chooses to go with one or the other it's their business, it doesn't make others who don't discriminate between food groups wrong!

NOTE: Humanity's brain has evolved only after he started eating more meat!

Meat is murder.  Tasty tasty murder.

My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.
2.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must believe.
3.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must tolerate.
4.  I will tolerate you until you start harming others.

Quote from: Valynth on January 02, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.
2.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must believe.
3.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must tolerate.
4.  I will tolerate you until you start harming others.

Quoted for truth.

Quote from: Ryudo Lee on January 02, 2009, 01:11:46 AM

Quote from: Valynth on January 02, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.
2.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must believe.
3.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must tolerate.
4.  I will tolerate you until you start harming others.

Quoted for truth.

Double quoted for truth.

Quote from: Valynth on January 02, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.

Bugger. Mods, he's not going to tolerate us at _all_... ;-]

As I enjoy pointing out, there are no races among human beings as of yet.  I have always contended that viewing humans exclusively by phenotypical or genotypical traits is not a valid taxonimic concept of speciation, but a purely social construct.  This concept of "race" varies drastically among the cultures performing the classification.  There has been only been one possibility of a subspecies of humans developing since we modern humans diverged from the original Homo sapiens to become Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu (now extinct) some 160,000+ years ago.  This one instance would be the Inuit people, who due to their environmental adaptations, were only a few generations short of diverging.  Due to intermixing with migrating Europeans (beginning with the Vikings), that process was halted.  This is not to say that other possibilities did not exist, but none have survived nor has their remains been discovered to add to this list.

That being said, rarely is anyone espousing racial intolerance basing their rhetoric on valid taxonomy, genetic analysis, or mitochondrial divergence. 

We, as a species, have very little dimorphism (sexual or physical) within our own species as compared to other mammals, but we are acutely sensitive to the minor variations in physical appearance we do possess.  This is not an endearing trait in our species and we must really learn to get around it.

In my opinion, there should be no tolerance for those who preach intolerance.  Whether this be based on the social definitions of "race" we hold so much importance on, spiritual choices, sexual orientation, or even national origin.  People have the right to be the way that they are and to believe in what they choose to believe in... at least in the United States of America.  Additionally, in the USA, a person's rights may be exercised up to the point that they infringe on the rights of others.  I can only speak truly from this perspective.  I have supported gay rights, down to marching with them for support and voting in favor of such, and acknowledge such unions.  In the end, I wish we could all accept one another for being what we are, but we seem a bit off from that.

         

Kipiru: I'm a vegetarian, and I take offense when people try to convince me to eat meat or, worse, consider themselves better than me because they eat it.

What you say about human brains evolving after they started eating meat can't be proved, and even if it were true it wouldn't mean the former is a consequence of the latter. Still, if you believe eating meat makes you smarter than me, I invite you to back up your claims.

No , Gabi I don't think eating meat makes me smarter, or that you not eating it makes you healthier! Read my post carefully, I do not stand against vegetarians, I stand against those who try and convince others that their way is the only true one! The note about the meat was a fun fact, that seems to have been misunderstood as some form of attack- it's not!

NOTE:  I started this topic with the idea for people to share their opinions about controversial believes about the diversity of groups among people who seem to be missunderstood without anyone trying to pass judgement on others! I would definitely never assume I have the right to tell anyone what they should believe or do! I am neither superior or inferior to anyone! And this goes for all of you!

I'm not going to get on the case of reasonable vegetarians. I just like eating meat, and if they don't want to eat meat, I'm not going to force them to. Humans were developed as omnivores, so I don't think it's all that unnatural. I think both meat and vegetables contain important vitamins and proteins necessary for development.

(although I actually hate vegetables :< I like fruits a lot more)

Humans have both canine/incisor teeth and molars.  That trait is found in dogs, bears, and chimps... all of whom are omnivores.  We also have the enzymatic machinery to deal with digestion of animals fats and meat proteins.  The proof is in the pudding.   :3

Humans have adapted to survive off almost anything.  Like rats.  And we breed to fill up space all over the world.  Like rats.  And when we get too crowded, there's more hmosexuality to slow down the procreation rate.  Like rats. 

Therefore, Humans = rats   :B

We also make lots of poop... we could also be pigeons.   :B

*Charline is likely pleased with this conclusion*  >:3

Quote from: Alondro on January 02, 2009, 11:00:19 AM

Therefore, Humans = rats   :B

We also make lots of poop... we could also be pigeons.   :B

:erk

Quote from: Alondro on January 02, 2009, 11:00:19 AMTherefore, Humans = rats   :B

We also make lots of poop... we could also be pigeons.   :B

What's the difference between rats and pigeons?

One sinks, the other just sinks faster.

Quote from: Alondro on January 02, 2009, 11:00:19 AM
Humans have both canine/incisor teeth and molars.  That trait is found in dogs, bears, and chimps... all of whom are omnivores.  We also have the enzymatic machinery to deal with digestion of animals fats and meat proteins.  The proof is in the pudding.   :3

Indeed, this Alondro fellow is correct.  We can not subsist on only animal proteins or vegetable matter exclusively, but a balance between the two is required.  I believe the balance is actually more heavily weighted towards vegetable and fruits.  Additionally, with a proper balance of plant foods, vegetable proteins can completely remove the need for animal based ones.  However, vegetable protein is of a lower quality than animal proteins and careful research and combination with other plants foods is necessary.  One cannot be a picky vegetarian, as most nutritionists have told me.  I am an omnivore myself, but it is good to know these things.
 

Well, I'm fine the way I am. Kipiru, I've read your new post and your PM, so... apology accepted.

Quote from: Gabi on January 02, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
Kipiru: I'm a vegetarian, and I take offense when people try to convince me to eat meat or, worse, consider themselves better than me because they eat it.

What you say about human brains evolving after they started eating meat can't be proved, and even if it were true it wouldn't mean the former is a consequence of the latter. Still, if you believe eating meat makes you smarter than me, I invite you to back up your claims.

:<

actually... ancestors to humans acted as scavengers, and part of the increase in intelegence comes from eating meat that would normally be inaccessible behind bone (marrow and brains).  However, this is more likely something to do with intelegence allowing the eating of meat that other scavengers and predatiors were unable to access, rather than the rich food causing the development of intelegence.

In other words, those able to get at the marrow and brains would be more likley to survive and have kids, and intelegence helped one get at the marrow and brains.  One of the reasons we evolved intelegence was probably because intelegence was a favorable trait in a relatively frail species that requires a certain ammount of meat (or complex mix of grains and vegetables) to be healthy.

Of course, we've also arrived at a level of intelegence and knowledge that it's possible for some members of our species to go without meat without suffering from malnutrition, and that's an accomplishment in itself.

... wait a second, didn't we have this conversation already a few months ago?

Tolerance!

I put up with a lot of s***, I'm an easy going guy.  I'm definently prejudiced, but I try not to let stereotypes effect my judgement adversely when dealing with people.  It's human nature to be prejudiced, it's a quick survival function to be able to quickly catagorize things based on obvious traits, and more people need to realize their prejudices and work arond them when dealing with individuals.

I regret the fact that Gabi took my post as offensive, but the fact is that I heard on Discovery that the human brain size grew after our ancestors found a way to eat more meat by processing it( tenderising and cooking). THAT DOES NOT MEAN MEAT EATERS ARE SMARTER!!! It's just a fun fact I regret ever sharing!

Could it be that we found a way to tenderize and cook meat BECAUSE our brains grew, and not the other way around?

Nope, pretty sure they said it was the other way around!

How on earth would they know that?

Ok, this discussion is going nowhere. Not only is it impossible to know for certain what happen first, but even if we could travel back in time and see, there would be no way to know whether two events which came one after the other (or perhaps at about the same time) were related or not. I'm pretty sure the decrease in the number of pirates in the sea is not the cause of global warming, but the current issue is a lot trickier and there is no way to find positive proof for either side of the argument.

So... why don't we just drop it? I've accepted Kipiru's apology, I understand he wasn't saying vegetarians were dumb despite what the comment might suggest. Can we get back on topic now, please?

Quote from: Zina on January 02, 2009, 03:40:10 PM
Could it be that we found a way to tenderize and cook meat BECAUSE our brains grew, and not the other way around?

Quote from: Kipiru on January 02, 2009, 03:43:01 PM
Nope, pretty sure they said it was the other way around!

Actaully, Yeah, what Zina said.  You gotta understand the evolutionary process; small mutations might make one ape a little smarter, he figures out how to cook/tenderize food, and subsequently has more energy (eating prepared food saves energy that would be spent in digestion, it's another step past learning how to get to meat that other scavengers and predators can't as I mentioned in my previous post) and is thus more likely to survive long enough to have children, who will inherit the mutation of being a little smarter. Over millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations these little mutations for bigger brains(and other things besides) add up to a species of ape capable of putting a man on the moon.

If eating meat casued larger brains, then you would need Lamarkian evolution to pass it on to the next generation.  That's the bit where your children inherit traits that you develope in yourself like muscle mass or a longer reach, and, to save you the research, that's not how inheritance of traits works.

If there had been some sort of vegitable matter that required intelegence to get and cook, that would also have made intelegence a desirable trait and fostered its development. (and, actually, early humans prepared both plant and animal matter)

Right, so everyone has his own opinion over this. Fine by me. Can we drop it now- I said it was a mistake bringing it up.

In a sense, everyone is actually right to certain extents, but as Kip has said we can drop it.  If anyone wants to continue discussions along these lines, PM is good.

Quote from: Zina on January 02, 2009, 03:57:14 PM
How on earth would they know that?

It was those pesky aliens... that is why they detonate the cows.

now that's just being intolerant toward aliens.

Conspiracy theory of mine: Elves are aliens and the other way around! They left when we started getting smart(no meat jokes please) and are now observing us because we started ruining their  cared for planet! So expect swan-shaped starships to come one day and slap us over the wrist!

Quote from: Kipiru on January 02, 2009, 03:43:01 PM
Nope, pretty sure they said it was the other way around!

*shrugs* What do they know? Who are 'they' anyway?
Nah, I'm just pulling your strings there.



If you really have to dislike people, please note:

You should dislike individuals one by one for specific reasons.
Disliking groups tends to blur your reasoning.


Individuals will always disagree on some viewpoints.
That's okay as long as they can accept the other's viewpoint.


I'm far from being without bias, but if 'others' can leave me and other 'others' be, I too will very probably leave them be too.
(Ugh. Monster sentence. Can you comprehend what I'm trying to say there?)


Also: Be nice to others and smile.  :3
Watch this short film and give it a chance to persuade you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbk980jV7Ao "Validation"

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 02, 2009, 04:41:58 AM

Quote from: Valynth on January 02, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.

Bugger. Mods, he's not going to tolerate us at _all_... ;-]

You think anyone does? Oh, sure, we have to obey, but in the end we all think of you as touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies. And if the fact that that people are going to think that of you isn't in the job description...

Quote from: Stygian on January 03, 2009, 10:22:14 AM

You think anyone does? Oh, sure, we have to obey, but in the end we all think of you as touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies. And if the fact that that people are going to think that of you isn't in the job description...

Be nice, some people may need to feel superior to others because in real life they amount to nothing.  Now this does not necessarily apply to anyone here.

Just for the subject of Elves: From what I recall of Tales of Symphonia, Elves come from the planet/comet Derris-Kharlan. The conspiracy may be exactly right...  :januscat

Quote from: Valynth on January 02, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.
2.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must believe.
3.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must tolerate.
4.  I will tolerate you until you start harming others.

I think these are usefull guidelines, though there are exceptions to these guidelines.

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do, unless you are an appointed official with the duty to keep things orderly (think law-enforcement / moderators, etc.). I also believe that any such appointed official should be fired on the spot the moment they start demanding unreasonable things (such as shrubberies, or total conformation to their personal standards rather then the standards agreed upon by the community as a whole).

2.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must believe, unless you are educating me about something with my consent, and even then, I will put your claims under some scruteny until I have verified the veracity of your claims.

3.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must tolerate, unkess you can damn well back up your demands with some really good reasons. In the face of a well-thought out arguments I am willing and able to change my opinion.

4 I will tolerate you until you start harming others for no good reason, and your reason better be damn good indeed.

I would also add that I have little patience for liars, thieves, bullies, the willfully ignorant, testosterone anachronisms, etc.

Of course, anyone can debate such things ad infinitum without ever reaching a set of standards that everyone can agree upon.

Quote from: Lysander on January 03, 2009, 02:00:12 PM
Just for the subject of Elves: From what I recall of Tales of Symphonia, Elves come from the planet/comet Derris-Kharlan. The conspiracy may be exactly right...  :januscat

I knew I'd find a supporter in the face of Lysander  :)

Quote from: Kipiru on January 03, 2009, 02:02:32 PM

I knew I'd find a supporter in the face of Lysander  :)

Is that like the Face of Boe?

Quote from: Stygian on January 03, 2009, 10:22:14 AM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 02, 2009, 04:41:58 AM

Quote from: Valynth on January 02, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.

Bugger. Mods, he's not going to tolerate us at _all_... ;-]

You think anyone does? Oh, sure, we have to obey, but in the end we all think of you as touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies. And if the fact that that people are going to think that of you isn't in the job description...

Oh, well. That's all right then.

I thought it was something different... ;-] If it's just touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies, I knew that all already...

I am indeed tolerant as it is my nature. Behind closed doors and out of site I myself do think things that are wrong sometimes. Though I believe almost anyone has this same fault in character.
Though I do strive to be as objective as possible in most things I do.

My biggest point is that I do not believe in Gay Marriage.

I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.
The system is fundamentally flawed by not having something separate in place. A "Civil Union" would be a good way to put it. This would be a consentaneous act between adults, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to share in all aspects of their finances, taxes, debt, profits, and stocks, just as current marriages do. There would be no requirement to take someone else's name either, this is a practice put in place by religion, as is the ceremony and requirements to be married. This would also open the door for multiple partners in one union. I see no moral reason not to allow it, only a legal one, can you imagine the paperwork some families would have getting the Union broken?
This would also not necessarily make anything more complicated, just better documented.

My secondary reason for it is that Marriage is not just seen as a religious ceremony. If Unions were put in place, you could still get married but with out the Union you would legally still be separate. People have lumped the idea that the only significant way of being with another person is to be Married and it can't be called anything else. So peoples perception is the underlying cause.

I understand that homosexuals want Marriage, it is significant. However, Marriage is dictated by your religion and their requirements. If you go against the requirements then I'm sorry, you can't be married.
Again though, this restriction should not be at a governing level. At the same time though, government cannot say what is a requirement of marriage. This is the reason we need a separate agreement that encompasses everybody equally.

(This statement brought to you by an unmarried Atheist with no absolute knowledge of the inner workings of common religions and no perfect knowledge of how one is legally bound to another.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I my self do have problems with others that immediately look and act different.
This is a flaw I have been attempting to correct, with limited success.
The cause of the problem and the hindering force in correcting said problem are one in the same.
I am not socially adept and literally fear new and grand interaction. This is simply my own fault.

Having limited proper examples of people in entertainment mediums is not helping anything either. Neither is that everyone I interact with in this area seem to reinforce their stereotype. Half the people in a store are wearing A-shirts(wife-beater) and buying lots of beer, anyone in a pawnshop is a crack head, work crews are predominantly Mexican in decent, and the "bad side of town" has a much darker complexion.
This area is not the best at keeping prejudices out. I have been looking for better examples of how people act but the rest stand out so well that my limited interaction lets me see little.

I told you that just for a different perspective on the matter, not a justification. Prejudice is never truly justifiable in this day and age.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 03, 2009, 04:23:58 PM

Quote from: Stygian on January 03, 2009, 10:22:14 AM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 02, 2009, 04:41:58 AM

Quote from: Valynth on January 02, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
My four cents: 

1.  I will tolerate you until you start telling me what I must do.

Bugger. Mods, he's not going to tolerate us at _all_... ;-]

You think anyone does? Oh, sure, we have to obey, but in the end we all think of you as touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies. And if the fact that that people are going to think that of you isn't in the job description...

Oh, well. That's all right then.

I thought it was something different... ;-] If it's just touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies, I knew that all already...

I didn't think we were all that touchy and vindictive, but I guess that's just because I am misguided. :C

Gamma makes a great point at homosexual marriages and I can totally relate to his thoughts on it! It just seems that humanity has not yet risen to the point where it can drop centuries of prejudice and tradition. A lot of people (especially illiterate ones) still fear all that doesn't fit in to the established model of the world. In fact prejudice is found in all of us and anyone that says they are without are just being hypocritical. The point is to try and get around such feelings, not deny them! That is why I shared what I think are my flaws, cause I wish to one day get rid of them!

Quote from: Gamma on January 03, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.

I've had this discussion 129347109470 times since Prop 8 went into effect.

The simple fact is that by the same logic, if I wanted to create a religious organization that specifically upheld gay marriage as a 'standard' or 'traditional' method of marriage, one could very easily make this same argument to the opposing. Would the government recognize that then? Well, that all depends on the maturity of one's nation.

I have to point out that homosexuality has been apart of humanity since the very beginning, and not only was in common in some of the great civilization in the past, it was accepted. Gay marriage was practiced in ancient Rome, Greece, China and Japan. It wasn't until after Christianity  came into "power" that homosexuality was viewed as "bad'.

So really, the whole concept of gay marriage isn't a new thing by any means, and if it was able to flourish in those societies, then it won't be the end of times if it is legal again in modern times.

If people are able to honor civil unions the same way the honor marriage, in times of legality, then it shouldn't be a problem. But they don't, and thus it becomes the issue it is now.

Quote from: Zina on January 03, 2009, 06:06:29 PM
Gay marriage was practiced in ancient Rome, Greece, China and Japan. It wasn't until after Christianity  came into "power" that homosexuality was viewed as "bad'.

I never knew that.  On the flipside, it must be said that most of those civilisation have since collapsed or become a shadow of their former selves.  Not that I blame gay marriage for it, of course, though others might >:3

Quote from: Gamma on January 03, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
I am indeed tolerant as it is my nature. Behind closed doors and out of site I myself do think things that are wrong sometimes. Though I believe almost anyone has this same fault in character.
Though I do strive to be as objective as possible in most things I do.

My biggest point is that I do not believe in Gay Marriage.

I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.
The system is fundamentally flawed by not having something separate in place. A "Civil Union" would be a good way to put it. This would be a consentaneous act between adults, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to share in all aspects of their finances, taxes, debt, profits, and stocks, just as current marriages do. There would be no requirement to take someone else's name either, this is a practice put in place by religion, as is the ceremony and requirements to be married. This would also open the door for multiple partners in one union. I see no moral reason not to allow it, only a legal one, can you imagine the paperwork some families would have getting the Union broken?
This would also not necessarily make anything more complicated, just better documented.

My secondary reason for it is that Marriage is not just seen as a religious ceremony. If Unions were put in place, you could still get married but with out the Union you would legally still be separate. People have lumped the idea that the only significant way of being with another person is to be Married and it can't be called anything else. So peoples perception is the underlying cause.

I understand that homosexuals want Marriage, it is significant. However, Marriage is dictated by your religion and their requirements. If you go against the requirements then I'm sorry, you can't be married.
Again though, this restriction should not be at a governing level. At the same time though, government cannot say what is a requirement of marriage. This is the reason we need a separate agreement that encompasses everybody equally.

(This statement brought to you by an unmarried Atheist with no absolute knowledge of the inner workings of common religions and no perfect knowledge of how one is legally bound to another.)

It isn't so much that marriage is the only way to be significant, it's just that if you're married you get recognition and benefits. There was a whole debate about that over in Florida, just before the election results were announced. (The "Marriage Protection Act") My only issue with civil unions is that I don't see why another ceremony is entirely necessary - I don't think there should be any need to create some diluted version to appease people. (Granted, if it's marriage in all but name, I can't argue too much, like what Zina said.)

Part of my reasoning is that I think that completely barring one group from participating in something comes across as discrimination to me, similar to the whole argument about gays being in the army that I mentioned earlier. I also, for most of my life, have never viewed marriage in a religious way - not necessarily in something that was traditionally bulletproofed or a subject of debate. It's because I viewed marriage, in its most idyllic depiction, as a union of love. I can't fathom why people think the love of, for example, a happy gay couple is worth less than another, theoretically miserable man and woman.

Even I, with my strangely cynical viewpoints, still hold marriage in a high regard.

However, most of my argument is one person's definition of marriage against another, which isn't terribly effective. I'm not too certain about the legalese with marriage myself, other than the benefits and recognition. In terms of marriage being a religious union, that seems a little hard considering the diversity involved with religion.

Actually, as I'm writing this, I just remembered that there was an interesting website I dug up a long time ago for some research: This has some pretty good arguments. (http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm)

Holy shit. The most rational and intelligent debates I've had were with furries.

Quote from: Tapewolf on January 03, 2009, 06:15:21 PM
I never knew that.  On the flipside, it must be said that most of those civilisation have since collapsed or become a shadow of their former selves.  Not that I blame gay marriage for it, of course, though others might >:3

I vouch for what Zina said. The Greeks and Romans and whatnot. (There was a bit of controversy about Alexander the Great's homosexuality in that crappy Oliver Stone movie, actually.) I wasn't familiar with Japan and China, though. I learned something new today!

Quote from: Gamma on January 03, 2009, 05:39:44 PMI have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone. You still have to fill out the paperwork after you've gone to the church.

In which case, it should not be the government's choice to give benefits or not; some religious institutions are willing to marry gays, and since it's an entierly religeous issue, the government should not be allowed to allow or deny a marriage license on that basis.  If it's an act of governemnt, the government has no basis to deny rights, and if it's an act of church, the government has no buisness denying the churches the right to practice their own beliefs.  Marriage has a long history of being a secular institution, little more than a buisness transaction, and the sanctity of marriage is a concept that's less than a decade old and refers only to marriage in a tiny window of time just after discriminatory laws against marriage between different races were struck down.

Quote from: Zina on January 03, 2009, 06:06:29 PMI have to point out that homosexuality has been apart of humanity since the very beginning, and not only was in common in some of the great civilization in the past, it was accepted. Gay marriage was practiced in ancient Rome, Greece, China and Japan. It wasn't until after Christianity  came into "power" that homosexuality was viewed as "bad'.

I would point out that, while much of popular culture portrays Rome and Greece as one giant bisexual orgy, the truth is a little more mundane.  Homosexuality in ancient Rome tended to be situational homosexuality among the soldiers who were away from their wives, although there's no doubt that there were honestly gay people there.  The weird bacchanals of the Emperors notwithstanding (and which really bore no relation to the common people).

As to gay marriage in Rome, this paper makes a decent argument that Roman same-sex weddings were for property, did not result in marriage and had nothing to do with sexual preference (http://www.umich.edu/~classics/news/newsletter/winter2004/weddings.html).

Which, all in all, sounds an awful lot like same-sex marriage.

I have much less knowledge about ancient Greece, but I do know that they held women in lower regard than Romans, and that sex for fun was to be had with men, not women.

Oh, and government should have nothing to do with a religious institution like marriage.  Any two people of the age of majority should be able to enter a civil union, provided they're not already in civil unions with other people.

First of all I should clarify my previous opening statement,

Quote from: Gamma on January 03, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
My biggest point is that I do not believe in Gay Marriage.

I'm surprised I didn't catch the possible misinterpretation. I would like Gay people to enjoy the same aspects of life available to anyone else not being prejudged. But truthfully that can't be because we cannot force religions to allow such a thing. If the pope says there is to be no Gay marriage then any pure and abiding Christian church will not hold such a ceremony.

Keaton, one of the biggest things I see with your rebuttal is that it seems you think a Civil Union would replace marriage. No, that is for your religion to grant. The government takes care of the benefits, that is what must be changed. To grant a civil union would be little different then a marriage license and the latter would no longer exist, only a Civil union would be available across the board, for everybody.
(If i misinterpreted you I apologize.)

For lack of sighting better terms/more terms I chose to call all religion based unions marriage.
Honestly though as Reese touched on the government really shouldn't have a say in who should be married, and therefore government should have nothing to do with religious practice at all, exceptions are obvious, torture, persecution, etc.
But herein lies that problem, it is, and it always will be. This country would be nothing like it is now without a christian based religion at the helm. (Note I know that the early settlers and colonies were of multiple religions but they were mostly christian in origin, all sharing basic ideals such as the 10 commandments.) And as such this country has had a majority religion steering it morally in the background. This is also why marriage law even exists. Most likely this is also why so many financial benefits are available to those married. If you were a married senator, wouldn't you like a tax break?

Marriage law also exists because it used to make sense. Religion was closer to government because religious diversity was almost nonexistent back then. In 1800 tell everyone you didn't believe in god, you'd be lucky to make it out of town. Now marriage law does not make sense and should be replaced with Civil Union law. Using civil unions allow a typical ceremony, prestige, and benefit. Some folks would just wonder why they renamed a marriage license.
The others who actually paid attention would be rallying in the streets demanding marriage back if the legal side was changed to a civil union. Yet the actual act of marriage would have never left since it is still strictly controlled by your religion.

I really understand that marriage is a lasting symbol of one's love and that bag of emotions I have yet to understand. But from an objective, legal, and logical perspective, it doesn't matter. If the civil union would grant the same benefits to two heterosexual partners of the same religion and to a pair of homosexual partners with differing/no religion then all is good. That just leaves you to reinterpret marriage if you so choose.
As stated I don't grasp complex emotions properly so I'm coming off callous, but if people really care for each other properly then what the hell difference does it make if you call it a marriage license or a civil union?!
[EDIT: I have properly ready some of the article Keaton had posted. Since there is at least one common religion already allowing for same sex marriage only the legal portion is truly left to be changed. This however is not likely because of the ingrained nature of current practices./EDIT]
Besides, I left open the ability for a church either a breakaway from a major religion or a brand new one to start offering actual religious Marriage to their differing followers. The DXM made such a point as well. Combined with the Civil Unions it would be defined exactly the same, public opinion would be different.

For recognition, well that's another tough break. Currently it seems recognition for gay marriage involves breaking religion over it's collective knee. In other words forcing a religion that does not allow it to marry gay people. That won't happen. Until a religion allows for it and the legal system is ready, a gay marriage has no hope of being given the same respect and recognition by the people. Even then you will not find many willing to openly congratulate a gay couple.
Such a thing flies in the face of many peoples moral standards that were set for them by others. While we all wish the world would change only you can really make it change.

One more thing, religion has the option to discriminate. It is in their practices, I wrote a paper in high school on atheist prejudice. Part of it centered around the Boy Scouts of America. They do not allow people of certain faiths and sexualities and they have that right according to the law. It is not a job and is not infringing on your rights, you simply can't join their little club. While other organizations allow you to join and do essentially the same things just without the requirements.
People perceive they have the right to do anything they please when they feel it's right. Louisiana is an open carry state, this means I can walk around certain places with a gun strapped to my hip and no one can arrest you for it. People occasionally try to do such a thing inside a privately owned store with a no guns policy. They have protested being told they could not bring in the firearm and legally can be removed if they fail to adhere to private policy. They thought it was a public place since it's a store. That store is leased/owned by a private company. They may refuse to do business with you for many reasons. They can even refuse to take Credit cards, check, money order, but must always allow physical American currency. They can even make you give them exact amounts, they do not have to make change for you.

However much religion can discriminate, the government cannot. It is true that currently the government is not allowing a marriage license to be given to same sex couples, this is indeed wrong in a sense. One issue is simply the definition. You cannot keep both parties happy by renaming the legally binding document a Civil Union, in most cases neither party would be happy with that either. However, Marriage is the religious definition in my opinion and the current legal definition is a Marriage License, the latter should be changed in title and recreated to include other unions as previously described.

Religion is something you may certainly do, it is within your rights to seek a religion. As long as you meet its requirements they cannot legally keep you out. Starting a new religion is certainly available if you do not meet any particular one's requirements. The tax benefits available to religion though have requirements. I do not know if they were put in place originally or after income tax was illegally kept in place. Truly government should look at religion like other businesses and not separately, another symptom of being there from the start.

Much of this was to attempt to clarify points I made earlier. I feel as though I may have made some duller, please bring it to my attention if anything still seems fuzzy.

In case you're wondering, my Atheist report did uncover some prejudice I wasn't aware of but mostly just showed me how ridiculous other atheists can be. Some congregate in something like a church actually discussing how you are all wrong for believing in a god! Obviously that never made it into the report.  :rolleyes What I did find was that usually problems with Atheists only arose when we try to make a big stink about religions. Don't step on anyone's toes and no one cares. I have no problem with others believing, it doesn't hurt me to let you do so. I'll admit for awhile I did feel all high, mighty, and superior for thinking similarly to those congregating idiots. It didn't make sense to me and I simply dismissed it as everyone else being wrong. Luckily that never lasted to long, I still don't completely get it but that's why we are different.

Quote from: Gamma on January 04, 2009, 01:36:39 AM
For recognition, well that's another tough break. Currently it seems recognition for gay marriage involves breaking religion over it's collective knee. In other words forcing a religion that does not allow it to marry gay people. That won't happen. Until a religion allows for it and the legal system is ready, a gay marriage has no hope of being given the same respect and recognition by the people. Even then you will not find many willing to openly congratulate a gay couple.
Such a thing flies in the face of many peoples moral standards that were set for them by others. While we all wish the world would change only you can really make it change.

I don't see why recognition of same-sex marriage would necessarily force a religion to do anything. Gay marriage has been legal in most of Canada for the better part of this decade, for instance, and the current text of its federal laws explicitly states that don't you don't have to perform marriages not in accordance with your religious beliefs. Many churches are already quite willing to perform such ceremonies. The ones that aren't don't. The country hasn't fallen apart yet... :3

Gamma, the 'recognition' that people seek is recognition by civil authorities, because civil unions do not confer the same rights as a marriage license.  Aside from a few jerks who should be beat about the head, noone is talking about requiring any church to recognize anything they don't already recognize.

Quote from: Gamma on January 03, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
I have one good reason for this, a marriage is a religious ceremony, not an act of the government alone.

That statement is patently false: atheists can get married without any church involved in the ceremony. It may once have been a religious ceremony, but it now has become a secular one, supported by the government.
The problem in America is largely that religion has far too much to say about who can and who can't marry, while the religious opinion should have no influence on the secular construct of marriage due to the separation of church and state. Marriage for the church and for the government should be separate entities.
If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, then this should have no influence outside that church, and it should have no bearing on the law.

Regarding prop 8: One of the duties of a government is to protect minorities from oppression by the majority, and in this case the government of California has failed. Much to his credit, the governator is trying to get prop 8 thrown out, but it might take a while for him to succeed.

Quote from: Tezkat on January 04, 2009, 02:30:53 AM
I don't see why recognition of same-sex marriage would necessarily force a religion to do anything. Gay marriage has been legal in most of Canada for the better part of this decade, for instance, and the current text of its federal laws explicitly states that don't you don't have to perform marriages not in accordance with your religious beliefs. Many churches are already quite willing to perform such ceremonies. The ones that aren't don't. The country hasn't fallen apart yet... :3

Ok I got confused somewhere along the lines then.

So if  the marriage license was repaired/replaced to legally abide same sex marriage in the USA, then they would get the recognition they seek?
If so then the misunderstandings I seem to have heard are from my use of "Civil Union". If that's the case then I should stop referring to a revised marriage license as such. I guess with willing religions/churches you could still call it a marriage license and no longer have a need for a differing name to legally separate it from the actual act of marriage.
Though we still come back to the base problem, it is not legally allowed. For no reason though. I love my government so much!

Quote from: Vidar on January 04, 2009, 02:46:53 AM
The problem in America is largely that religion has far too much to say about who can and who can't marry, while the religious opinion should have no influence on the secular construct of marriage due to the separation of church and state. Marriage for the church and for the government should be separate entities.
If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, then this should have no influence outside that church, and it should have no bearing on the law.

Most of what you stated there I've said, not at all clearly though. I never was good at a concise statement.

Quote from: Zina on January 03, 2009, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 03, 2009, 04:23:58 PM
Oh, well. That's all right then.

I thought it was something different... ;-] If it's just touchy, misguided, vindictive bullies, I knew that all already...

I didn't think we were all that touchy and vindictive, but I guess that's just because I am misguided. :C

No, no. I'm touchy, you're misguided, Darkmoon is vindictive...

... and I can't say what Damaris is, because she'll bully me. ;-]

I don't see why people in the USA see marriage as a religious ceremony. Here it's a civil ceremony, and the religious part is optional. And gay marriage is allowed.

If you consider marriage to be a religious ceremony, then does that mean two people of different religions can't get married? And what about atheists? Should they be banned from marriage too?

I think of marriage as a compromise between two people to share their lives and support each other, and it should be driven by love, although I know that in reality it isn't always the case.

Even if a civil union had all the same rights as marriage (and it doesn't... hell even in the states gay marriage is legal  it still doesn't confer all the same legal rights of marriage yet.) it wouldn't work.  Marriage has long been held up as the gold standard for people.  And I'm meaning Secular marriage here not the religious ceremony.

The implementation of the law must be fair across the board.

If the civil institution is to be called a Civil union  then straight couple shouldn't be allowed to get married under federal law either.  they should be granted civil unions marriage if it is a purely religious ceremony should carry no weight with the legal ramifications  of our society.  If you were to go out and get married by your church then the govenment should not recognise that till you fill out the proper paper work and get your civil union too.  If you don't then you should not be allowed to file joint tax returns, can't have your spouse on your insurance, oh and no visitation rights.  Since that's purely a religious ceremony.

However that aproach however logical would never work simply because the word marriage has been allowed to spread through out the legal system.  People would reject the idea out of hand. "Wait your saying we're not married any more, why how can you take that away from us"  "No your not married but you still have all the same legal rights you had before but you can't call yourself married"  It just wouldn't fly.  and if your not going to make straight couples who don't go through the church ceremony stop using the word marriage it's not fair to ask gay couples not to use the word marriage.  And if it is a religious ceremony then what about the religious institutions that would happily preforem a same sex ceremony.  There are already rabbi who write up same sex marriage contracts, christian churches that are more then willing to preform them, and a multitude of other religions that have no qualms what so ever.  would these people be allowed to call them selves married?

Gay people arn't trying to force churches that don't want to preform marriages to do so (other then the few crazy extremists, and hey every group has there crazy extremists right religious people?)  They just want to share in the same rights and privileged that have been held up by the secular society they live in as the golden standard.  If you force them to do so only under a different title it smacks of separate and unequal. "the Ohh isn't that cute it's almost like they are really married" way of thinking.

and as has been said before the Idea of marriage as a sacred institution is really a new concept.  for the longest time it was simply a business transaction.  a transfer of property  and in that the sacredness wasn't resolute.  the Idea of romantic love guiding marriage is only something that gained prominence in the last 60 to 80 years.   and again the sanctity of it is something thats even younger.

also gamma you said "If the pope says there is to be no Gay marriage then any pure and abiding Christian church will not hold such a ceremony."  that's just blatantly false.  The pope is the authority only among the catholic church not among all Christians.

Quote from: Gamma on January 04, 2009, 01:36:39 AM
Besides, I left open the ability for a church either a breakaway from a major religion or a brand new one to start offering actual religious Marriage to their differing followers. The DXM made such a point as well. Combined with the Civil Unions it would be defined exactly the same, public opinion would be different.

Well, don't misinterpret me, sir. The point I meant to make was that clinically I believe that the rights of people who are married should be exactly the same whether they are gay or straight, because any institution that states it should be different is acting on prejudice. While Civil Unions are all well and good, and I would rather have them than nothing, it still seems to me as if we are trying to avoid the main issue and are still trying to say that homosexuality isn't good enough for marriage. Why?

Well, let's look at the case in point with Proposition 8: The concept was that the proposition was meant to 'reinforce a more traditional standard of marriage.' And by what standard? Well, the bible of course. I'd raptly enjoy to see anyone attempt to say that the traditional version of marriage that exists outside the bible is between one man and one woman since that would be easily disregarded with literally centuries of evidence to the contrary.

Ultimately I find all this nitpicking unnecessary. Anyone can see that Christianity influenced the American nation from it's birth in many fashions, although some less than others, and that ultimately a great many of our laws were produced from physical tenets of the bible's teachings. The laws against homosexuality, and until recently, sodomy, were a few of such laws. Now, I am not against Christianity, nor it's influence here in my country since I believe it has done many great things, and has helped unite people towards a common goal. That is the purpose of religion in culture, and that is why you see many great nations built upon religion.

But in this case, I believe that church and state must absolutely be separate. Make no mistake: The aversion against such laws are undeniably nothing but homophobia. There is simply no logical conclusion one can reach that says that legalizing gay marriage will hurt our society in any way.

Yet, for some reason, a simple vote can override this fundamental reality.

Quote from: thegayhare on January 04, 2009, 11:17:29 AMIf the civil institution is to be called a Civil union  then straight couple shouldn't be allowed to get married under federal law either.  they should be granted civil unions marriage if it is a purely religious ceremony should carry no weight with the legal ramifications  of our society.  If you were to go out and get married by your church then the govenment should not recognise that till you fill out the proper paper work and get your civil union too.  If you don't then you should not be allowed to file joint tax returns, can't have your spouse on your insurance, oh and no visitation rights.  Since that's purely a religious ceremony.

Now we're talking!

Quote from: thegayhare on January 04, 2009, 11:17:29 AMand as has been said before the Idea of marriage as a sacred institution is really a new concept.  for the longest time it was simply a business transaction.  a transfer of property  and in that the sacredness wasn't resolute.  the Idea of romantic love guiding marriage is only something that gained prominence in the last 60 to 80 years.   and again the sanctity of it is something thats even younger.

You've got it backwards.

The love match marriage was a very recent (as in, last 100-200 years) invention, and had been considered to be too unstable to form the basis of a marriage, but marriage has been considered by some to be a sacred act for quite a long time.  Remember how the Pope refused to give Henry VIII an annulment?

In fact, you can find this all the way back to the Bible:

Quote from: Mark 10:2-12Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?' He answered them, 'What did Moses command you?' They said, 'Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.' But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female." "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'

The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas (13th c) (http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/asacr-m.htm) identifies marriage thus:

QuoteMatrimony is the seventh Sacrament. It is a sign of the union between Christ and the Church. The efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent expressed in words effective in the present by the parties.

Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church.

This, of course only refers to the concept of a religious marriage, and civil marriage (civil unions, whatever) is still something else which should be open to all who are not otherwise civilly married.

I already wrote a paper about this in my Argument class, but what the heck. Everyone else got a wall o' text, I might as well submit mine.

In case it's unclear, I support gay marriage. I'm also a Catholic. (Hey, separation of church and state, right?)

The easiest arguments to disprove are the medically-based ones. Some people thought AIDS would become rampant if we let homosexuals marry. While it is apparently true that AIDS is more common among homosexual men, the idea that AIDS would spread if gay marriage was legalized is really stupid. If anything, it would decrease. People are going to have sex whether they're married or not. All that proves is that everyone needs to get checked and use protection before deciding to have sex, gay or straight.

Then there's the slippery slope argument: "If we legalize gay marriage, how do we know people won't try to get polygamy, bestiality, pr pedophilia legalized?" First of all, bestiality and pedophilia are illegal throughout the US, and that is spreading. (Yemeni child brides are divorcing their middle-aged husbands because of one girl who found out it was legal; things are looking up.) Secondly, though I disapprove of polygamy, what goes on behind closed doors is none of my business as long as no-one is getting hurt or forced to do something they don't want to do.

Quote from: superluser on January 04, 2009, 12:48:09 PM

QuoteMatrimony is the seventh Sacrament. It is a sign of the union between Christ and the Church. The efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent expressed in words effective in the present by the parties.

Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church.

Ahem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

Quote from: Black_angel on January 04, 2009, 01:45:57 PM

Quote from: superluser on January 04, 2009, 12:48:09 PM

QuoteMatrimony is the seventh Sacrament. It is a sign of the union between Christ and the Church. The efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent expressed in words effective in the present by the parties.

Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church.

Ahem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

Some religious groups ignore the overpopulation problem, and continue to promulgate their dogma regarding procreation. For instance, the catholic church still condemns the use of condoms as something that's against the catholic faith, and prefers to teach that people should not have sex out of wedlock. One of the direct results of this is that 30% of the African population is now infected with aids, and the rest largely has no idea to prevent it, because they have been educated by missionaries that do not teach about the use of contraceptives and the prevention of STD's, but stick to the official dogma.

Also, married gay couples can raise children by adopting them.
Some time ago I saw an episode of a tv-show where a person from one environment is placed in a family with conflicting world-views. In this episode a devoutly, borderline fundamentalist, woman was brought into a household where 2 gay men were raising several children who were all happy, healthy, and well-adjusted. It showed that homosexual couples can raise children just as well as straight couples do. This neatly solves a significant part of the problem of "where do we stash young orphans?".

I think America needs to get over itself and accept homosexuality as a normal part of the human condition. All the arguments against homosexuals and gay marriage are religious anyway, so any law that specifically inhibits the rights of this minority have no secular basis and should therefore be thrown out, like the segregation laws between black and white people in the mid-20th century.

To me, this whole debate about gay rights is one reason why religion should not be tolerated in the government or the courts of law.

Quote from: Black_angel on January 04, 2009, 01:45:57 PMAhem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

Just wanna pop in whit a "fun fact", some states in the US are passing laws to make it impossible for a gay couple to adopt a child.

Quote from: Black_angel on January 04, 2009, 01:45:57 PMThen there's the slippery slope argument: "If we legalize gay marriage, how do we know people won't try to get polygamy, bestiality, pr pedophilia legalized?"

``Do you, Fido McBarksalot, take Eve O'Human to be your lawfully wedded wife?  What's that?  Fido can't legally enter a contract?  Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that minors can't enter a contract!''

Quote from: Black_angel on January 04, 2009, 01:45:57 PMAhem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

There are quite a few issues involved in that, but I'll boil it down to two:

(1) Overpopulation is a problem in the developing world, but the developed world seems to be having the opposite problem.
(2) I never said that I agreed with Aquinas.  I do agree with him on the subject of Catholic religious marriages, though I disagree about civil marriage.

In any case, I think we're in agreement.

i often state that the only people i hate are the intolerant, and the french.

largely just to confuse people *shrug*



however i find it appropriate i stumble here just after a Swedish friend of mine said on IM that "*blink* Wow. I don't think I've ever read a joke this racist before, ever." and continued that the joke that offended him was "Where is the world's fastest chicken from?
Ethiopia!"

i then related to him that i once, at work, stood next to a racist joke-off between a skinhead and a baptist. the joke that most disturbed me was "how many Jews can you fit in a Volkswagen? two in front, three in back, and twenty four in the ashtray"

egad, that contest made my skin crawl, but there was nothing i could do as i had to continue doing my work. the boss was no help, as he actually joined in briefly....




i believe there should be a law allowing people within arms reach of someone making a racist joke is allowed one free suckerpunch, shinkick, or kneegroin per racist joke

Quote from: superluser on January 04, 2009, 03:28:37 PM

(2) I never said that I agreed with Aquinas.  I do agree with him on the subject of Catholic religious marriages, though I disagree about civil marriage.

In any case, I think we're in agreement.

Didn't mean to insinuate that I thought you agreed with him, but I guess I did. But yes, we do seem to agree. :)

Quote from: Azlan on January 03, 2009, 01:29:36 PMBe nice, some people may need to feel superior to others because in real life they amount to nothing.  Now this does not necessarily apply to anyone here.

How fortunate then that those people are quite aware of that, whether consciously or subconsciously, and will break down into pitiful self-loathing the moment you target the right spot on their fragile egos.

Hey, one might get banned, but personally the satisfaction of knowing that those who cause someone undeserved trouble suffer deeply and personally is sweet enough that at least I get over it pretty quickly. The only times it's an issue is when they don't, in which case they should be punished until they do.

From this I hope you can all discern at least one type of people I do not tolerate, nor believe that anyone should. :3

Quote from: Vidar on January 04, 2009, 03:02:18 PMTo me, this whole debate about gay rights is one reason why religion should not be tolerated in the government or the courts of law.

Actually, that's more a matter of principle, really. Seeing as governing a country is all about laws and economics, hard and tangible and down to earth issues, religion really doesn't come into it at all. Anything vague or requiring faith doesn't belong in a proper constitution, because it has to be a solid, unshakable basis for the structure of the country and the judicial system. It needs to be based on logic and hard evidence, not speculative and esoteric ideas.

As for that whole debate in the U.S., and the way the right wing are going on about things, George Washington himself said that 'the United States are in no sense founded upon the Christian religion'. Now, that might just have been an off comment, but considering the elements of the U.S. constitution and how concerned they were with the issue at the time, I'm sort of thinking that he might very well have been concerned about future issues...

Quote from: Stygian on January 04, 2009, 10:11:41 PM

Actually, that's more a matter of principle, really. Seeing as governing a country is all about laws and economics, hard and tangible and down to earth issues, religion really doesn't come into it at all. Anything vague or requiring faith doesn't belong in a proper constitution, because it has to be a solid, unshakable basis for the structure of the country and the judicial system. It needs to be based on logic and hard evidence, not speculative and esoteric ideas.

Actually, the very concepts of human rights and freedoms upon which our constitution is based are speculative and esoteric by their very nature.  They don't have any factual basis, because they are social and philosophical concepts and not anything concrete.  That's why so many systems of government exist, because you can't find a single concrete and scientific theorem to predict the best government.  It's nothing more than trial and error... alot more error than trial.

Quote from: Alondro on January 04, 2009, 10:55:09 PMActually, the very concepts of human rights and freedoms upon which our constitution is based are speculative and esoteric by their very nature.  They don't have any factual basis, because they are social and philosophical concepts and not anything concrete.  That's why so many systems of government exist, because you can't find a single concrete and scientific theorem to predict the best government.  It's nothing more than trial and error... alot more error than trial.

I'd have to disagree with the whole 'speculative' thing, if not with the 'esoteric' part. We base them around general human perceptions derived from instincts and observation. It's not the best ground to stand on, but it works. The key here is that if you're willing to take it far enough to disagree and say that they are still just ideas, and can or even should be disregarded as such and be replaced by some different standards, you're well into the ranges of absolute pragmatism, by the standards of which laws are nothing but figments that can be circumvented by means of enough practical power, and people are... Well, you get it.

The issue here isn't that all these things about most of modern society and human perceptions being based on ideas and half-truths, because that is true and should always be taken into regard. If, however, you believe it to be the right state of things and that any attempts to change the state of things or to work to try and actually build something and through effort enforce a will and its results on your surroundings is nothing but futile, you're just a nihilist, and you really should suffer in the solitude that you create for yourself, because you've practically chosen it.

I am of the opinion that the idea that we can all work together to accomplish something to heighten living standards, increase our power over our surroundings, and ultimately reach some sort of goal because humans are smart enough to realize the benefits is a lot more optimistic and well thought-out than the idea that God or some higher order simply commands us to be good, or we'll be sentenced to damnation and pain.

The issue of gay marraige to me is like a kids clubhouse with a big "no gurlz allowed" sign yet the kids inside are so busy trying to keep others out that they dont realize their club is rotting apart at the nails. And yet despite that, the ones outside still want to be part of the clubhouse.

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 04, 2009, 11:41:41 PM
The issue of gay marraige to me is like a kids clubhouse with a big "no gurlz allowed" sign yet the kids inside are so busy trying to keep others out that they dont realize their club is rotting apart at the nails. And yet despite that, the ones outside still want to be part of the clubhouse.

A very fitting metaphor in a way, though really not when you think about the legal implications of marriage. But it does beg the question; why the hell do we marry in the first place?

Quote from: Black_angel on January 04, 2009, 01:45:57 PM

Quote from: superluser on January 04, 2009, 12:48:09 PM

QuoteMatrimony is the seventh Sacrament. It is a sign of the union between Christ and the Church. The efficient cause of Matrimony is the mutual consent expressed in words effective in the present by the parties.

Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church.

Ahem. Aren't we as a planet overpopulated? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are annexing the one group of people who will never have a kid on their own. Legalizing it makes room for adoption and solves at least a small part of our planet's overpopulation problem.

Not really.
And lesbians can have children through artificial insemination, and gay men can do the same thing by having a female friend carry their child.
These are things that gay couples are doing right now, as well as adoption. Making gay marriage legal is going to do nothing to change the population.

also of note- matrimony was not a sacrament until quite late into the history of the church.

if you look deeper into the churches history you will find at times that priests promoted prostitution for the sake of a healthy marriage, at other times they were against marriage altogether, often owned brothels, and one of the popes had thirteen children in addition to the command of a standing army


a little bit of research will often crumble the common defenses in these 'god hates gays' arguments, for example the very few passages in the bible even related to homosexuality are dubious- several of them do in fact disapprove of homosexual intercourse, but the particular instances are disapproving of the fact it was prostitution and did not seem to care the gender of those involved. and of course the ever so fun Leviticus- sure he stated homosexuality was an abomination unto god, but he said the same of ground beef, garden vegetables, rabbits, rocks of certain colors, and a mere page or two later he went at length as to the proper way to beat your wife and who you can and cannot hold as a slave

some, to defend the bible, state that much of what was stated then no longer applies because the world has changed. if this is true, and i am not allowed to enslave any wandering Hittites i happen to find, perhaps the times have changed enough for homosexuality to be acceptable? after all, the bible prohibits lending money at interest, and the catholic church has more money in banks then any five major corporations you could name, its in their best interest to say the times have changed

however it still saddens me to think thousands who claim to follow a book that says 'love thy brother as you love thyself' and 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' will use that same book and claim it gives them the right to spew toxic amounts of bigotry and hate

...

You constantly surprise, and please, me, Brunhidden. I know you're well educated, and yet it surprises me when you come up with interesting bits like this.

I think it's a sad commentary on my state of mind, really. :-/


Do carry on, though. Please.

So wait... you people are saying non-Christians shouldn't get married? That's absurd, since marriage has existed long before Christianity was created. Long before Jesus was born, for that matter.

Note: here gay couples are allowed to get married but they're not allowed to adopt children. Funny it's the other way around in the USA.

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 05, 2009, 05:19:57 AMalso of note- matrimony was not a sacrament until quite late into the history of the church.

Since the 13th century, yes.

However, it's clear that it was considered a sacred religious something since the time of Jesus.

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 05, 2009, 05:19:57 AMif you look deeper into the churches history you will find at times that priests promoted prostitution for the sake of a healthy marriage, at other times they were against marriage altogether

I'm having trouble coming up with primary sources for this.  Can you help?

(I'll grant that the Church has been fairly corrupt at times and don't doubt the bit about owning brothels or the corrupt popes)

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 05, 2009, 05:19:57 AMthe very few passages in the bible even related to homosexuality are dubious- several of them do in fact disapprove of homosexual intercourse, but the particular instances are disapproving of the fact it was prostitution and did not seem to care the gender of those involved.

I'm wracking my brain for these examples.  There are a few famous examples of declaring homosexuality an abomination, and there are a few famous examples of declaring temple prostitution an abomination, but I don't recall temple prostitution being equated with homosexuality.  It's certainly possible, since it's been a while since I read the Torah.

At any rate... well, I'll save that for the next part.

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 05, 2009, 05:19:57 AMand of course the ever so fun Leviticus- sure he stated homosexuality was an abomination unto god, but he said the same of ground beef, garden vegetables, rabbits, rocks of certain colors, and a mere page or two later he went at length as to the proper way to beat your wife and who you can and cannot hold as a slave

I'm pretty sure that all vegetables, properly harvested, are kosher.  You can buy kosher ground beef here (http://www.kosher.com/store/kosher-meat/kosher-beef/ground-beef), and if I'm not mistaken, the colored rocks bit was something about the priestly garments and the tent for the Ark of the Covenant.

At any rate, eating shellfish is every bit as evil as hot man-on-man sex, according to the Hebrew Bible.

The reason for this is that what God was intending to rule out the practices of the people the Israelites were replacing (by the sword, yes), and thus to prevent them from becoming one people who did not worship Him.  So the condemnation is for the reason that the previous culture did it, not because it's inherently wrong.

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 05, 2009, 05:19:57 AMthe catholic church has more money in banks then any five major corporations you could name, its in their best interest to say the times have changed

While the total assets of the Church are difficult to discern (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617), the highest estimate I've seen is $100B, which is fairly paltry in comparison to ExxonMobil, total assets $242B.

Incidentally, this particular anti-Catholic argument is pretty storied by now and a brief Google search should provide all the information you need to debunk it.

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 05, 2009, 05:19:57 AMhowever it still saddens me to think thousands who claim to follow a book that says 'love thy brother as you love thyself' and 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' will use that same book and claim it gives them the right to spew toxic amounts of bigotry and hate

Amen to that.

Quote from: Gabi on January 05, 2009, 07:58:51 AMSo wait... you people are saying non-Christians shouldn't get married? That's absurd, since marriage has existed long before Christianity was created. Long before Jesus was born, for that matter.

I once got into an amazing argument with someone over this exact point.  Since Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father, He's been around since before any of those religions, and thus the sacrament of marriage has been around since the beginning of time.  He misphrased the next question, and suddenly I realized that the debate had suddenly become circular, and that neither of us would ever have to address the other's arguments.

It was really funny.  I'll see if I can find it.

Ok, so people who, like me, do not believe that Jesus existed before he was conceived, shouldn't be allowed to get married? This is about as ridiculous as religious bigotry gets. People were getting married long before Christians existed. You have no right to take that away from us because your church has decided to claim it as their own.

Quote from: Gabi on January 05, 2009, 09:35:18 AMOk, so people who, like me, do not believe that Jesus existed before he was conceived, shouldn't be allowed to get married?

No, I'm just saying that it was a fun argument.  I actually agreed with him, but the fact that he didn't ask the proper question meant that the argument would be more interesting if I responded that way.

The people on that list are known to be *extremely* pedantic, and arguments there can get pretty brutal in that respect.

Ah. Ok, then. I say let the Christian church decide what the Christian church will do, and the state do their own thing without interference. If the church does not want to allow gay couples a religious ceremony, that's up to them. Just like other religions can decide who can take part in each of their ceremonies. But marriage as a legal institution is none of their business.

Quote from: Gabi on January 05, 2009, 09:54:15 AM
Ah. Ok, then. I say let the Christian church decide what the Christian church will do, and the state do their own thing without interference. If the church does not want to allow gay couples a religious ceremony, that's up to them. Just like other religions can decide who can take part in each of their ceremonies. But marriage as a legal institution is none of their business.

It seems that most people on this board largely agree with this statement. It makes me wonder how prop 8 got a favourable vote in the first place. Is this forum filled with exceptionally tolerant and open-minded people, or is california filled with exceptionally small-minded bigots and homophobes, or is something else going on?

I think Vidar hit the nail on the head.

Quote from: Vidar on January 05, 2009, 10:46:54 AM

Quote from: Gabi on January 05, 2009, 09:54:15 AM
Ah. Ok, then. I say let the Christian church decide what the Christian church will do, and the state do their own thing without interference. If the church does not want to allow gay couples a religious ceremony, that's up to them. Just like other religions can decide who can take part in each of their ceremonies. But marriage as a legal institution is none of their business.

It seems that most people on this board largely agree with this statement. It makes me wonder how prop 8 got a favourable vote in the first place. Is this forum filled with exceptionally tolerant and open-minded people, or is California filled with exceptionally small-minded bigots and homophobes, or is something else going on?

One must note that America is a very 'right' (conservative) nation when compared to the rest of the world. Even with Obama ( who has been called communist, talk about having a small world view. )  at the handle it is still very right compared to European nations.  Which often means that 'freedom of speech' is held more dear than life itself, Calfifornia is although I heard mostly liberal seemingly very 'right' in how they think of people who have a different gender preference.

The Netherlands has their own local bigot here who has been rewarded a price for being a hatefu,l hate spreading, word spewing idiot. ( Geert Wilders ) Oh, and his party is 'Party of (the) freedom' I don't know what his standing is on gay marriage but I guess it is .... you know. He hates foreigners so much >.>

Quote from: Vidar on January 05, 2009, 10:46:54 AMis california filled with exceptionally small-minded bigots and homophobes, or is something else going on?

My question is who in their right minds sets up a constitutional amendment process that only requires a simple majority?

Quote from: Aiyno on January 05, 2009, 11:23:28 AMOne must note that America is a very 'right' (conservative) nation when compared to the rest of the world.

That's right.  I'd love to see a real European socialist leader on the Daily Show describing what he really thinks of Obama ``the socialist.''

For a few reasons, I nominate Tiny Cox.

Quote from: Vidar on January 05, 2009, 10:46:54 AMIs california filled with exceptionally small-minded bigots and homophobes, or is something else going on?

Filled with small minded fence sitters who fell victim to the propaganda of the small minded bigots, rather.

Case in point, my dad is normally a very tolerant guy, but he is against gay marriage because he actually believes that sanctity of marriage bologna.

Quote from: Reese Tora on January 05, 2009, 01:04:48 PM
Case in point, my dad is normally a very tolerant guy, but he is against gay marriage because he actually believes that sanctity of marriage bologna.

Hare or Zedd getting married, in my opinion, respects the sanctity of marriage a whole lot more then Britney Spears

My diagnosis is still that it's pure homophobia. America hasn't matured enough to get past it yet, so it would seem.

I personally think that Prop 8 was totally unconstitutional for many reasons, the most pertinent of which: One, being that it violated the equal opportunity of rights for a minority based on discrimination, and two being that it was essentially an amendment that enabled ex post facto laws.

It will come in time though. America has moved more and more towards tolerance and even equality as time has gone on. The best example of that being the status of ethnic prejudice and racism which has become less and less of an issue.

Interesting where this topic has gone given that it had originally been a post about how my workplace was ultra-conservative and that I would get in trouble for a mildly nsfw pic because it might offend someone.

On the issue of Gay Marriage though:  I don't personally see the problem with any of the solutions as long as the benefits are the same.  Call it a civil union or whatever.  Equality, to me at least, is the only issue that really needs to be addressed there.  Even then it's only equality in the eyes of the law.  Religions will always do their own things and to expect otherwise is just crazy.  One religion doesn't view a couple as married?  Fine.  Plenty of other religions/belief sets out there that might better suit the groups involved.  Marriage is not a strictly Christian concept (as I believe has been pointed out) and so feel free to look around.  Again, as long as the law sees it as the same thing in the end, who cares?  When the law doesn't see it as the same thing, then it's the onus of the people to either change it or themselves, or move somewhere that is slightly more open to their views.

Yeesh.  Next thing you know the religions will start warring with one another over definitions of marriage, god(s), and how one should go about their lives... oh wait.

Australia seems to be on the verge of passing a bill that will demand the filtering of their entire Internet for anything adult-rated and block it.

Even an evil Conservative hate-monger like me thinks this is stupid (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/28/internet-blocking-plan-sparks-furor/)

Now THAT'S extreme right-wingism!

Quote from: Vidar on January 05, 2009, 10:46:54 AM

It seems that most people on this board largely agree with this statement. It makes me wonder how prop 8 got a favourable vote in the first place. Is this forum filled with exceptionally tolerant and open-minded people, or is california filled with exceptionally small-minded bigots and homophobes, or is something else going on?

Don't get me started on the Proposition 8 thing. It absolutely amazed me - on a sickened level - to see a bunch of soulless homophobes crawling out of the woodwork for the purpose of shooting down the only opportunity god knows how many gay couples had to get married.

I'd like to think, though, that you're on the money with the forum thing. Different communities have different opinions, I think. I noticed that AOL News's community is pretty chock full of people with extremely, extremely, extremely fundamentalist viewpoints. (I want to troll that place so bad. :3) Case in point: the comments section regarding the recent debacle with the Muslim family being kicked off the airliner.

Quote from: Reese Tora on January 05, 2009, 01:04:48 PM
Case in point, my dad is normally a very tolerant guy, but he is against gay marriage because he actually believes that sanctity of marriage bologna.

Weirdly, my dad's sort of the opposite. I don't really know about his views on homosexuality in general, but he voted "no" on the Marriage Protection Act, supports gay couples getting benefits, and Proposition 8 made him feel ill.

I love my dad.

Quote from: Alondro on January 05, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
Australia seems to be on the verge of passing a bill that will demand the filtering of their entire Internet for anything adult-rated and block it.

Even an evil Conservative hate-monger like me thinks this is stupid (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/28/internet-blocking-plan-sparks-furor/)

Now THAT'S extreme right-wingism!

WHAT D:

and now to lighten the mood some what... Prop 8 the musical

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5-fZKg4Uj4

Yea I had hoped you guys would miss the idiocy that my government is capable of....I voted for the other guy too in 07 but he also apparently had this on the cards but only as an idea not as a policy....

I've made this suggestion elsewhere, but if you're really interested in the culture wars, listen to this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97998654&ps=cprs

It's by one of the founders of the religious right, who has left the movement and is now a very vocal critic of it.

(Interestingly, he wrote in McCain in `00 and `04, but voted for Obama in `08)

ehh, with the tolerance issues, look at stem cell research, also a huge issue... has the potential to cure hundreds of millions people, yet at the same time, a few close minded bigots are blocking it's research in the US, well, until jan 20th rolls around

Quote from: Basilisk2150 on January 05, 2009, 04:31:06 PM
ehh, with the tolerance issues, look at stem cell research, also a huge issue... has the potential to cure hundreds of millions people, yet at the same time, a few close minded bigots are blocking it's research in the US, well, until jan 20th rolls around

The stem cell research thing is also blocked by religious groups who claim that life begins at conception, and actually think the bible says so, even when it doesn't. The bible actually defines life as breath, so biblically speaking a child is not alive until it is born. In reality things are rather more complex, though there is a point in the development of a fetus where brain functions begin, and many countries put the limit for abortions at that point, but I digress.

Stem cell research could save a lot of people in the near future, if research could be done, and the best stem cells are embryonic stem cells.
Even with the limits placed on research today, medical science has done some pretty amazing things, like regrowing a man's upper jaw bone (which he lost due to cancer). Imagine what could be done if proper research could be done. In time we might be able to regrow (parts of) organs from peoples own cells, with all the benefits thereof.

It rather pisses me off that some people would stifle progress with nothing but their own preconceived notions about what they think their holy book says, and they can't even be arsed to get that right either.

haha, that just brought to mind an incident at a football game in november... it was hilarious, and if i ever see this guy again, i'm buying him a drink...

Soo, we're waiting to get into the stadium with all the other students, it's a huge line, as you'd expect, and there's this guy preaching atop a wooden crate, clean cut, pretty short, and he's shouting something along the lines of "you are about to engage in four hours of sin, are you going to repent after wards for four hours to make up for the sinning you are about to do?"  soo, the guy in front of me shouts back "hey, two things, where in the bible does it say that football is a sin, or anything we're doing here for that matter, and secondly, i want you to show me where it says in that bible your holding that for second we sin, we're supposed to spend an equal time repenting for sinning"
the bible thumper gives him a confused look, and shouts "my mother gave me this bible, and it's very dear to me" soo, the guy in front of me says "look, you can hold onto it, it won't even leave your hands, just show me where it says that football is a sin, and repentance means equal time repenting as sinning"
the bible thumper's reply "you are a blasphemer, and sinner, begone heathen so i can teach the lords will to those who will listen"

i just look back on that day and laugh

Pigskin, dear fellow. Leviticus states that the pig is an unclean animal, and that no part of it should be touched by god-fearing men.

One presumes that this also includes women, although I will grant that the relevant section doesn't seem to mention women, but does mention that the "cleaners" are allowed to touch pigs, and other unclean animals, if only to get them off the street.

I'm working from memory, here, but this gives you enough to look up the details...

according to Leviticus i have not only earned myself a personal place in hell but have probably entered the ranks of demon-hood if his claims on what constitutes a sin are taken literally...

be that as it may, the NCAA uses footballs that aren't actually leather, but a man-made polymer that allows better control of the ball and makes it easier to catch, particularity in the rain (which this season seemed to happen a lot)

Quote from: Vidar on January 05, 2009, 06:05:59 PMThe stem cell research thing is also blocked by religious groups who claim that life begins at conception, and actually think the bible says so, even when it doesn't.

The Bible does a pretty good job of looking like it says that life begins at conception:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. (Jer 1:5)

For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. (Ps 139:13)

In days past, the Catholic Church held onto the concept of foetus animatus (living fetus) and foetus inanimatus (not yet living fetus).  Modern science has largely removed the distinction between the two states, and so the Church has declared that there is no such thing as foetus inanimatus.

Quote from: Vidar on January 05, 2009, 06:05:59 PMStem cell research could save a lot of people in the near future, if research could be done, and the best stem cells are embryonic stem cells.

I don't know that you can really call them the best.  It's anticipated that they will provide more beneficial results than adult stem cells, but we're talking apples and oranges.

In any case, skin cells can be reprogrammed to do the same things as embryonic stem cells, so it's probable that the issue will be mooted soon.

Quote from: Alondro on January 05, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
Australia seems to be on the verge of passing a bill that will demand the filtering of their entire Internet for anything adult-rated and block it.

Even an evil Conservative hate-monger like me thinks this is stupid (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/28/internet-blocking-plan-sparks-furor/)

Now THAT'S extreme right-wingism!

User Friendly points out the flaw in this plan. (http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20081109)

Quote from: Vidar on January 05, 2009, 06:05:59 PM
Imagine what could be done if proper research could be done. In time we might be able to regrow (parts of) organs from peoples own cells, with all the benefits thereof.

I remember seeing the Manufacturing Body Parts video in this site a while ago. The similar article and video with the finger may be of interest too. (Warning: while there is little to no blood, there are body organs shown)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/22/sunday/main3960219.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/22/sunday/main3960219.shtml)

:januscat

Quote from: LionHeart on January 06, 2009, 12:24:08 PM

Quote from: Alondro on January 05, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
Australia seems to be on the verge of passing a bill that will demand the filtering of their entire Internet for anything adult-rated and block it.

Even an evil Conservative hate-monger like me thinks this is stupid (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/28/internet-blocking-plan-sparks-furor/)

Now THAT'S extreme right-wingism!

User Friendly points out the flaw in this plan. (http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20081109)

Feh.  They're actually supposed to be called 'tsunami'.  Mmmmm... porn tsunami... kinda like when a hentai manga warehouse in Kobe collapses.   :B

Quote from: LionHeart on January 06, 2009, 12:24:08 PM

Quote from: Alondro on January 05, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
Australia seems to be on the verge of passing a bill that will demand the filtering of their entire Internet for anything adult-rated and block it.

Even an evil Conservative hate-monger like me thinks this is stupid (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/28/internet-blocking-plan-sparks-furor/)

Now THAT'S extreme right-wingism!

User Friendly points out the flaw in this plan. (http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20081109)

And the flaw in that idea is that China has been successfully doing it for years.

Also:  porn tsunami added to my vocabulary.

Quote from: Valynth on January 07, 2009, 04:19:47 PM
And the flaw in that idea is that China has been successfully doing it for years.

I wouldn't say they've been doing it very democratically...

Quote from: Valynth on January 07, 2009, 04:19:47 PM
And the flaw in that idea is that China has been successfully doing it for years.

I beg to disagree. China has been doing it with varying degrees of success, for most of the people. Anyone technical can walk around the limitations with ease. Anyone semi-technical can also walk around the limitations, simply by either using a different search engine, or by using Tor, just as an example...

"Relatively successful" might better describe it. And China is a lot more restrictive on where the network lines come in than you might think; heck, it might be relatively trivial to set up a satellite link, which would bypass all the filtering at the expense of some latency...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 07, 2009, 04:58:20 PM

Quote from: Valynth on January 07, 2009, 04:19:47 PM
And the flaw in that idea is that China has been successfully doing it for years.

I beg to disagree. China has been doing it with varying degrees of success, for most of the people. Anyone technical can walk around the limitations with ease. Anyone semi-technical can also walk around the limitations, simply by either using a different search engine, or by using Tor, just as an example...

"Relatively successful" might better describe it. And China is a lot more restrictive on where the network lines come in than you might think; heck, it might be relatively trivial to set up a satellite link, which would bypass all the filtering at the expense of some latency...

You might not even need one of those. A foreign proxy server with SSL would be enough. All it takes is someone tech-savvy outside China with a distaste for dictatorial censorship and a bandwidth surplus, and there's no shortage of those.
The internet has ways of routing around censorship.

Quote from: Vidar on January 08, 2009, 04:08:26 AM
The internet has ways of routing around censorship.

True, but that takes time and effort and to the many, it isn't worth doing so.

I'm not sure if I want to say that what China is doing is wrong. One has to understand that for the past century there has been many major riots in that country. If all of those people would be allowed to think and do as they'd please, there would be even more riots and unrest. Alright, so some of the riots have been pro-China riots, but I bet that the number of those too would sky rocked if the information would be made available for the common folk.

Apropo, China is going to face some major difficulties in few years. The millions of single men might be an unpredictable factor, because the one-child-policy has broke the balance between girls vs. boys quantities. There just aren't enough women for all the men  in that country. Then there's the pollution, world's economy crisis, lack of oil etc.  Ooooh... There's a one helluva messing brewing in the East and I dread to guess what will happen in a next generation.

Quote from: Omega on January 14, 2009, 04:51:15 PM
I'm not sure if I want to say that what China is doing is wrong. One has to understand that for the past century there has been many major riots in that country. If all of those people would be allowed to think and do as they'd please, there would be even more riots and unrest. Alright, so some of the riots have been pro-China riots, but I bet that the number of those too would sky rocked if the information would be made available for the common folk.

That's about like saying "at least Stalin kept the peace" despite killing more Russians than Hitler killed Jews.

The primary flaw in your logic is that they have a reason to riot, namely the lack of any civil rights and being near-constantly starving due to the inadequacies of the system that they can't question(and thus fix) because they'd be killed or imprisoned(again see civil rights).  Another flaw is that other countries who have even less authoritative governments have been able to exist peacefully without bursting into riots despite their citizens being able to think for themselves.

\can't tell if you were sarcastic, but I think you're being serious
\\just because their economy is becoming capitalistic doesn't mean they're "free"
\\\slashies!

heh...



Let's concentrate on those two "flaws" that you mentioned.

Quote from: Valynth on January 14, 2009, 07:57:57 PM
The primary flaw in your logic is that they have a reason to riot, namely the lack of any civil rights and being near-constantly starving due to the inadequacies of the system that they can't question(and thus fix) because they'd be killed or imprisoned(again see civil rights). 

The civil rights are all fine and dandy, but unlike the illusion of freedom, they do come with price. The more the people, the higher the price. One does not simply let others speak freely, because they can abuse this freedom and make other people angry. One does not simply let people to choose their professions, because they would start dealing drugs or children. These are Chinese that we're talking about, (and I know this is gonna sound a bit prejudice, but...) they do not think like you. Hell, even I don't think like you.

Before I strand away from the topic, I just wanna put emphasis on one very important point that proves my argument: There are too many people in China. The more the people, the more difficult it is to control them. To give them what they want. So, instead of filling their stomachs and wallets, they fill their minds with ideas that they are the mightiest of the nations; that they are the righteous ones. It'll keep them happy, for time being.

Quote from: Valynth on January 14, 2009, 07:57:57 PM
Another flaw is that other countries who have even less authoritative governments have been able to exist peacefully without bursting into riots despite their citizens being able to think for themselves.

Again: Chinese. If there's one thing that I've learned about them, it is that they are proud and never want to admit that they are wrong. This is a generalisation of course. Not everyone from there are like that, but majority likely is (or at least the noisiest.) You can find same kind of traits from Koreans and Japans. That's also one of the reasons why they are so hardworking.

What works for some people doesn't apply to others.

Quote from: Valynth on January 14, 2009, 07:57:57 PM

That's about like saying "at least Stalin kept the peace" despite killing more Russians than Hitler killed Jews.

I loath Stalin more than Hitler, but that's probably because I know more about him than Adolf.

It's all about perspective, my friend  ;)

Hitler, ordered the killing of 8-10 million people in cold blood
Stalin, ordered the killing of 45 million people in cold blood

Hitler, villain of the world
Stalin, National hero, and pre-cold war ally of the free people of the world

the difference, Stalin had people killed in his own country as well as in places his army "took back", Hitler killed people in his own country, and places his army took over

amazing how history plays out, isn't it

(just as a side note, history is always written by the victor)
Edit: Not saying that i prefer, defend or even like either leader, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of that whole era...

I'm not sure, but I suspect Stalin had a longer stretch of time in which to do his stuff.
Hitler only had a window of about 5 years, I think.  And probably less territory.

Why exactly are we grading ruthless dictators on a scale, again?

Also, why the hell is this forum suddenly becoming filled to the brim with generalizations?

Quote from: Keaton the Black Jackal on January 15, 2009, 10:57:40 AM
Why exactly are we grading ruthless dictators on a scale, again?

I don't know.

QuoteAlso, why the hell is this forum suddenly becoming filled to the brim with generalizations?

That may itself be a generalisation.

Quote from: Tapewolf on January 15, 2009, 10:58:38 AM

QuoteAlso, why the hell is this forum suddenly becoming filled to the brim with generalizations?

That may itself be a generalisation.

I concede the point.

(Should I make a "struck my weak point for massive damage" joke or something?)

((Edit: woah, what happened to the quote tags?))

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 10:01:50 AM
One does not simply let others speak freely, because they can abuse this freedom and make other people angry. One does not simply let people to choose their professions, because they would start dealing drugs or children.

And what's wrong with that? Making people angry and smoking children, I mean.

Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 15, 2009, 11:04:39 AM

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 10:01:50 AM
One does not simply let others speak freely, because they can abuse this freedom and make other people angry. One does not simply let people to choose their professions, because they would start dealing drugs or children.

And what's wrong with that? Making people angry and smoking children, I mean.

Well, jeez, Cog, smoking children is a bit of a long way to go if you're in need of a fix. Try smoking puppies first, they're easier to take and the fur makes them easier to light.  :B

Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 15, 2009, 11:04:39 AM

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 10:01:50 AM
One does not simply let others speak freely, because they can abuse this freedom and make other people angry. One does not simply let people to choose their professions, because they would start dealing drugs or children.

And what's wrong with that? Making people angry and smoking children, I mean.

It increases the entropy

Quote from: Black_angel on January 15, 2009, 11:07:18 AM
Well, jeez, Cog, smoking children is a bit of a long way to go if you're in need of a fix. Try smoking puppies first, they're easier to take and the fur makes them easier to light.  :B

A little lighter fluid sorts that problem out easily...

YOU'RE ALL CRAZY. THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO INFLICT YOU ALL WITH LUNG CANCER BY LEGALIZING THE SALE OF SMOKING PUPPIES AND CHILDREN. :U YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS.

MY CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE HARDCORE

</sarcasm>

...God, this reminds me of how I tried to convince my mom not to smoke. I pushed every "Smoking is bad" educational book on her like she didn't already know that stuff. And when somebody online acted as though the addiction was no big deal and said if she was smart she would simply drop the habit altogether (he didn't seem to know what an addiction meant) I ripped him a new one.

((EDIT: I should probably clarify that I was seven when I did the educational book thing and eleven when I got into that asinine argument about smoking.))

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 11:08:55 AM

Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 15, 2009, 11:04:39 AM

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 10:01:50 AM
One does not simply let others speak freely, because they can abuse this freedom and make other people angry. One does not simply let people to choose their professions, because they would start dealing drugs or children.

And what's wrong with that? Making people angry and smoking children, I mean.

It increases the entropy

Mm.

Orderliness does not imply that something is better, only that it is orderly. I assume you do not mean entropy in the form of them becoming particles of smoke, as that will happen either sooner, or later, whether they die of fire or age.

What I mean is that entropy equals chaos, uncontrolled energy, radical factors that have potential to cause even more pain, misery, sorrow and rest of that kind of general unhappiness  :eager

Mmm, pass that puppy over the left man.. I want to get a hit of that.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 10:01:50 AM

Quote from: Valynth on January 14, 2009, 07:57:57 PM
The primary flaw in your logic is that they have a reason to riot, namely the lack of any civil rights and being near-constantly starving due to the inadequacies of the system that they can't question(and thus fix) because they'd be killed or imprisoned(again see civil rights). 

The civil rights are all fine and dandy, but unlike the illusion of freedom, they do come with price. The more the people, the higher the price. One does not simply let others speak freely, because they can abuse this freedom and make other people angry. One does not simply let people to choose their professions, because they would start dealing drugs or children. These are Chinese that we're talking about, (and I know this is gonna sound a bit prejudice, but...) they do not think like you. Hell, even I don't think like you.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 10:01:50 AM

Quote from: Valynth on January 14, 2009, 07:57:57 PM
Another flaw is that other countries who have even less authoritative governments have been able to exist peacefully without bursting into riots despite their citizens being able to think for themselves.

Again: Chinese. If there's one thing that I've learned about them, it is that they are proud and never want to admit that they are wrong. This is a generalisation of course. Not everyone from there are like that, but majority likely is (or at least the noisiest.) You can find same kind of traits from Koreans and Japans. That's also one of the reasons why they are so hardworking.

Wow, much racism in these quotes.  No matter how I try to slice it, it seems that you're trying to say "the Chinese are inferior animal-people who will constantly kill themselves if they are allowed freedom."

Again, as I've pointed out, other nations have been able to work peacefully without needing to control the people (mostly in Japan and South Korea ironically enough).  At this point the only real argument you have is that "well...  They're Chinese and subject to my racial view of them."

Oh...  And they're good workers not because they never want to be corrected, it's because of a cultural precedent to be diligent in ones work (as well as the Chinese government forcing them to work at penalty of death).  If the source of their work ethic was, as you said, "to never be wrong," they would be horrible workers whose clashes with their employers would render them constantly unemployed.

Personally i saw his point of view more of a, they've got a different culture, and therefore different way of reacting, i saw a program last week on the discovery channel... did you know that McDonald's had to train the people of china how to use a drive through... they'd buy the food, then park, and eat it inside... i found the whole thing perplexing... apparently until 2007 china had never had a drive through...

Quote from: Basilisk2150 on January 15, 2009, 01:39:24 PM
Personally i saw his point of view more of a, they've got a different culture, and therefore different way of reacting, i saw a program last week on the discovery channel... did you know that McDonald's had to train the people of china how to use a drive through... they'd buy the food, then park, and eat it inside... i found the whole thing perplexing... apparently until 2007 china had never had a drive through...

I'm not saying that they don't have a different culture (again they have a precedent for diligence in their work), but I'm also saying that the culture is hardly an excuse for oppression.  Keep in mind this isn't a Dynasty they have (which would be culturally relevant), it's a communist dictatorship whose realised that communist economics are shit.

Quote from: Valynth on January 15, 2009, 01:44:07 PM
it's a communist dictatorship whose realised that communist economics are shit.

... when run by corrupt people (ie, humans) and hence not following at least some of the base concepts of communism.

Quote from: Valynth on January 15, 2009, 01:35:22 PM

Wow, much racism in these quotes.  No matter how I try to slice it, it seems that you're trying to say "the Chinese are inferior animal-people who will constantly kill themselves if they are allowed freedom."

No. nononononononononononono-no-no-no-no-niiiiie.

You are not getting what I'm trying to tell you. I blame myself. Well, at least basilisk got what I was after.

Your point seems to be that the government is the evil. I'm trying to tell you that the society is created by the people. In other words, you cannot blame the people in charge without blaming the people. China is not ruled by a tyrant (not after Mao anyway). It is ruled by a small group of people who are balancing on the edge of a knife. Make a wrong decision and you got millions of people wanting to kill you. A perfect society is created by perfect people. Not so perfect society is created by not so perfect people.

I'm not a racist. I've proven that to myself time after time after time again. A racist would say that these people suck be cause they're Chinese. I say that these people are Chinese, because they think different from us. Please don't mix the order of these. If I don't like some members of minority, because they are noisy, tend to do nothing and offending everyone else, does not make me a racist. I dislike them because I don't like them as a person, not what they are. Besides, I've never said that I hate Chinese or that they wouldn't be equal to the rest of the world! I said (or at least very much tried to) that there is probably a very good reason why their freedom is limited. If they want it to change, they can damn well do it by themselves.

Quote from: Valynth on January 15, 2009, 01:35:22 PM
Again, as I've pointed out, other nations have been able to work peacefully without needing to control the people (mostly in Japan and South Korea ironically enough).  At this point the only real argument you have is that "well...  They're Chinese and subject to my racial view of them."

I'd not say that I have a "racial view" but a national view or cultural view. If other nations have worked their way to the human rights, then what's stopping China? Oh wait, now I remember: The masses. You can't just feed, educate, protect every Chinese out there. There's just too many of them. They're trying their best, I'm sure, but nobody wants to sacrifice the present for the future. If it were up to me, I'd just leave them with their own problems for a while. They don't want other nations medling with their affairs. Besides, telling other people what to do what you think is right is kinda naïve, no offence.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 02:41:29 PM
China is not ruled by a tyrant (not after Mao anyway).

*whistles innocently*  What?

I have to say I see what you're getting at Omega.  Their culture and upbringing are different from ours (I've been host to three young Chinese girls who have come to Canada for school) and it's a completely different concept from what you find out here in North America.  As a result to try and apply our cultural methods, standards or concepts to them won't work.  They don't see it the way we do and we don't see it the way they do.  It's as simple as that.  This isn't to say that they can't see or understand our view, just that by the way they are brought up that's just not how it's been put to them.  This as a result will give them a likely hood to react very differently from you or I.  What they need based off of what they expect and have been raised to understand is different from ours.  Neither is inferior, just different.

exactly!

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 12:54:12 PM
What I mean is that entropy equals chaos, uncontrolled energy, radical factors that have potential to cause even more pain, misery, sorrow and rest of that kind of general unhappiness  :eager

Order does not imply happiness. I can be quite happy smoking my children, thanks.

With that train of thought in mind, happiness doesn't imply better either.

If I have two piles of shit - one very messy, uncontrolled pile, and one very tidy, easily tracked and controlled pile, I still have a pile of shit. I say this to demonstrate that orderliness itself does not infer anything positive about what is organized. One can have an organized mass slaughter, or organized tanks rolling through Tienamen square, just as much as orderly streets or a census.

A lot of horrifying things have been done in the name of the preservation of order, if you consider certain things to be more important than keeping order.

Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 15, 2009, 02:57:14 PM

Order does not imply happiness. I can be quite happy smoking my children, thanks.

Now see here, sir. I was just trying to say that drugs break lives. If you absolutely must to misunderstand me, then add some kind of joke in your argument, alright. Otherwise I get too serious and t

I'm not gonna have another debate on which are cuter: puppies or kittens.

I don't believe in absoluts, but that doesn't mean I have to agree everything that you think. Yes too much lawful aligment is bad, but the opposite isn't exactly too tempting either, now is it?

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 02:41:29 PM

Quote from: Valynth on January 15, 2009, 01:35:22 PM

Wow, much racism in these quotes.  No matter how I try to slice it, it seems that you're trying to say "the Chinese are inferior animal-people who will constantly kill themselves if they are allowed freedom."

No. nononononononononononono-no-no-no-no-niiiiie.

You are not getting what I'm trying to tell you. I blame myself. Well, at least basilisk got what I was after.

Your point seems to be that the government is the evil. I'm trying to tell you that the society is created by the people. In other words, you cannot blame the people in charge without blaming the people. China is not ruled by a tyrant (not after Mao anyway). It is ruled by a small group of people who are balancing on the edge of a knife. Make a wrong decision and you got millions of people wanting to kill you. A perfect society is created by perfect people. Not so perfect society is created by not so perfect people.

I'm not a racist. I've proven that to myself time after time after time again. A racist would say that these people suck be cause they're Chinese. I say that these people are Chinese, because they think different from us. Please don't mix the order of these. If I don't like some members of minority, because they are noisy, tend to do nothing and offending everyone else, does not make me a racist. I dislike them because I don't like them as a person, not what they are. Besides, I've never said that I hate Chinese or that they wouldn't be equal to the rest of the world! I said (or at least very much tried to) that there is probably a very good reason why their freedom is limited. If they want it to change, they can damn well do it by themselves.

And my point:  No, no they can't.  The military of China won't let the Chinese masses change the system.  it's not that the Chinese necessarily like their system it's just that they can't do jack about without getting killed/imprisoned by the military junta that runs China.  And how does the military do this?  Brand everyone who disagrees as a traitor/rioter.

And thus the reason China "has so many riots" is explained.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
Yes too much lawful aligment is bad, but the opposite isn't exactly too tempting either, now is it?

That depends - is the lawful alignment engaging in heinous violations of the basic dignity and rights afforded to man, in the name of order?

I do think you are right. There is a balance to be struck. This is not to say that the correct one has been found in China.

I'm not saying that China couldn't do better, but I am saying that you people are complaining on things that you cannot help. Oh sure, you can whine about it all you want, but that's about it you can do.

And me? I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't like to whine and tries to bring opposing point of view to the conversation so that people would not end up just agreeing with each other.

So basicly you think that the people of China are being opressed by their goverment. Geez-a-weez. We better send in the sub to deal with this bad goverment and free the common people. Am I tripping, or does that sound familiar somehow?

:redrum

If the Chinese want change, they are gonna do it by themselves, no matter the cost. If they don't, they just probably want to make by with what they have, as do I. The change will probably come, but we'll get less bodies if we let it come slowly.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 03:28:40 PM
I'm not saying that China couldn't do better, but I am saying that you people are complaining on things that you cannot help. Oh sure, you can whine about it all you want, but that's about it you can do.

And me? I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't like to whine and tries to bring opposing point of view to the conversation so that people would not end up just agreeing with each other.

So basicly you think that the people of China are being opressed by their goverment. Geez-a-weez. We better send in the sub to deal with this bad goverment and free the common people. Am I tripping, or does that sound familiar somehow?

:redrum

If the Chinese want change, they are gonna do it by themselves, no matter the cost. If they don't, they just probably want to make by with what they have, as do I. The change will probably come, but we'll get less bodies if we let it come slowly.

Who'se warmongering? I agree with you entirely. I am merely trying to make a point about order, and what it means.

Besides, productivity, in my philosophical debate? It's more likely than you think. There are wars that are not fought on fields, by soldiers and tanks, but of ideas in peoples hearts and minds.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2009, 03:28:40 PM
If the Chinese want change, they are gonna do it by themselves, no matter the cost. If they don't, they just probably want to make by with what they have, as do I. The change will probably come, but we'll get less bodies if we let it come slowly.

...China had a population estimate of around 3 billion people in 1980-90 as of 2007 they have a population estimate of 1.7 billion.  That certain doesn't entail a lot of bodies now does it?

I have a very simple opinion about China:

China = Matrix

its sad when they ban movies like 'antz' because apparently individualism is considered offensive, dangerous, and treason

China is changing, and it will continue to do so, but it will come slowly. A lot of chinese have been brought up with absolute respect for authority, and with little respect for the individual. These things are deeply ingrained in Chinese culture, and deeply ingrained things are very difficult to change. If you try to do this too fast, there will be a backlash, and you might end up making things even worse. The current situation in China is far from ideal, but I am hopeful that it will slowly change for the better.

Quote from: Valynth on January 15, 2009, 03:59:42 PM


...China had a population estimate of around 3 billion people in 1980-90 as of 2007 they have a population estimate of 1.7 billion.  That certain doesn't entail a lot of bodies now does it?

Oh for the crying out loud. You're just twisting my words whenever you can.

First of all, where did you learn that there was 3 billion people in China two centuries ago?

Second of all, do you think that millions dead by violence in a short amount of time is better than millions dead by old age in a long period of time? People equals bodies, but there's a difference if the bodies are scattered onto streets and battlefields than collected and burried.

Out of interest, Omega, where did you get the two centuries figure?

I mean, I'd be interested to know where his figures for two years ago, and for 19-29 years ago, came from. I just can't see where "two hundred years ago" was listed...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 16, 2009, 07:23:51 AM
Out of interest, Omega, where did you get the two centuries figure?

I mean, I'd be interested to know where his figures for two years ago, and for 19-29 years ago, came from. I just can't see where "two hundred years ago" was listed...

I think it's a typo maybe?  Likely he meant two decades?

Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 16, 2009, 07:39:46 AM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 16, 2009, 07:23:51 AM
Out of interest, Omega, where did you get the two centuries figure?

I mean, I'd be interested to know where his figures for two years ago, and for 19-29 years ago, came from. I just can't see where "two hundred years ago" was listed...

I think it's a typo maybe?  Likely he meant two decades?

yes -.-

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.


... and the question still remains: where did the numbers come from? And how much guesswork was involved?

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 16, 2009, 09:30:26 AM
... and the question still remains: where did the numbers come from? And how much guesswork was involved?

this is your bum, this is a road map, and waaaay over there is google which you can use to find the official census reports

The problem with that, Brun, is that most people can't tell the difference from the first thing to everything else.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on January 16, 2009, 03:17:52 PM
The problem with that, Brun, is that most people can't tell the difference from the first thing to everything else.

well those people can shove it up their hobo for all i care

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 16, 2009, 03:14:19 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 16, 2009, 09:30:26 AM
... and the question still remains: where did the numbers come from? And how much guesswork was involved?

this is your bum, this is a road map, and waaaay over there is google which you can use to find the official census reports

I'm not asking where _I_ can find these numbers. I'm asking where Valynth found his.

I'm sure, if I looked around, I could find official census numbers. I'm just curious as to what standard of reliability Valynth is quoting from, since that has further repercussions than just if he got it right this time...

Well, for figures that I managed to find here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s1288.pdf

First number is 1990, second is 2000, third is 2008

QuoteChina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,148,364 1,268,853 1,330,045

Also a note from the same source:

QuoteWith the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the U.S. government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.

What Kobra and Brunnhinded seems to fail to grasp, is that rest of us are trying to roast Valynth's family jewels! I'm not intrested what it the actual population of China, but where Valynth got this ridiculous number of THREE BILLION PEOPLE in a single nation!

I just want to know what's his source or what babies he's been smoking.

Based on experience, asking Valynth to cite his sources is about when he stops responding...

 :tumbleweed


right, moving on....

Quote from: Zina on January 18, 2009, 08:07:42 AM
Based on experience, asking Valynth to cite his sources is about when he stops responding...

we should do it earlier then

Quote from: Zina on January 18, 2009, 08:07:42 AM
Based on experience, asking Valynth to cite his sources is about when he stops responding...

Mostly because it, at that point, simply dissolves into a shit-storm of "but this guys says that!"  And on the internet, you can find anyone to say anything that looks legitimate, but is a fake.

There's also the point that you have a tendency to ban me when I do.

Asking you to tell us where you got your information is not too much to ask. The fact that you apparently refuse to do so implies that you simply pulled some numbers out of your ass.
Really, if you're going to engage someone in a debate, and you start sprouting out random facts to help your argument, you should be able to back up your 'facts' if they're ever questioned. That's pretty common knowledge.
And when have you ever been banned for citing your sources?

Quote from: Zina on January 19, 2009, 02:29:03 AM
Asking you to tell us where you got your information is not too much to ask. The fact that you apparently refuse to do so implies that you simply pulled some numbers out of your ass.
Really, if you're going to engage someone in a debate, and you start sprouting out random facts to help your argument, you should be able to back up your 'facts' if they're ever questioned. That's pretty common knowledge.
And when have you ever been banned for citing your sources?

Back in some global-warming discussion.  Infact, I do believe it was you who did the banning.

Mostly because I used the word "bash" to say what my sources did to the "man makes global warming" argument that some were making.  And no warning was ever issued I believe.

Also, it appears I was using faulty data.  Apparently some Chinese didn't report deaths in the earlier census in order to get more rations.  Apologies all around.

AS for the 1.7 billion, I can't find the particular article that mentioned it, but if it is true I wonder how they did that.... (http://countrystudies.us/china/33.htm) with a government trying to keep the population down.

If I recall correctly, that entire thread was warned, since it was getting very heated and hostile. We had asked everyone to tone it down.
You were not banned because of your sources. You were banned because you said "Got any other views I can bash as completely as this?" in a thread where we told everyone to keep it civil and not get hostile. I believe that was explained to you as the reason for the ban. NOT because of your sources. That is just ridiculous.

Quote from: Zina on January 19, 2009, 03:08:34 AM
If I recall correctly, that entire thread was warned, since it was getting very heated and hostile. We had asked everyone to tone it down.
You were not banned because of your sources. You were banned because you said "Got any other views I can bash as completely as this?" in a thread where we told everyone to keep it civil and not get hostile. I believe that was explained to you as the reason for the ban. NOT because of your sources. That is just ridiculous.

To be honest, I felt it was more silly than agressive (like a Dwarf downing the most power ale in the building then asking "got any more?"), but eh, you made the call I got booted for a few days. *shrugs* live and learn.

Quote from: Valynth on January 19, 2009, 02:17:53 AMMostly because it, at that point, simply dissolves into a shit-storm of "but this guys says that!"  And on the internet, you can find anyone to say anything that looks legitimate, but is a fake.

Can you point me to a discussion where that, in fact, happened?

I think someone once took me to task for talking about the Stern Report, but I think I just said that you either accepted Stern or you didn't and moved on.  Hardly a shitstorm.

Valynth, You weren't banned for a "few days". You were banned for a whole 24 hours. And -I- did not make the call. All the moderators vote whether or not something is ban worthy. The majority of the mods made the call. I was simply the one that got tagged with the job of handing out the ban.

And if you have any problems with something the moderators do, you are more than welcome to talk to one of us privately and not air your frustrations in a completely different thread a whole three months later.

Quote from: Zina on January 19, 2009, 03:24:48 AM
Valynth, You weren't banned for a "few days". You were banned for a whole 24 hours. And -I- did not make the call. All the moderators vote whether or not something is ban worthy. The majority of the mods made the call. I was simply the one that got tagged with the job of handing out the ban.

And if you have any problems with something the moderators do, you are more than welcome to talk to one of us privately and not air your frustrations in a completely different thread a whole three months later.

*sigh* I've been over it for a long time (hence my fuzziness on the issue), my whole thing was to make a jest at past events.  Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

Unless you are really bad at conveying humor through text, I don't really see how any of that was "making jest". If you were over it, I don't see why you'd bring it up at all, since it had NOTHING to do with this topic. Or why you would edit your previous post form "the mods made the call" to "you made the call".
Really, we've gone from talking about China's population to claiming that "Zina banned me for several days for citing a source, with no warning whatsoever". Why? Why did that happen, Valynth?
But if you're telling me that was all in jest, well all righty then.
Don't I look silly.

Quote from: Valynth on January 19, 2009, 04:07:06 AM
*sigh* I've been over it for a long time (hence my fuzziness on the issue), my whole thing was to make a jest at past events.  Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

You missed the emoticon. It's hard to tell the difference in a text-based medium without some sort of indicator.

Meh, go ahead and be right Zina, I really don't give a fly rat's buns about this anymore.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 19, 2009, 04:19:37 AM

Quote from: Valynth on January 19, 2009, 04:07:06 AM
*sigh* I've been over it for a long time (hence my fuzziness on the issue), my whole thing was to make a jest at past events.  Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

You missed the emoticon. It's hard to tell the difference in a text-based medium without some sort of indicator.

Emoticons?!  What are those?  You mean the smiles right? (now which one was the humorous-sarcasm one?)

Could be this one ' :U ' Guess that's why Amber uses it every often.

But seriously though, at the moment, I don't know what to think about you as a person. You did claim that China had three billion people living in it, but on the other hand, you dislike the moderator's. I feel like beating you sensless and giving you an award of some sort.



Apropo, did you know that the dolphins that live in the China's Yangtze river's dolphins are dying (if not dead already) for pollution. Now the government has been trying to find a cure for this germ that kills the river mammals, instead of fixing the real problem: pollution. Well, it's not really doing that either. You see, it turned out that killing the germ wasn't as easy as they thought, so they're closing the research and denying that they knew anything in the first place. That's politics for you.

Quote from: Valynth on January 19, 2009, 04:28:51 AM
Meh, go ahead and be right Zina, I really don't give a fly rat's buns about this anymore.

That would be because I AM right, hurr hurr. You just realized what a huge tool you made yourself out to be, backtracked like crazy, and then when all else failed, you fell back on the old "I was only joking!" routine. And then you did the whole "I don't care about this anymore" thing, which is odd considering YOU were the one that brought it up in the first place. And then I was all "Oh ho ho Valynth, will you ever change?"
And please don't.
Because where will I go when I need a chuckle? :C

Quote from: Zina on January 19, 2009, 04:41:50 PM

Quote from: Valynth on January 19, 2009, 04:28:51 AM
Meh, go ahead and be right Zina, I really don't give a fly rat's buns about this anymore.

That would be because I AM right, hurr hurr. You just realized what a huge tool you made yourself out to be, backtracked like crazy, and then when all else failed, you fell back on the old "I was only joking!" routine. And then you did the whole "I don't care about this anymore" thing, which is odd considering YOU were the one that brought it up in the first place. And then I was all "Oh ho ho Valynth, will you ever change?"
And please don't.
Because where will I go when I need a chuckle? :C

I hear Fark has a few trolls.  Try over there.

Really?  I didn't realize you had an action figure!  I'm impressed.

Enough.  Continued posting on this will result in thread lockage and other unpleasant side effects.

we are now talking about unicorns... i mean...

You know what they say about unicorns....  They're always *is killed by the Internet Censorship Squad(tm) before he can finish that joke*

I never liked the fact that King Haggard was so intolerant of free unicorns.

What do you people think?

I think I'm impressed you've read The Last Unicorn. I've heard it's pretty good, actually. Been meaning to get around to it.

Quote from: Cogidubnus on January 19, 2009, 10:48:49 PMI think I'm impressed you've read The Last Unicorn. I've heard it's pretty good, actually. Been meaning to get around to it.

Haven't read it.  I saw the Rankin-Bass film.  From what I've heard, I need to read the book, eventually.

This isn't the first time I've referred to it, though.

i made the mistake of reading it in highschool and carrying it around where people could read the cover.


....jackasses kept asking what i was reading every other day, despite my efforts to use book covers, i thought i may as well confuse them with strange titled books....



to those who have not read the book- the movie is surprisingly true to the book with the exception that the book is very dark and just a touch morbid. schmendric may look like a goofball on film but he is actually quite the tortured literary character... also he eats stray dogs at one point of the story

Hrm. It's been so long, I don't remember if I ever saw this or not.

I know I saw a movie about someone saving the last dragon, in a sort of "roll the dice and be transported into the game" sort of thing, kind of. It was a bit more complex than that, but I don't remember the details. I've been trying to find it ever since, with varying degrees of effort...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 20, 2009, 03:45:30 AMHrm. It's been so long, I don't remember if I ever saw this or not.

Rankin-Bass is pretty distinctive.  If you've seen a film where characters look like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFfBuzddUMk), and it doesn't take place in Middle Earth, you've probably seen it.

Hrm. I'd guess not, then.

You've piqued my interest now.  The only two stories that I can think of that could be construed that way would be The Neverending Story and The Color of Magic.  The latter removed all references to gaming in the film version, though.

Would you care to describe the story?

I just did. I said, it's been a long while since I saw it, and I can't remember most of it.

Damn frustrating, in fact...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 20, 2009, 09:27:01 AMI just did. I said, it's been a long while since I saw it, and I can't remember most of it.

You can't remember anything else?  Not even something like the color of a character's hair or a brief snippet of dialogue?

Not reliably. Not without it likely coming from some other movie entirely.

We're talking a movie I haven't seen for over 20 years, here. I think. Which gives you some idea of how far back to look. It had live action at either end, and there was some excuse as to why the hero couldn't go back afterwards, so he ended up playing a board game that resembled his lost friends. IIRC, the middle section was all cartoon.

Does that help at all?

 :intro


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Jumanji_poster.jpg/200px-Jumanji_poster.jpg)

http://www.imdb.com/keyword/dragon/?title_type=feature&sort=release_date

Quote from: Kasarn on January 20, 2009, 10:12:01 AM
http://www.imdb.com/keyword/dragon/?title_type=feature&sort=release_date

Heh. I think it's this one (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083951/), but since I can't really find a copy of it to watch and see, it's purely theoretical...

On a related note:

I like films where the dragon isn't the bad guy.

I really loved 'Dragonheart' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116136/).

i feel that hollywood in general is intolerant towards the bad guy... they almost never win... and lets be honest, some of them are just soo awesome you really want them to win too

llearch- yes that is the movie, and i believe the entire thing was cut up into small youtubeable pieces if you're willing to watch over ten consecutive ten minute segments

the movie was flight of dragons... an oddly adapted version of the dragons and the George

since in the book the dragons don't breath fire,  there wasn't an evil wizard just the amorphous Dark powers.  and both the hero and the girl came from the future in the book threw a scientific experiment.

Mostly they kept some of the names the same Gorbash and his uncle had the same name, and Sir brian is an important char in the book but in the movie they made Giles o the wold a gnome in the book he was the female archers father.. and she doesn't fall for brian but anouther archer named Dyffadd.  the only char they realy kept true to form was Arrgh the english wolf


Edit:I was wrong they changed the knights name from Brian Nevel Smythe to Orin

Quote from: thegayhare on January 20, 2009, 03:40:04 PM
the movie was flight of dragons... an oddly adapted version of the dragons and the George

actually the movie was extremely loosely based on a book of the name 'flight of dragons' which was actually a ver clinical look at historical records of dragons, any time dragons appeared in folklore or myth, and then trying to use science to figure out how a dragon could fly, breathe fire, and not leave a fossil record. the book is actually somewhat compelling as they tie up all the loose ends, however its not proof but merely saying its entirely possible and it would be nice to know that dozens of different accounts of the same creature throughout the historical world are actually based on something.

as that would make for a somewhat boring movie they based the movie only slightly in the book, and slightly in everything else they wanted to. if you watch the movie closely there is a scene where the senior dragon teaches the junior dragon (been a long time, but i think the human from 'now' was placed into the younger dragons body) how the flying and fire breathing works, with a chalk diagram and taking bites off of limestone.

dang, its been so long sinse ive seen it, but i don't have tie time to see it all on youtube

that may be Brun but most of the characters and locations were taken from Dragon and the George.  (and your right about what happens the man from our time  takes up residance in Gorbashes body  something that takes place in the movie and in the book I mentioned)

some have miner name changes... the main char, and the knight for example but most are the same.

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 20, 2009, 03:27:47 PM
llearch- yes that is the movie, and i believe the entire thing was cut up into small youtubeable pieces if you're willing to watch over ten consecutive ten minute segments

This is what playlists are for.

I am intolerant of this topic.   >:[

Quote from: Basilisk2150 on January 20, 2009, 03:23:33 PMi feel that hollywood in general is intolerant towards the bad guy... they almost never win... and lets be honest, some of them are just soo awesome you really want them to win too

That actually goes back to the Hays Code:

I. No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.

This is done:

1. When evil is made to appear attractive and alluring, and good is made to appear unattractive.

2. When the sympathy of the audience is thrown on the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, sin. The same is true of a film that would thrown sympathy against goodness, honor, innocence, purity or honesty.

Note: Sympathy with a person who sins is not the same as sympathy with the sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime: we may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done. The presentation of evil is often essential for art or fiction or drama. This in itself is not wrong provided:

  a. That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later in the film the evil is condemned or punished, it must not be allowed to appear so attractive that the audience's emotions are drawn to desire or approve so strongly that later the condemnation is forgotten and only the apparent joy of sin is remembered.

  b. That throughout, the audience feels sure that evil is wrong and good is right.

That really can't apply to films like "Underworld" and "Alien vs Predator", since in both cases both sides were technically bad guys. 

And in the 1970's version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the aliens won.

Quote from: Alondro on January 21, 2009, 09:26:21 AMThat really can't apply to films like "Underworld" and "Alien vs Predator", since in both cases both sides were technically bad guys. 

And in the 1970's version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the aliens won.

Good thing those were made after the Hays Code ended, then.

in a way we are also being flooded by the antihero scenerio- all these shows with a cerial killer as the protagonist, the main character having a debilitating mental ailment that forces them to be a jackass, and of course the vampires are people too kind of movie


the bad guys can be the good guys sometimes, but occasionally they do win. its more dramatic and all around better because of its rarity and difficulty



anyone who has read 'villains by necessity' will know what im talking about. and if you haven't, go read it, now. also start a petition for someone good to make this into a movie

Quote from: Alondro on January 21, 2009, 09:26:21 AM

And in the 1970's version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the aliens won.

Thanks for spoiling that, jerk  :blankstare

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 22, 2009, 02:08:44 AM

anyone who has read 'villains by necessity' will know what im talking about. and if you haven't, go read it, now. also start a petition for someone good to make this into a movie

Is there a some way to get it as an e-book?

Since this is about tolerance issues, a certain issue has occurred to me that presents me with a bit of a dilemma.  I mean no offense to anyone when I say this (and hope it isn't going overboard as far as topic is concerned) but:

While I have traditionally considered myself sympathetic to transsexuals and lamenting the fact that I haven't seen them portrayed accurately in any media (don't know why, being neither transsexual myself nor knowing anyone who is--guilty liberalism, maybe?), it has only recently occurred to me (not based on anything anyone else said) that they can be compared in my mind to people who get cosmetic surgery (liposuction, botox, etc.), something I have NO sympathy for.

For awhile I tried to resist such a comparison, going so far as to try to come up with an argument that would allow me to sympathize with transsexuals that couldn't apply to cosmetic surgery patrons--and I haven't been able to come up with anything.  Each argument I made, I was able to come up with a counter-argument.  I personally am against surgery in general where it isn't necessary for your health or your life (personally, meaning I don't care so much if it's someone else getting the surgery but I don't want it myself), but the only way to consider sex change operations in that category is to stretch the definitions: "health" meaning emotional and not just physical health, even though surgery is decidedly physical, and "life" meaning the individual might commit suicide without the surgery--but that's an active decision, not directly due to the individual's condition.  And no matter what, I don't have sympathy for people who get cosmetic surgery, and don't intend to ever do so.

I guess my point here is that I don't quite know how I feel about the matter now: I don't want to be against transsexual rights, but I don't know, given that I've discovered my own double standard, how I can do otherwise without being sympathetic for cosmetic surgery (which I don't want to do either).  I don't want to appear unsympathetic, but neither to I want to be afraid to speak my mind because people might perceive me that way.

If someone can give me a convincing argument that I can't counter-argue, great--otherwise, I wonder what other people might think of this (and apologies if the topic is too risque or if it's been addressed elsewhere--these are large forums, and I'm new here).

Quote from: Baal Hadad on January 23, 2009, 05:38:08 PMIf someone can give me a convincing argument that I can't counter-argue, great--otherwise, I wonder what other people might think of this (and apologies if the topic is too risque or if it's been addressed elsewhere--these are large forums, and I'm new here).

I can give you a good counter-argument.  It's not iron-clad, but it's not swiss cheese, either.

What do you say to women who get breast cancer, have mastectomies and then have breast implants to make them feel whole again?  Or people who get into accidents and have facial reconstructive surgery?

From what transsexuals say, having the wrong sex for your sexual identity is like having a deformed part of your body, and sex change makes them feel whole again.

Would you deny such surgery to one but not the other?  My philosophy is that so long as I don't have to pay for it, experience it, or watch it, I don't care what you do to your own body.

Quote from: superluser on January 24, 2009, 02:44:41 AM
I can give you a good counter-argument.  It's not iron-clad, but it's not swiss cheese, either.

What do you say to women who get breast cancer, have mastectomies and then have breast implants to make them feel whole again?  Or people who get into accidents and have facial reconstructive surgery?

From what transsexuals say, having the wrong sex for your sexual identity is like having a deformed part of your body, and sex change makes them feel whole again.

Would you deny such surgery to one but not the other?  My philosophy is that so long as I don't have to pay for it, experience it, or watch it, I don't care what you do to your own body.

Thank you for the argument, and it sounded good until I realized that there's one flaw with it: a transsexual is born that way, while the people you speak of aren't born with their conditions.  I suppose if someone were born without a face and wanted facial "reconstructive" surgery it would be closer to the mark, though, so it's something of a help.

Incidentally, I want to make it clear that I don't oppose surgery for someone else in the sense of opposing legislation that would allow such surgeries, or supporting legislation that would ban them--I'm speaking more about being personally sympathetic vs. frowning upon it.  As you say, and as I said earlier, I don't have to care as long as it's not my body getting the surgery.

when a longtime acquaintance of mine decided to swap genders it came as quite a shock to me. for a while i didn't even comprehend what had happened, and for over a year i had vocabulary failure- after five years of using male pronouns you cant switch overnight to female without a few flubbs. however i don't judge her, its entirely her own body and her own choice and she knows full well that she willingly signed up for the hardships along the road.

i offer her support, though i have only a dim grasp of the situation. i offer her a shoulder to cry on and a sympathetic ear when the world is too much for her to handle without swinging a punch. she is my acquaintance of many years, regardless of what pronoun i use for her, and i am not so horrible a person to stop caring about someone just because they put on a skirt and wish to change themselves.

in some strange way i actually envy her, in that she has such courage and freedom of control over her own life that she could make such a drastic change and not really regret or look back




then again im not really in any position to judge, considering i am currently a housewife, my actual wife knows more about cars and sports then i would ever want to, i do 95% of the cooking and my wife has changed precicely one diaper in the last month, and i am only a pink apron away from having to hand in my testicles for a pair of ovaries. at least i have a beard and hairy arms to help people guess my gender

Quote from: Omega on January 23, 2009, 04:48:52 PM

Quote from: Alondro on January 21, 2009, 09:26:21 AM

And in the 1970's version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the aliens won.

Thanks for spoiling that, jerk  :blankstare

Given the original was published 52 years... sorry, 5_3_ years ago (dammit, where does the time go?), I don't think "spoiler" is quite the word for it. It's like spoiling the ending of Titanic by saying that the ship sinks; while technically accurate, it doesn't say anything about the story itself.

Quote from: Baal Hadad on January 24, 2009, 03:10:14 AM
Thank you for the argument, and it sounded good until I realized that there's one flaw with it: a transsexual is born that way, while the people you speak of aren't born with their conditions.  I suppose if someone were born without a face and wanted facial "reconstructive" surgery it would be closer to the mark, though, so it's something of a help.

If it helps, replace the argument with "club foot" or "harelip" or something equally non-life-threatening. (if either of those leaves you in the dark, feel free to ask for enlightenment)

Quote from: Brunhidden on January 24, 2009, 05:28:26 AM
then again im not really in any position to judge, considering i am currently a housewife, my actual wife knows more about cars and sports then i would ever want to, i do 95% of the cooking and my wife has changed precicely one diaper in the last month, and i am only a pink apron away from having to hand in my testicles for a pair of ovaries. at least i have a beard and hairy arms to help people guess my gender

Heh. Remind me to ask Theora to get you a pink frilly apron, and post a pic of you wearing it. Just because I want to see the cognitive dissonance on the part of the forum-goers. ;-]

I hate this entire thread so much.

Why hasn't anyone said something stupid enough to let me just lock it already?

Cause we exist to make your life a living hell?  :B

Quote from: Paladin Sheppard on January 24, 2009, 12:00:17 PM
Cause we exist to make your life a living hell?  :B

I shall consider this possibility. :U

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 24, 2009, 11:59:11 AM
I hate this entire thread so much.

Why hasn't anyone said something stupid enough to let me just lock it already?

I hate furries.

Well now you are just stating the obvious.  I mean really, who doesnt?  Freaking furries and their jiffing.

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 24, 2009, 12:07:45 PM
Well now you are just stating the obvious.  I mean really, who doesnt?  Freaking furries and their jiffing.

Fursecutor!!!  :U LOL

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 24, 2009, 12:07:45 PM
Well now you are just stating the obvious.  I mean really, who doesnt?  Freaking furries and their jiffing.

Since that wasn't stupid enough I was so, so tempted to quote this (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.programmer/browse_thread/thread/7169ea8eacd9482c).  But that would probably have counted as spamming and I'd have had to warn myself or something.

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 24, 2009, 12:07:45 PM
Freaking furries and their jiffing.

I find them somehow calming. Their off-this-world attitude is what I need in order to forget the cruel reality that binds us and makes us cynical to the core.

*Charline pops in, violating the laws and therefore necessiating that this thread be locked at once!*  Here I am all you lucky people you!   :intro

And I LOVE furries!  With BBQ sauce.   >:3

*OMG!!! A VORE REFERENCE TOO!  LOCK THE THREAD!* 

No need to thank me Amber.   :3  I would also have written this entire thing in L33t, but I don't know enough.

EDIT:  I COULD ALSO REDO IT ALL IN CAPS.

Quote from: Paladin Sheppard on January 24, 2009, 12:15:30 PM

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 24, 2009, 12:07:45 PM
Well now you are just stating the obvious.  I mean really, who doesnt?  Freaking furries and their jiffing.

Fursecutor!!!  :U LOL

*appears with a lit molotov cocktail in one hand*

No, no, That's just light-hearted fun.

*tosses the cocktail into a crowd of furries*

THAT'S fursecution...

Any one else care to join?  I've got crates of these things.

ok i think this thread is done everyone say their goodbyes before it gets removed  :<

Okay.

Alas poor thread, we hardly knew ye!  :crying

hmmmm, I wonder if this was the longest non-arena thread...

Ahh well, doesn't matter.  Bye thread!

never forget the brave sacrifice of this thread

actually it was a fucking shit thread fuck off you stupid shit

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 24, 2009, 12:07:45 PM
Well now you are just stating the obvious.  I mean really, who doesnt?  Freaking furries and their jiffing.

Darn Jiffing! (http://www.jif.com/aboutjif/images/history_shoot.jpg)

Why can't you furries use Skippy like the rest of us?! :E

Reese: I always thought jif was a bathroom scourer liquid. That white liquid with little lumps in it.

Quote from: Tapewolf on January 24, 2009, 12:05:49 PM

Quote from: Amber Williams on January 24, 2009, 11:59:11 AM
I hate this entire thread so much.

Why hasn't anyone said something stupid enough to let me just lock it already?

I hate furries.

I hate furries too.

We have so much in common.

all furries are being banned from the board

About freaking time.

I'll miss you guys.

Quote from: bill on January 25, 2009, 10:08:16 AM
all furries are being banned from the board

Thank you, bill, for performing your civic duty.

Godspeed.












(you black emperor)

boring music IMO

Blasphemy! That band is awesome. :<

or at least one of their songs is

Besides, isn't this thread supposed to be about being tolerant, even of other people's noises that they like to call music? ;-]

no it's about tolerance issues, many of which i have

Ya' bunch of godless heathens.

Yes?

So?

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it customary to mock, deride, and then ignore a thread put into the mine? And not say..... continue right where it left off?

Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 27, 2009, 01:20:59 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it customary to mock, deride, and then ignore a thread put into the mine? And not say..... continue right where it left off?

Yes. But you've completely missed the point that we WEREN'T being serious about this.

Except for the hating furries thing.

Nobody likes furries.

Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 27, 2009, 01:20:59 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it customary to mock, deride, and then ignore a thread put into the mine? And not say..... continue right where it left off?

no, that's pretty much standard procecure

Quote from: bill on January 27, 2009, 03:17:43 PM

Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 27, 2009, 01:20:59 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it customary to mock, deride, and then ignore a thread put into the mine? And not say..... continue right where it left off?

no, that's pretty much standard procecure

Oh, well in that case, generic negative, contrary, and insulting comments to everyone who has made more than two posts in this thread since it was sent to the mine.

Insult.

Quote from: Corgatha Taldorthar on January 27, 2009, 04:29:15 PM
Oh, well in that case, generic negative, contrary, and insulting comments to everyone who has made more than two posts in this thread since it was sent to the mine.

Huh. Nothing specific, clever, or witty about that.

I mean, if only we had a wheelbarrow or something...

I've got a holocaust cloak.

I play Oskar Schindler, in attack mode, to counter your Holocaust cloak.

I use the item Chronic Bankruptcy.  Oskar Schindler faints.

horrible taste  :<

Thank you. :U

Quote from: VSMIT on January 27, 2009, 07:00:50 PMI've got a holocaust cloak.

Where did you get that?

At list price, I think.

You should always buy those things factory direct, skips all the markups.

Drat!  Will I ever learn?

I am intolerant of lactose.
It's not a quality I am proud of.

Dangit Zina!  We've moved on.  How am I going to find new Holocaust cloaks at low low prices?

no this thread needs to stay on topic.


Also, try Costco.

Which topic, Z?

The best one.

Sad... this used to be an interesting thread.

Pfft!  What are you talking about?  This is still an interesting topic.  I mean, if you can get a good line on Holocaust Cloaks, I might finally be able to get that Bag of Holding I wanted.  I've already got the Travel Set of Holding and I'd like to have a matching set.

You actually managed to find a english-to-french dictionary of holding?! I thought those were recalled after the incident?! D:

Yeah, I had to ebay it though.  Because of the recall they became a collectors item.  Though I've heeded the warnings and not looked up the question about goat cheese.  *shudders*

Well then whats the point of having one in the first place then? :U

Because it looks really pretty.

Quote from: VSMIT on January 27, 2009, 07:18:30 PM
I use the item Chronic Bankruptcy.  Oskar Schindler faints.

Ha! That was exactly what I had planned! By killing my Oskar Schindler, you have activated my back-up card, Steven Spielberg, at twice his original attack points! And that's not all! I use Oscar Nomination to increase holyfuck this is stupid even for me.

Pardon me, gentlemen. Carry on.

*eats ice cream*

i'm in a bad mood right now

How would we tell?

i just can't be bothered to say anything offensive


that's how bad

*looks at Bill*
OH NO! The end is near!

:scaredkitty

*tsks* Every time you show an annoying kitty picture, God wishes he never made the stupid things

 >:3 Come on, be a little tolerant.
It's one of the forums smilies after all. :kittycool

Tolerant? Why? This thread is in the mine. That seems like a directive from the powers that be to persecute and thrash at all viewpoints other than your own :p

This thread is called "Tolerance issues" and he told you to be more tolerant. It was a joke.
Ha. Ha. Ha.

We really need to change the topic name.

If you love something, don't try and change it.

If you love something, eat it. If it comes back, it truly loved you. If not, it never really loved you anyway...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on January 29, 2009, 10:49:38 AMIf you love something, eat it. If it comes back, it truly loved you. If not, it never really loved you anyway...

So expired yogurt loves me?

Yes.  Right up until after it leaves you for good.  Such a fickle food.