Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 18, 2014, 04:39:33 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 453
26  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 15, 2014, 11:56:07 am
Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

You're talking about the concept of "Separate spheres." Like mass-produced family tartans, this timeless tradition was an invention of Victorian England and was unknown in the 18th century, not to mention countries outside the Anglosphere.

That is just one form one form of the idea. What was somewhat new in Victorian England was an association between this gender complementarity and a public vs private sphere distinction.   

here's an interesting quote to put this into perspective:
Quote
It is also worth noting that marriage contains both secular and sacred aspects. To quote French historian Georges Duby, "Marriage, which is necessarily overt, public, ceremonious ... is at the center of any system of values, at the junction between the material and the spiritual. It regulates the transmission of wealth from one generation to another ... because marriage also regulates sexual activity concerned with procreation it belongs to ... the realm of what is numinous and sacred" (The Knight 19). On the one hand, marriage is secular because it involves the transfer of property. On the other hand, it is sacred because it can result in procreation, and because the bond between husband and wife mirrors the bond between mankind and the Divine. In Christian terms, the husband-wife relationship is analogous to that of Christ and the Church. This dual sacred/secular nature had a definite impact on the development of both the philosophy and the customs of marriage, as we will see later.
Medieval and Renaissance Marriage

Anyone who has ever seen a Yin Yang symbol shouldn't doubt that the concept of gendered complementarity is ubiquitous in human culture.
27  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Myths of 1992 on: September 15, 2014, 12:26:12 am
I was hoping for more interesting options. The myths I remember hearing in '92 were that the EU would be the Beast from the Book of Revelations and that piss and sweat are made of the same thing.
28  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: A fun fact about billionaires. on: September 15, 2014, 12:14:59 am
Is there any reason to think that Atlasian policies would actually result in more taxable income by billionaires than IRL?

Yes:




Sure we've had inflation, but isn't nominal GDP growth more relevant here?
29  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 14, 2014, 11:33:40 pm
Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

Yes, that's a crucial aspect to this.  If you look at symbology and myth and other cultural expressions surrounding marriage and gender, including the marriage rite itself, this is precisely what you see. 
30  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 14, 2014, 10:13:35 pm
You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.

The premise of your question is incorrect.  Women as property and white supremacy have not historically been near-universals in human societies.  Maybe you can think of a better example?

They kind of have, especially the first one, but whatever. How about slavery? You can't get any more human than that.

I don't believe it can be said that slavery, as widespread as it has been, is a near human universal either. But in any case, while it is immoral I don't think you could call it irrational unless you are using a definition of rationality based on some kind of Natural Law philosophy.   It should be easy to see how slavery might be considered rational in the sense of having a social utility.  If we didn't have a 13th amendment then a law which allowed for slavery might well pass a rational basis review.  It would have indeed been awfully pretentious and incorrect to assume that ending slavery would not come at a cost and cause unforeseen problems, as much as it was right and worth it.
31  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 14, 2014, 06:36:59 pm
You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.

The premise of your question is incorrect.  Women as property and white supremacy have not historically been near-universals in human societies.  Maybe you can think of a better example?

bedstuy, I have presented you with reasoning as to how tradition can act as a repository of knowledge and you didn't like it one bit.  I presented a few possibilities as to what the functional nature of this knowledge could possibly be in the case of marriage as a gendered institution, or at least might reasonably be thought to be, which you didn't seem to give much consideration. I could present more, but to what end?  What you seem to be looking for is proof that gendered marriage has a utility to the fulfillment of some Hobbesian social contract. I am sorry to disappoint you, but my initial post in this thread should have tipped you off that wasn't forthcoming from me and involved a different kind of reasoning. It is coherent, whether or not it is convincing.
32  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Political Quiz List. Are you a Quiz Whiz? on: September 13, 2014, 01:03:35 pm
http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/

This relatively young, largely independent group holds a mix of conservative and liberal views. And while more lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, Young Outsiders generally express unfavorable opinions of both major parties. They are largely skeptical of activist government, as a substantial majority views government as wasteful and inefficient. Yet many diverge from the two conservative typology groups – Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives – in their strong support for the environment and many liberal social policies.

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/how-millennial-are-you

37 (Gen X)

http://www.gotoquiz.com/results/james_burnam_s_liberal_conservative_reactiona

Conservative 95%
(Liberal 56%, Reactionary 11%) 
33  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 13, 2014, 12:25:43 pm
No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"Gay people should be married because homophobes are homophobes. It's airtight reasoning. They didn't in the past because of they hated gays. Okay not really, they weren't thinking about it. No, yes it was because of bigotry. Or not. They were just stupid and irrational. Not like me, I'm super smart. No really, I really am. Maybe sexual orientation something 14th amendment something logic something human sacrifice."

see I can play that game too.
34  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 13, 2014, 12:25:00 am
No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.
35  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: forum community feedback thread on: September 13, 2014, 12:04:57 am
You are the Augustus Caeser to Inks' Nero.

If Inks was Nero then we are in for the Year of the Four Emperors.
36  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Air Force to atheist Sgt.: "Recite 'So help me god' or get out" on: September 13, 2014, 12:00:27 am
An oath began as a mystical thing, and I think retains a bit of that quality to it even today.  It is possible for an atheist to have a commitment that is of an almost religious quality.

What does that even mean in this context? Why should that mean this man should be forced to invoke a god he doesn't believe in?

I would think it means he shouldn't have to, as it would contradict his religious commitment.  I wonder if there could be some other source of help he can reference that is more in line with his beliefs.
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders backs Obama on ISIS on: September 12, 2014, 11:45:34 pm
Bashar Assad is sticking up for them.

He doesn't mind them being bombed, but he wants the US to ask permission.
38  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: A fun fact about billionaires. on: September 12, 2014, 11:34:07 pm
Is there any reason to think that Atlasian policies would actually result in more taxable income by billionaires than IRL?
39  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 12, 2014, 11:28:04 pm
You are right, it is not a weird thing that marriage law ends up in court. The problem I have is with the argumentation being made. I am open to the idea that there is an argument a court could make declaring same-sex marriage to be valid that I would find convincing. I've been trying to think of it and I haven't gotten there.  Perhaps it exists already and I haven't read it, but the general trend has been to depend heavily on arguments that say that appeals to tradition are irrational and any opposition amounts to nothing more than bigotry.

Who is demonizing people, you ask?  It certainly seems that you are demonizing opponents of SSM as a group in what you just said. Given the discrimination and bullying that sadly still exists in our society, it is understandable, but neither accurate nor helpful to do so.

I think that experience is a good argument for same-sex marriage, given the fact that people have formed relationships patterned after marriage whether they are recognized by the state or not. I don't see any reason why logic alone would dictate that same-sex marriage would be allowed. I
think it is worth asking in your parable why there was vanilla ice cream in the freezer in the first place. I don't think we can assume it was merely accidental.
40  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Complete List of Senate Candidates on: September 12, 2014, 10:26:36 pm
Thanks ElectionsGuy!

No 3rd party in NH?  Boo. At least they got on the ballot in OK this time.
41  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Simple Truths Silver Mine on: September 12, 2014, 10:12:51 pm
good as a general comment on individual politics what-ifs:

Quote
Of course it's easier to vote for the guy who promised some stuff on the liberal dream list (not even Nixon could get a similar minimum income proposal through) and was never actually President, rather than the person who was actually President and *gasp!* actually had to make tough decisions like oh, say, the other 42 Presidents we've had.
42  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Air Force to atheist Sgt.: "Recite 'So help me god' or get out" on: September 12, 2014, 10:09:08 pm
An oath began as a mystical thing, and I think retains a bit of that quality to it even today.  It is possible for an atheist to have a commitment that is of an almost religious quality.
43  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 12, 2014, 10:01:49 pm
Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?

First off, we're talking about the US anglo-American culture which is relevant to US law.  Right?  What happened in Italy or Russia is not going to have much relevance to US law.

The crux of your argument is that people in the past didn't see fit to let gay people get married, so we don't necessarily even have to consider allowing SSM today because sometimes (why?) law and reason must be trumped by tradition.

To me, that's basically taking a judgment of gay people who you and I would vehemently disagree with when it comes to sexual orientation at total face value.  Just, as we would vehemently disagree with them about the role of women or race or a number of other social issues, we find their opinions about homosexuality to be extremely wrong and horrible in a certain sense.  So, why are we listening to their judgments today when we disagree about the basic assumptions that underpin their reasoning?  We've been over this like 4 times and you refuse to answer, so maybe this is a waste of time, but whatever.

I haven't made the argument that same-sex marriage is something that shouldn't even be considered. That would be hypocritical to absurd degree on my part.  What I have been saying is that when it is considered, then tradition, while not necessarily dispositive, is relevant. By all means tradition should be questioned, but we should also allow it to question the assumptions of modernity.  Instead, we have seen courts go out of their way to trash tradition. It is indeed odd, in the Anglo-American context, given that precedent and the common law are nothing if not appeals to tradition.  We wouldn't even care what these people in black robes say were it not for a tradition to do such a thing.

I don't believe that support for same-sex marriage should actually require the demonization of its opponents, denigration and derision of tradition, and having views on sexuality that can be accurately summed up by a Macklemore song.  In the case that it does, I'm afraid that it fails to be something I can support.

You seem to keep coming back to this idea that marriage being defined as a man and a woman depended on certain false views about sexual orientation, but then you seem to say they didn't think about such things, so I'm confused about what you are claiming. I don't see why views about sexual orientation as typically defined are necessarily behind views about marriage, but maybe you can clarify this for me.
44  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 12, 2014, 04:23:09 pm
Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?
45  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 12, 2014, 04:04:41 pm
If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

There weren't prohibitions against inter-religious marriage. The idea wasn't conceivable. There was no way to get married. If a Jew and a Catholic in Russia in 1790 wanted to marry, who would have conducted it? How would they have registered it? I'm all ears.

There have been interfaith marriages in many places and times across millennia, but perhaps it was not possible in the case you mention given the institutional arrangement of that setting. But the prohibition is implicit is in the refusal of the religions to conduct and sanction such a union is it not?  Cannot a person conceive of something which may not possible in actuality? My impression is that it isn't that it would be considered not a true marriage for two people of different religions to wed, but that a person could not be considered a true follower of their religion if they did so. Perhaps in some theology it would not be considered a true marriage either, but then they probably wouldn't consider it a true marriage if two people married who were both of the same 'false' religion either. 

As for your camera-phone comment, it doesn't work as an analogy because a camera phone at a wedding would not have a meaningful opposite to people in the past. To say "there was no camera phone at a wedding" would not make any more sense than to say "there was a camera phone at a wedding." On the other hand to say "marriage is between a man and a woman" would have made sense regardless of how much sense it would have made sense to say "marriage can be between a man and a man." Ancient peoples created myths and poems and art centered around the idea of marriage as a union between male and female. They didn't do any of that for the non-existence of cell phones.
46  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 12, 2014, 01:46:26 pm
If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.
47  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: people you miss on: September 12, 2014, 01:01:22 pm
That was quite the post, wormy. Glad you are doing well.
48  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of WillipsBrighton on: September 11, 2014, 01:46:17 pm
As for the issue with the poor, words fail me... I can only say: LOL Flanby!

On the other hand, he seems genuinely interested in international politics. I don't share most of his opinions on issues, but I think gaffes are not a reason to make someone the Forum's punching bag (see Snowstalker). Neutral.

Pretty much. Awful views but he makes some high quality posts.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1960: Johnson vs. Goldwater on: September 11, 2014, 01:20:28 pm
While the Johnson-Kennedy ticket is perceived as hailing from the more conservative wing of the party, Goldwater provides a strong contrast when it comes to the New Deal legacy.  The contrast when it comes to civil rights is less clear: the record of Goldwater and Bush are more pro-Civil Rights than their Democratic counterparts, but Johnson has expressed a broader willingness for federal action than has Goldwater. To provide a more liberal alternative, Senator Wayne Morse runs on an independent ticket with Leo Isacson, formerly an American Labor Party Congressman from the the Bronx.



Senator Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX)/ Senator John F. Kennedy (D-MA)  448 51.9%
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)/ Senator Prescott Bush (R-CT)  89  42.2%
Senator Wayne Morse (I-OR)/ Fmr. Rep. Leo Isacson (I-NY)  5.5%
Unpledged Electors .2%
50  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which term do you prefer? on: September 11, 2014, 01:37:01 am
Ideally it would be HBT (Homosexual, Bisexual, Transsexual) or HBTQ (+Queer) There really no point in differentiation of male and female homosexuals. However if it must be gender-specific obviously LGBT is preferable.

HBT sounds like it's a hormone.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 453


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines