Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 18, 2014, 10:41:06 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1019
1  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone II - Less Boring, More Whoring on: September 17, 2014, 10:43:51 pm
I hate allergy season.  (For me this time of year is allergy season.) Despite taking a bunch of stuff, I still had fun with a runny nose today (moderately better than a clogged nose).  Plus I couldn't fully enjoy the trivia contest at the bar tonight.  Our table won three rounds of shots, but I didn't want any alcohol to go with the medicine (I was already feeling somewhat loopy even before going in the bar) so I let other people at my table have the shots I won.  We normally do well enough that my usual order is only a diet coke and some waffle fries, plus something alcoholic to drink if we don't do well in the early rounds.  Since I have a fair distance to drive afterward, I don't want too much alcohol in my system.  Even with no alcohol tonight, I was not in the best of shape driving wise tonight.
2  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: TOEFL Certificates And IELTS Certificates Available on: September 17, 2014, 02:16:45 pm
wow this sounds very legitimate please tell me more!

oh wait you can't because i just muted you Sad

He/she's on mod review, not muted.  And you're a moderator, so you can still read any posts that he/she submits for moderation.


#buzzkill

@Twit, this is not #twitter.
3  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Cool chart about religion and politics in the US on: September 17, 2014, 05:41:03 am
I don't see Baha'i on there. Sad I'm guessing it would be towards the bottom center?

Actually, it makes some sense for them to be off the chart.  One of the tenets most Baha'i hold to is non-involvement in partisan politics.
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Previous Poster's Signature: The Wrath of Khan on: September 16, 2014, 10:04:43 pm
At least he's an real Green Party pol and not some Dem who's trying to astroturf after being kicked out for being too strange or some celeb who is dallying with politics.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure... on: September 16, 2014, 09:54:35 pm
That's up there with "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice."

I do not miss the arguments of the 90s and early 2000s.

I was going to say that the argument made by Mr. Gosnell of Spartanburg was way better than that one.

No it's not.  I fail to see how Mr. Gosnell's argument has any logical foundation.  The "gay men have the same right as straight men to marry the woman of their choice" is logical but depends upon a view of marriage based on complementary gender roles and a view of gender as being purely anatomically determined.  Yet even with opposite sex marriage, marriage under the law has long since abandoned the first viewpoint and kept the second more out of inertia than any other reason.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure... on: September 16, 2014, 03:02:20 pm
It's literally the exact same "logic" people used against legalizing inter-racial marriage. "You still have equal rights: The right to marry anyone from your race!"

Actually, it's worse than that.  It would be as if one argued back then that restricting interracial marriage is all right is acceptable if all races are affected, but that for instance a law that only banned whites from marrying non-whites while allowing people from different non-white races to marry would be wrong.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Current laws against SSM are not unequal? Sure... on: September 16, 2014, 09:41:48 am
I thought I'd seen some rather convoluted arguments in the SSM debate, but this one from the letters to the editor of the local newspaper Monday has to take the cake.
http://www.thestate.com/2014/09/15/3677195/monday-letters-gay-marriage-a.html
Quote from: Richard Gosnell, Spartanburg
Equality and justice are two of the most abused terms in America, with definitions that are agenda driven. Actual inequality is if you target one race or gender.

A law against gay marriage just for men is inequality. A law against gay marriage, men marrying men or women marrying women is equality. Because it does not target a race or gender.
Let the laughter commence, and rightly so.
8  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: American forces bomb ISIS targets in Iraq on: September 16, 2014, 09:00:05 am
Assad will only press the attack on ISIL when the moderates are all gone in the belief that so-called realists will then back him for the reasons you describe pendragon.  The sad thing is he might be right, but that doesn't mean that we should abandon the moderates and start backing Assad yet.
9  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone II - Less Boring, More Whoring on: September 15, 2014, 11:50:49 pm
Even though halloween is still a couple weeks away, I already know what I'm going as.  I going as Gandalf the Rainbow.  It is also when I'm coming out to a few more people.

It was Saruman who was the wizard of rainbows.
Quote from: Gandalf recounting his capture by Saruman at the meeting in Imladris in the Fellowship of the Ring
“‘For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!’

I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.

‘I liked white better,’ I said.

‘White!’ he sneered. ‘It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.’

‘In which case it is no longer white,’ said I. ‘And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.’”
Oh, I know that, but most people don't.  That's why I'm going as a gay Gandalf who is also rainbow.  Much easier to explain.

That's a horrible costume.

No.  The costume is fine, but the backstory is horrible.  For any non-Tolkien fanatics he meets, calling himself a gay rainbow Gandalf isn't going to make his costume seem any different than if he just called himself a gay rainbow wizard.  But he'll have to put up with insufferable Tolkien fans such as myself who will point out that Saruman was the Wizard of Many Colors and not Gandalf.  Unless the whole point of the exercise is to find out who among his friends are fellow Tolkien geeks, I just don't see the point.
The point is to come out to people.  So I'm using rainbows and someone everyone recognizes.  Is it the best idea, no, but it works.

But only Tolkien nerds would recognize Gandalf, and as I said, for them a rainbow outfit will scream Saruman more than it will gay.  Please, keep the costume but lose any mention of Gandalf when you tell people who you are when you're in it.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Scottish Independence Referendum - 18 September 2014 on: September 15, 2014, 11:11:10 pm
Will BBC be able to cover an election without the use of a swingometer?
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / MOVED: Sarah Palin has been President since March 2009 on: September 15, 2014, 10:42:41 pm
This topic has been moved to Alternative History.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=198789.0
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone II - Less Boring, More Whoring on: September 15, 2014, 10:41:35 pm
Even though halloween is still a couple weeks away, I already know what I'm going as.  I going as Gandalf the Rainbow.  It is also when I'm coming out to a few more people.

It was Saruman who was the wizard of rainbows.
Quote from: Gandalf recounting his capture by Saruman at the meeting in Imladris in the Fellowship of the Ring
“‘For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!’

I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.

‘I liked white better,’ I said.

‘White!’ he sneered. ‘It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.’

‘In which case it is no longer white,’ said I. ‘And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.’”
Oh, I know that, but most people don't.  That's why I'm going as a gay Gandalf who is also rainbow.  Much easier to explain.

That's a horrible costume.

No.  The costume is fine, but the backstory is horrible.  For any non-Tolkien fanatics he meets, calling himself a gay rainbow Gandalf isn't going to make his costume seem any different than if he just called himself a gay rainbow wizard.  But he'll have to put up with insufferable Tolkien fans such as myself who will point out that Saruman was the Wizard of Many Colors and not Gandalf.  Unless the whole point of the exercise is to find out who among his friends are fellow Tolkien geeks, I just don't see the point.
13  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Oxford School of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts IV on: September 15, 2014, 09:52:17 pm
Come on now. You can't expect too much of memphis.

I'd say it's easier to expect too much than to expect too little.
14  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this Video as a Classroom Resource on: September 15, 2014, 09:43:39 pm
Going off message with the diatribe about defense spending lost the video any interest from me.  Seems more political than scientific, and thus only useful if your students' parents agree with the politics.
15  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: ISIS takes a page from the American Right, goes after school curriculum on: September 15, 2014, 09:36:08 pm
Well, if one must look for a bright spot, at least they aren't saying girls have no reason to be educated.  For now.
16  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Austrian government starts crackdown on IS militants & backers on: September 15, 2014, 02:23:04 pm
Isn't it forbidden by international law to make people stateless? I don't really see Austria doing more than threats.

If you willingly work for a foreign state, even one that is as officially unrecognized as the so-called Islamic State, then you've made a choice as to which state you consider to be yours.  It might not be possible for them to strip the citizenship of those who have already gone to fight for ISIL, but it certainly should be possible to strip any who go and perhaps even those who choose to stay.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Oxford School of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts IV on: September 15, 2014, 08:22:36 am
don't belittle memphis he has just been enlightened by THE CHART



So science could only take place in the West? Typical Occidenti-centric bias on your part.
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Myths of 1992 on: September 15, 2014, 08:19:01 am
The first one really isn't debatable. Most polls showed Perot's voters either sitting it out or splitting fairly evenly between Bush and Clinton. Even if they did break to Bush, it would've had to have been by an overwhelming margin to give him the win.

What that misses is that with third party candidates, the reasons for voting third party candidates are not uniform across the States and thus the split of who they would vote for in the absence of that candidate is also not uniform.  Looking at the individual States, I think it is fairly obvious that had Perot been magically stripped off the ballot everywhere on the 1st of November, Bush would have done better in the Electoral College than he did.  By itself, I agree that wouldn't have given Bush a chance of winning, but had he been facing fire from only one opponent instead of two during the whole campaign, he would have done better.  How much better, we'll never know.  So I can't really answer the first question, tho if forced to answer I'd go with Yes.

The answer to the second is Yes, tho I do agree with those who think the election would have been closer without Clinton as the candidate.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 15, 2014, 08:07:00 am
So, surely, you can't take any practice from 1840 as it pertains to gay people in society and just copy-paste it into our society today without a thorough reexamination.  I'm sure you agree.

I agree.  Where I disagree is with the premise you seemed to hold to earlier in this thread that the views of 1840 can be disregarded without any effort at examination.
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 15, 2014, 08:04:49 am
Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.

Are you positing that "gays are icky" and "I don't want my kids to think being gay is ok" we're not a factor in the referenda of the 2000s? The advertising campaigns indicated this was a winning message. I'm talking about the referenda and amendments passed then, not the original absence of same-sex marriage from earlier laws.

No I was referring to the original reasons such laws were passed.

Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.

No, my point is that the two ideas are inextricably linked vis-a-vis gay people.

Actually, they aren't inextricably linked.  While it is not the case for Western society historically, there are examples of societies in which complementariness was not linked to homophobia.  Those societies however did so by believing there were more than two modes of human existence, yet in them these additional genders had specific marriage roles that either precluded them from marriage altogether or allowed it only with one of the heterosexual genders.  Complementariness only becomes linked with homophobia when a society only envisions two genders, inextricably linked to sexual anatomy.
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the Previous Poster's Signature: The Wrath of Khan on: September 15, 2014, 01:29:55 am
I'm not certain I want Bill to be the First Laddy.

i dont get it

That's the Scottish flag flying from 10 Downing St. in a pathetic attempt to win No votes in the upcoming referendum.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 15, 2014, 01:26:50 am
Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.
23  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Oxford School of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts IV on: September 15, 2014, 12:49:52 am
Do you doubt that the world is much less violent now that religion is in decline? It's a well documented fact.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/175619007/is-the-world-a-less-violent-place

The decline in religion began later than the decline in violence.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 15, 2014, 12:20:21 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.

This is a ridiculous discussion.  Do you think that the Church of England in the 1700s would approve a marriage between two men, but for, these ideas about how men and women are complementary aspects of humanity?  That's blatantly silly.

Silly or not, you don't have to look very far in the Bible to see that particular worldview.

Quote from: Genesis 2:21-24 (NRSV)
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
    for out of Man this one was taken.”

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Quote from: Matthew 19:3-6 (NRSV)
Some Pharisees came to him (Jesus), and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘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.”

Granted, with society generally no longer viewing the sexes as complimentary parts of one whole, neither complete without the other, that particular reason for restricting marriage to a pairing of opposite sexes no longer applies.  Yet to deny that reason was a factor historically is to deny history.  Furthermore, that viewpoint of complementary gender roles was also a reason why homosexuality was often, tho not always, viewed negatively historically by many cultures.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: LA judge upholds state SSM ban on: September 14, 2014, 11:02:56 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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1019


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines