The Al Realpolitik Institute of Sulfur Mining & Extraction

[Torie]

Understandably, I hope you never become a father; you don't seem to have what it takes to be one, or do you display anything remotely attractive to most intelligent women. The fact you want your child to live a miserable life because you chose to and place restrictions on him that are psychologically destructive provides an interesting insight into your own psyche.

This thread is becoming nothing but a litany of moderators abusing people from a position of complete immunity.

This is an interesting case, because the attack is entirely focused on the text of TJ, and to me given that text, I think the "immunized" mods' text becomes something that is close to just being objectively true. If you teach your hard wired gay kid that if he ever has sex with, and/or commits to another man, that he is a bad person, going to hell, and his parents will forever censure him, and that there is no escape (TJ didn't say he would withhold love, but how one can at once project love while being an angry Moses casting down thunderbolts upon one still dependent upon appeasing Moses), I think that is objectively child abuse. I am not sure that even TJ's priest would approve. Interesting question that.

[Torie]

Understandably, I hope you never become a father; you don't seem to have what it takes to be one, or do you display anything remotely attractive to most intelligent women. The fact you want your child to live a miserable life because you chose to and place restrictions on him that are psychologically destructive provides an interesting insight into your own psyche.

This thread is becoming nothing but a litany of moderators abusing people from a position of complete immunity.

This is an interesting case, because the attack is entirely focused on the text of TJ, and to me given that text, I think the "immunized" mods' text becomes something that is close to just being objectively true. If you teach your hard wired gay kid that if he ever has sex with, and/or commits to another man, that he is a bad person, going to hell, and his parents will forever censure him, and that there is no escape (TJ didn't say he would withhold love, but how one can at once project love while being an angry Moses casting down thunderbolts upon one still dependent upon appeasing Moses), I think that is objectively child abuse. I am not sure that even TJ's priest would approve. Interesting question that.

The Catholic Church pretty much has the exact position TJ articulated. Gays are heavily encouraged to remain celibate for life.

No, the issue is how to treat the gay child, who is not very close to the tipping point one way or the other, so it is clear that any attempt to try to make the case that a bit less pleasure and self actualization, is well worth a lot more God, backed by a rather harsh whip of coercion, is clearly a lost cause, because it is not about giving up a bit less pleasure/self actualization for more God, but rather about running a considerably more than trivial risk of consigning your son to a life that may end up with tragic consequences. This is not trivial stuff. I would hope devout Catholics of conscience think about this with some concentration, and try to acquire the data on the subject.

Sorry to highjack this thread, but this matter has sort of shocked my conscience. I just cannot image any decent person doing such a thing to persons dependent upon them, much less their own flesh and blood.

[Torie]

Sorry to highjack this thread, but this matter has sort of shocked my conscience. I just cannot image any decent person doing such a thing to persons dependent upon them, much less their own flesh and blood.

Not letting them date somebody? My parents have done that to my brother multiple times and they still love him.

You said a bit more than that (a lot more actually), including that you would ban your kid's partner from your house. And does this Draconian regime have an expiration date when your kid ceases to be a minor?

[Torie]

Sorry to highjack this thread, but this matter has sort of shocked my conscience. I just cannot image any decent person doing such a thing to persons dependent upon them, much less their own flesh and blood.

Not letting them date somebody? My parents have done that to my brother multiple times and they still love him.

You said a bit more than that, including that you would ban your kid's partner from your house. Or does this regime just obtain while your kid is a minor?

I would have no recourse beyond that point other than to require my rules to be followed if the child remains living in my house. Once a child moves away I would not have any authority regardless. I would never cut-off my child or anything like that because it would serve no purpose other than alienation. In essence, I would have ~18 years to impart Catholic teachings on the child and then he will enter the world alone and must be able to make those decisions for himself because I would have no control anyway.

Well while legally under your care, you might do a lot of damage to your kid (not, not the house rules stuff (he can screw in other venues and hide it from you and no big deal, straights have that issue too), but all of that other very heavy stuff that you lay on him, assuming that he is pretty hard wired), and once he ceases to be dependent, would you still reject his partner, and ban him from your house?  And God help him if he is less supple intellectually than you, so he cannot successfully "compartmentalize," which might be a key survival strategy.

[Torie]

So short of your thinking you are risking suicide, the hammer comes down, even if the kid is basically rendered dysfunctional, turns to drugs, finds it extremely hard to form any intimate relationships (a truly horrible fate really), etc.  Do I have that right, or am I off a bit?  I don't mean to hector you, but rather  want to understand better what you are saying; but so far, if you have a gay kid, I would be rather frightened for the kid. It kind of terrifies me actually, because when someone is smart and has a hammer, and uses it that way, the potential for real psychological damage I think is far greater.

To be really honest, the most most stressful thing for me is that I admire and respect you as a person (as you know), yet you seem to embrace something which as to the lengths you are willing to go, I find horrific. And you are so hard wired intellectually (and so tied to your particular leap of faith, and have so much invested), that the experience of human contact with your kid, and hormones, and love and all of that sort of stuff, might not be when push comes to shove, for you to just jettison it all. That I guess even more is what worries me.

[Torie]

Thank you TJ. Heaven forbid that any of this should transpire in your life (for both yourself and your son), but if it does, I hope you will remember this exchange. It was from my heart. Best.

[Torie]

Well Pubs are anti science px, so all the dots connect. Now if I could just find a gay census ...

[Torie]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

Maintaining a civilized society where everybody is treated equally?

Seriously, this is one of the most reactionary posts I've ever read. And coming from Gustaf that says a lot.

Because I'm obviously so reactionary...px has that very sad quality of always trying to be a smartass without grasping what the discussion is actually about. Well, it's more amusing than sad I guess.

You're not reactionary, but your comment clearly was.

I'll be gracious and assume you've read the same philosophical dissertations on this subject that I have and will soon post your reasons for disagreeing with them then.

The only alternative would be that you're an arrogant teenager with a lot less knowledge than you think and a lack of awareness of that situation.

Did the word "deterrence" every come up in all of this collateral damage cross talk?  Just asking.

[Torie]

I just assumed they were Bible quotes. An interesting angle though, is that since the eloquent parts are just not the way Bushie writes (or probably can write), then if they were in fact not Bible quotes (or quotes from some other text) ... ?

I guess what I am saying as a Godless one, is that the words had to be Biblical quotes as it were.

[Torie]

Alcon, I think Mr. Moderate's post sums NY Jew fairly well; he is ridiculously homophobic, eager to label others anti-Semitic, and not much else.

I don't have a phobia.  (I hate that term)

I agree, I think you're a hateful bigot, and I will be happy to call you that instead. In fact I find it more fitting, because "-phobia" indicate something people can't help, and clearly you choose to be a disgusting pierce of garbage.
Happy now?

Well it seems potentially infractible. Hopefully all the kleig lights for it won't precipitate that. Toning it down to "prejudiced" would have perhaps avoided the issue.   Anyway, sometimes the source of all of this seems more like "HAL" that one hears on a broken record spinning on a turntable which just keeps slipping to the prior track and saying the same thing over and over, as opposed to anything real.

[Torie]

fire fighters in CA, grossly overpaid as well.

A bold statement from a lawyer in a part of the country constantly plagued by wildfires.

I made my riposte to that little thrust. Towel snaps just get my juices going.

[Torie]

What Joe said. Some people really don't understand the point of this thread...

Well I understood that it might be a good idea to do something about a text, which, if left standing all by itself, would make me look like an ungrateful idiot. That would not be good for my self image.

[Torie]

No prizes for guessing who this was aimed at:

Out of curiosity, is there any level of education that you actually support, considering your blistering hatred for public schoolteachers and belief that university professors are 'wacky'? If not, why are you able to compose English at even the level that you are, and do you realize that it's somewhat hypocritical to do so?

Sort of like criticizing the US while living in it?

Why, no. Not very much like that at all, as a matter of fact.

Nice to know you've still got it, though.

What's the difference then? If I understand your point correctly you mean that it is hypocritical to criticize a system one has benefited from. This seems very analogous to saying that one cannot criticize one's country of residence, for example.

I benefit from all sorts of things that I "hate:" Prop 13 (and the favorable taxation of real estate in general), a host of insane farm subsidy programs (hideously expensive to administer (like one full time government bureaucrat for about every 5-10 farmers), and in the case of Ethanol, the single most "effective" program in screwing the poorest of the poor on this planet), the pension system, largely non means tested social security (part of which is received tax free to boot, cross subsidies from the young for my medical insurance per state law, and now soon to be substantially exacerbated by federal law, the deductibility of state income taxes for federal tax purposes, and soon a pie in the sky Medicare System. Oh, and tax free municipal bonds. Add that to the list too. And then there is the step up in tax basis on your assets when you die, or even better, when your spouse dies, so you pay no capital gains taxes either.

So I agree with your point, Gustaf! 

[Torie]

And then there is the step up in tax basis on your assets when you die, or even better, when your spouse dies, so you pay no capital gains taxes either.

Those things benefit your heirs.  Nothing can benefit a person after they die.

You missed the bit about when you spouse dies, when you get a step up in basis of all community property, not just half of it. And if the surviving spouse owns real estate, he or she gets to start depreciating it all over again.

[Torie]

You missed the bit about when you spouse dies, when you get a step up in basis of all community property, not just half of it. And if the surviving spouse owns real estate, he or she gets to start depreciating it all over again.

Sorry I missed that.  Can you have a spouse in California?

So far as I know, provided the spouse is of the other gender.

[Torie]

This is really a "good post", but I firmly the Gallery should be reserved for thoughtful "effortposts" so I'll put it here.

This is just the natural conclusion of allowing "casual" dress in workplaces. Soon you'll have people coming in in their underwear or covered in sweat after a workout. It's disgusting.

Just underwear would be best, if a warm climate, and body of the one with that particular sartorial presentation is male and buffed. Thanks.

[Torie]

Not everyone's humor is as dry as yours opebo. Not everyone appreciates it as much as I do. Get used to it! 

[Torie]

Well I am more relaxed myself about folks' relationship to religion. We all relate to it in different ways. It is a very personal thing. I myself am a non theist, not an anti theist, so whatever one's transcendental beliefs, and style of expressing it, are fine with me. It is simply not something I focus on. I am more interested in other aspects of one's character.

[Torie]

Dumping on Shakespeare should not be protected by the First Amendment. I consider that akin to treason - worse because it disrespects the English language (which he more than anyone else in its modern form gave birth to), rather than a mere political entity.

[Torie]

Dumping on Shakespeare should not be protected by the First Amendment. I consider that akin to treason - worse because it disrespects the English language (which he more than anyone else in its modern form gave birth to), rather than a mere political entity.

He was also gratuitous and whiny (setting myself up for something, i get it) and is placed on a pedestal for being the inventor of the cliche as well as the master of unoriginality before it was original. Essentially, he was the world's first bullsh*tter and is treated like a God for it.

You need to read Shakespeare when you become an adult. That is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read. Sure some of what Shakespeare wrote are cliches - cliches that he invented, and are still used because they are so good.  No rage hath a women scorned, and oh the tangled webs we weave intending to deceive; all the world's a stage, but neither a borrower or a lender be for he has a lean and hungry look. Off damn spot!

With a mature mind, start with King Lear. And try reading the plays out loud with friends. We do that in my clan.

[Torie]

No rage hath a women scorned, and oh the tangled webs we weave intending to deceive; all the world's a stage, but neither a borrower or a lender be for he has a lean and hungry look. Off damn spot!

The first two parts of this are William Congreve and Sir Walter Scott, respectively.

You need to be banned.   See, even olds can use some good teachin' sometimes.

[Torie]

eh, what do you call this?

No rage hath a women scorned, and oh the tangled webs we weave intending to deceive; all the world's a stage, but neither a borrower or a lender be for he has a lean and hungry look. Off damn spot!

The first two parts of this are William Congreve and Sir Walter Scott, respectively.

Not intended to be read as a snipe.

I just got it wrong. Being called out on it is just fine.

[Torie]

In the penultimate post above, I did not know the word "rebartative," and it's a grand one. "Barbe"is old French for beard (must be where barber comes from), and it literally means in your face (beard to beard as it were), in a confrontational and spiteful way. Fabulous - just fabulous. Thanks Nathan.

[Torie]

Rich gay man doesn't think Social Darwinism is as vile as homophobia? Wow shocker.

I actually don't believe that (but then I am not really a militant in the front of the line gay rights advocate, and I don't see the planet through a gay lens all the time either).   But Forum protocol and rules of the road and my personal views are not co-extensive - at all. But sure, given who I am, I make a juicy and near irresistible target on this one. Enjoy!

[Torie]

Cut me to the quick he did. What am I going to do now?  Sob.