Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obama declares support for same-sex marriage (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Obama declares support for same-sex marriage
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Fair enough. I've chastised others for doing the same. In my limited understand of Christ's resurrection he ascended to heaven from which he will one day return. That is different from him literally breathing, walking around today. Do you or Pete believe that Christ is alive like you or me? Do the nuns who marry him?

I'd say he's probably less limited by time and space that you and I, but a living human being? Yes, and I presume the same of Elijah.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

The problem isn't ssm; it's the loathesome neutered marriage model.

I might be mistaken but I didn't think that you thought there was anything intrinsically loathesome about a "neutered marriage model" (nmm); rather I thought you were worried about a nmm having potentially negative societal impacts.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think there's anything *inherently* loathsome about nmm. What I find loathsome is the proposal that nmm replace actual marriage in the legal sphere.

I don't think there's anything inherently loathsome in the Republican congressional proposal, a few years back, that Congress issue a warning to citizens that they should wear sunglasses and suntan lotion. What I did find loathsome was the apparent intent that such a declaration substitute for taking any action to prevent industrial destruction of the ozone layer.

I'm not against novelty; I don't oppose any new idea just because it's new. But I don't believe in replacing a working system which our world relies on, when we have yet to apprehend every way in which we rely on that working system.

I hope that's more clear.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SSM doesn't replace HSM any more than letting blacks use the same water fountain replaces standard management of municipal facilities.

[Note: I'm flabbergasted that Mod removed your previous comment for "motive speculation". If you can't speculate about the general intent of people with a perspective (however narrowly you choose to interpret their goals and however wrong you certainly are), then we can't talk about the unstated goals that defined groups like Republicans or Democrats really are after, either. We can't talk about God's plan, either, unless somebody can produce something more concrete than the bible!]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Fair enough. I've chastised others for doing the same. In my limited understand of Christ's resurrection he ascended to heaven from which he will one day return. That is different from him literally breathing, walking around today. Do you or Pete believe that Christ is alive like you or me? Do the nuns who marry him?

I'd say he's probably less limited by time and space that you and I, but a living human being? Yes, and I presume the same of Elijah.
Elijah got transformed into an angel.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:

[Note: I'm flabbergasted that Mod removed your previous comment for "motive speculation". If you can't speculate about the general intent of people with a perspective (however narrowly you choose to interpret their goals and however wrong you certainly are), then we can't talk about the unstated goals that defined groups like Republicans or Democrats really are after, either. We can't talk about God's plan, either, unless somebody can produce something more concrete than the bible!]

Thank you.

Motive speculation has always meant speculation about the motives of Ornery members. There's no bloody rule against speculating about the motives of persons who aren't and have never been on Ornery. What the fock, OM.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's no reason to even attempt to have a conversation on this board until OM either corrects OM's interpretation of the "motive speculation" rule or until OM is replaced.

[ May 14, 2012, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By this new warped interpretation of the motive rule, it would be illegal to discuss why Osama Bin Laden planned the 9-11 attacks.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The post was reported by another Ornery member who felt that their motives were being speculated upon.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I requested that OM review his decision to edit Pete's post. I reported OM's post on his moderation thread, and sent him the following message:

quote:
The user's reason for this request is:

You wrote that the following was motive speculation:

"That does not change the fact that in the united states, those that call themselves SSM proponents are fighting for legal implementations that DO change the definition of marriage."

But it's not. Whether or not the legal implementations being advanced change the definition of marriage or not is a factual question, not one of motive reading. Either the proposed changes *do* change the definition of marriage or they *don't*. What someone wants or intends isn't at issue.

OM responded:

quote:
Combined with the second quote,I felt that it was motive speculation. The poster appears to be saying that "those who call themselves SSM proponents" are really intending to do something else and just using that name to hide their real motives."
The second quote he's referencing is "The choice of that model is the reason that I believe that ultimately this movement is not about gay rights, but simply uses gay families as human shields for cultural nihilism."

I responded:

quote:
It may appear to you that he's meaning to say that, but what he's literally saying is: "That does not change the fact that in the united states, those that call themselves SSM proponents are fighting for legal implementations that DO change the definition of marriage."

That's a factual claim as to whether or not the legal implementations proposed by SSM advocates have the EFFECT, not the INTENT, of changing the definition of marriage. In combining the two statements and making inferences about what Pete's writing implies, *you* are the one speculating about motives.

I'll also note in passing that discussing the motivations of groups of people is never something that's been prohibited here. We've never been prohibited from saying that Republicans don't care about the poor or that Democrats want to overtax the rich. I've never seen you strike a statement saying that opponents of SSM as a general matter are motivated by religion, intolerance, et cetera. Why then would you strike down so relatively uncontroversial a statement as the one that SSM advocates as a general matter are advocating for a change in laws which will have the effect of changing marriage from a legal perspective? It's a non-speculative question having nothing to do with motives; it's a factual statement and a demonstrably correct one.

Instead what's always been the case here is that we're prohibited from speculating on the motives of other individuals in the discussion. So someone would be wrong in saying that Jordan only belives such-and-such because he's gay or that Pete only believes such-and-such because he's Mormon. See the difference?

And his last, extremely helpful and illuminating missive to me was:

quote:
An Ornery member reported this post and told me that they felt that their motives were being speculated upon. I agreed with them that the post could be read that way and removed the sections that I felt were inappropriate.
This of course provides no response to anything I said. It provides no clarification as to whether as a general matter he's going to prohibit people from discussing the motivation of groups or movements.

He needs to stop editing peoples' postings unless said postings are vulgar or wildly inappropriate. Saying that SSM advocates are pushing for a legal framework which would have the effect of changing marriage is neither of those things; it's a factual statement. You might contend that it's an incorrect factual statement, and you might provide support for that view, but I don't see how any fair observer could conclude that it's "motive speculation".

For the record, people on Pete's side of this issue are subjected in virtually every discussion to have taken place on this board for years to the allegation that their beliefs and opinions are motivated by their religion, by their bigotry, intolerance, how they see other people, et cetera.

We have a whole damn thread on how "Republicans are the problem", how they're unwilling to compromise, radical, and motivated by all kinds of nasty and extreme things. But when someone says that a movement devoted to changing the legal definition of marriage is proposing things which will have the effect of, you know, changing marriage, it's subject to editing by the moderator? This is utter incompetence and unfairness. An apology is in order.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Motive speculation has always meant speculation about the motives of Ornery members. There's no bloody rule against speculating about the motives of persons who aren't and have never been on Ornery. What the fock, OM.

I'll go 50/50. The first part, where you say that the practical effect of an action is something seems completely fine and has nothing to do with motives at all. It was just a simple statement of your overall thesis.

The second part on the other hand, where you assert that "cultural nihilism" (leaving aside teh way that term seems to boil down to a negative wrapper for "values different cultural elements than I do") is the motive is absolutely the pernicious kind of speculation, even if it only implicitly aims at local posters. It's the blanket assertion of such a motive that makes it speculation as opposed to discussion or investigation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or we could just take it for what it is, an opinion. Is there an empty vessel on this forum that would read this and have a light bulb go off above their head thenceforth taking it as a fact?

I don’t think it’s fair to freak out on the mod. After all the general sentiment that I saw on the discussion about moderation seemed to indicate we brought this on ourselves. The masses decided they were too thin skinned or so above vulgarity that we are entitled to have the content here sanitized to avoid discomfort and the need for eye bleach. The mod is to protect us from ourselves after all. [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record: I have never actually objected to motive speculation, and I think having rules against it is ridiculously stupid. Motive speculation is part of conversation.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also one of the quickest paths to motive clarification...

If you don't insult someone into tattle tale mode.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see why the apparent victim of this victimless crime effectively gets to censor someone else for having a provocative opinion. Hashing it out in the thread is the best way to go for this and most other insults. Punishing such behavior stifles open discussion. It has somehow been construed we asked to be nannied and are our supposed wish has been granted. For the record, I've been far more offensive and objectionable than Pete was in this instance and not been censored. It makes me think nobody <sniff> is reading and appreciating <waah> my carefully wrought multi-fold taunts and I'm wasting my time composing them. [Crying]
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I liked them... but I'm anti censorship. Or is that pro bullying? I can never remember.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, you're a moron. <not true, but refreshing>
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ya, well, ya know, that's just like, ahh, yer opinion man.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Motive speculation has always meant speculation about the motives of Ornery members. There's no bloody rule against speculating about the motives of persons who aren't and have never been on Ornery. What the fock, OM.

I'll go 50/50. The first part, where you say that the practical effect of an action is something seems completely fine and has nothing to do with motives at all. It was just a simple statement of your overall thesis.

The second part on the other hand, where you assert that "cultural nihilism" (leaving aside teh way that term seems to boil down to a negative wrapper for "values different cultural elements than I do") is the motive is absolutely the pernicious kind of speculation, even if it only implicitly aims at local posters. It's the blanket assertion of such a motive that makes it speculation as opposed to discussion or investigation.

You are the one engaging in motive speculation, Pyr, by inferring that my purpose is to accuse other ornery members of this.

Many years ago, I believed and wrongfully accused Tom of being a cultural nihilist. I stopped making the accusation when it was brought to my attention that it was a motive inference. And when statements Tom made persuaded me that it was untrue, I retracted the statement. There are two other Ornery members who I did not accuse, but who said outright, that they supported ssm for reasons that I'd outlined correctly as cultural nihilism ... to report such would not be a motive inference since I'm simply reporting their own statements about their motive.

But in the statement above, I was not even thinking of any Ornery members when I said that the ultimate purpose of the movement was to destroy the institution of marriage. I referred to those that understand language, law and its implications.

I was specifically contemplating persons that I know who helped draft the amicus briefs that ended up the core of the Goodridge atrocity. Attorneys who in discussion groups were positively drooling over the career possibilities in a world where the meaning of everything was up for grabs, and so much common law had to be rewritten from the ground up. Groups that have for decades argued that the marriage institution should be destroyed, that are now supporting neutered marriage.

The rule against motive inferences is and should remain narrowly tailored to allow Ornery members to represent their own beliefs and points of view, and to keep others from turning the discussion into mindreading and second-guessing.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Fair enough. I've chastised others for doing the same. In my limited understand of Christ's resurrection he ascended to heaven from which he will one day return. That is different from him literally breathing, walking around today. Do you or Pete believe that Christ is alive like you or me? Do the nuns who marry him?

I'd say he's probably less limited by time and space that you and I, but a living human being? Yes, and I presume the same of Elijah.
Elijah got transformed into an angel.
I really can't confirm or deny that.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe that we must be able to discuss the motivation of various groups who are not participating on this forum - otherwise, we have to engage in every conversations as if every "cover story" were real (and not every Super PAC called something like "American Citizens dedicated to Goodness and Justice" are in fact 100% American or actually dedicated to goodness and justice.

The motive speculation ban is helpful with respect to actual participants on Ornery, to avoid wasting time on gratuitous ad hominem attacks.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
The post was reported by another Ornery member who felt that their motives were being speculated upon.

That report was, in itself, motive speculation. Additionally, the nameless reporter was wrong. I find the inference insulting, and a violation of the rules on motive inferences. I have no idea who has erroneously inferred that I was speculating on their motives, but participants from a wide variety of points of view as well as myself seem puzzled by that foolish inference on that person's part. To avoid turning forum rules into a pretext for censoring ideas, please restore the post and tell the complainer that his or her feelings do not constitute a rule violation on my part.

[ May 15, 2012, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That does not change the fact that in the united states, those that call themselves SSM proponents are fighting for legal implementations that DO change the definition of marriage."

Please explain how ANYONE could reasonably construe that as a motive inference. That statement has bloody nothing to do with motive. It's about cause and effect. Many folks on this board and off support the logic of the Goodridge Opinion. The Goodridge Opinion changes the definition of marriage. Where the hell is the supposed motive inference?

It degrades the discussion here to just toss out a perfectly substantive argument just because someone secretly hits a report button and says that they "feel" like victims of motive inferencing. I suspect that Scott Card would be outraged to see his rule on motive inferences so perverted. Why don't we ask him?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, this thread certainly went off the rails...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Motive speculation has always meant speculation about the motives of Ornery members. There's no bloody rule against speculating about the motives of persons who aren't and have never been on Ornery. What the fock, OM.

I'll go 50/50. The first part, where you say that the practical effect of an action is something seems completely fine and has nothing to do with motives at all. It was just a simple statement of your overall thesis.
Thank you. You've explained it in fewer words than I just did -- has zero to do with anyone's motives.

quote:
The second part on the other hand, where you assert that "cultural nihilism" (leaving aside teh way that term seems to boil down to a negative wrapper for "values different cultural elements than I do") is the motive is absolutely the pernicious kind of speculation, even if it only implicitly aims at local posters.
The quote is this:
quote:
The choice of that model is the reason that I believe that ultimately this movement is not about gay rights, but simply uses gay families as human shields for cultural nihilism.
The statement doesn't implicitly "aim" at local posters. If you feel that there's collateral damage, would you feel more comfortable if I'd said:

quote:
The legal minds that crafted the logic of "Goodridge" and its progeny cases, and all "pro-ssm" legislation that I am aware of in the USA, chose the neutered marriage model over other models, turning gay families into human shields, and starting the SSM movement as a vehicle for cultural nihilism.
Better?

I don't want Ornery to go back to where it was 8 years ago where rules and moderation were used as a pretext to snuff out dissenting points of view. I strongly appreciate and thank the Ornerians of different political persuasions that have supported my right on this thread to express ideas with which they might passionately disagree.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
The post was reported by another Ornery member who felt that their motives were being speculated upon.

That report was, in itself, motive speculation. Additionally, the nameless reporter was wrong. I find the inference insulting, and a violation of the rules on motive inferences. I have no idea who has erroneously inferred that I was speculating on their motives, but participants from a wide variety of points of view as well as myself seem puzzled by that foolish inference on that person's part. To avoid turning forum rules into a pretext for censoring ideas, please restore the post and tell the complainer that his or her feelings do not constitute a rule violation on my part.
Going out on a limb here and engaging in some motive speculation of my own, not having asked the poster why they felt that what you said was speculation on their motives, but you do have a long history on this board of using similar language when attacking other posters. I would imagine that the poster was the target of previous comments by you using the same language and felt that this was a continuation of those previous attacks. Having said that, I didn't ask the poster why they felt that your comments were speculation on their motives, so I could be completely off on that. I hope that they will email me with further information.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If you feel that there's collateral damage, would you feel more comfortable if I'd said:

quote:
The legal minds that crafted the logic of "Goodridge" and its progeny cases, and all "pro-ssm" legislation that I am aware of in the USA, chose the neutered marriage model over other models, turning gay families into human shields, and starting the SSM movement as a vehicle for cultural nihilism.
Better?
That would be great. If anyone called motive speculation on that I would thank them for bringing it to my attention, and then promptly ignore their complaint [Smile]

quote:
I don't want Ornery to go back to where it was 8 years ago where rules and moderation were used as a pretext to snuff out dissenting points of view. I strongly appreciate and thank the Ornerians of different political persuasions that have supported my right on this thread to express ideas with which they might passionately disagree. [/QB]
Me neither [Smile] I think that it takes all of us trying to see, not just how we mean the words we write, but how the words we write could be taken, and avoiding ambiguity and lack of clarity. Maybe we will have to write an extra five words each sentence to make it absolutely clear what we mean. That seems a small price to pay for improved communication and improved community.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OM, the consensus seems to be that you misapplied the rule. I'm just wondering, does it matter to you? I do appreciate your attempt to be more responsive and active as a moderator (like D.W. I think we did this to ourselves to some extent).

However, I'm hoping you're willing to to adjust your position on this rule. The type of motive speculation that occurred here wasn't personal enough to violate the spirit of the rule against it. It's easy enough to draw the line at motive speculation explicitly directed at specific Ornery members. None of us here are a "movement". We can stomach the speculation Pete indulged in. (I mean, how else are those of us who are ssm supporters who arrive at our positions for reasons that amount to the opposite of cultural nihilism going to get our chance to say "Nuh uh!"?)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Having said that, I didn't ask the poster why they felt that your comments were speculation on their motives, so I could be completely off on that.
Why specifically did *you* feel that the following was motive speculation:

quote:
That does not change the fact that in the united states, those that call themselves SSM proponents are fighting for legal implementations that DO change the definition of marriage.
Upon whose motives was he speculating and in what way? Pete's asked and I've asked repeatedly how you could possibly think that. You've responded that a poster felt a certain way and you agreed. Given your action we know that. What we don't know is how and what your general attitude towards this sort of thing is going to be going forward. I'm not asking out of a desire to draw you into a protracted debate or discussion. I've always thought I had a pretty good idea of what our rules were here and why; this represents a pretty radical departure from that understanding.

quote:
Me neither I think that it takes all of us trying to see, not just how we mean the words we write, but how the words we write could be taken, and avoiding ambiguity and lack of clarity. Maybe we will have to write an extra five words each sentence to make it absolutely clear what we mean. That seems a small price to pay for improved communication and improved community.
To my mind most of the burden there lies on the person doing the reading, not the person doing the writing. A general principle of civil discussion and reasoned debate is the principle of charity: we should interpret the words of others charitably as far as is reasonably possible. Instead of saying "He said X, but given our track record I could read him as *really* meaning Y, and Y offends me so I'm gonna report it", we should just assume for purposes of conversation that X is the thing intended. If we're willing to assume the worst of others and are thin-skinned enough to whine to the moderator when an uncharitable construction of someone's words offends us, then the possibility of civil discussion is already gone.

[ May 15, 2012, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and starting the SSM movement as a vehicle for cultural nihilism...
Just a quibble, since I don't want to have this conversation over again: Pete, you do realize that the people who hypothetically want to de-gender marriage are vanishingly unlikely to think of this as "cultural nihilism," right? [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
Going out on a limb here and engaging in some motive speculation of my own, not having asked the poster why they felt that what you said was speculation on their motives

Why censor something just because someone feels that it's motive speculation? If a sentence doesn't address motives, aren't their feelings irrelevant? Could you please restore the first censored sentence which is (as others have noted) purely about cause and effect? Shouldn't they need to make the case *before* you remove a substantive argument and label it "motive inference"

quote:
, but you do have a long history on this board of using similar language when attacking other posters.
That statement provides me with no help at all for posting acceptably, since I cannot control my history or others' perception of my "history."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
and starting the SSM movement as a vehicle for cultural nihilism...
Just a quibble, since I don't want to have this conversation over again: Pete, you do realize that the people who hypothetically want to de-gender marriage are vanishingly unlikely to think of this as "cultural nihilism," right? [Smile]
You realize that there are vanishingly few folks that think of themselves as "stodgy conservatives who are afraid of change," but would you say that such persons do not exist?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Mod:] "Going out on a limb here and engaging in some motive speculation of my own, not having asked the poster why they felt that what you said was speculation on their motives,..."

In my mind, that omission is the problem. Just because somebody hit the joy button doesn't make what they read an offense. At least one previous Mod used to engage in sometimes lengthy behind the scenes conversation to help him reach a balanced decision. Mod'ing should be boring most of the time, but when it's needed it's a serious endeavor. I encourage you (as do others) to more extensively apply your considered and generally good judgment to determine the seriousness of the action and the worth of the complaint.

[Pete:] "That statement provides me with no help at all for posting acceptably, since I cannot control my history or others' perception of my "history."

What you're saying is that mistakes were made in your past posts [Wink] . I think if you just throw away your book of adjectives and adverbs you'd find there are far fewer despicable opinions to aggressively attack [Smile] .

PS, Paladine is making serious inroads into my belief that he is the Mod. If he is, bravo!

[ May 15, 2012, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it definitionally possible to be a nihilist if you do not think you are a nihilist?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a difference, though, between saying that someone is "afraid of change" and saying that action X, taken for motive Y, will lead to outcome Z, and therefore people recommending action X must want outcome Z.

These people want an outcome you don't think will happen. Because you think another outcome will happen, you are ascribing to them the desire for the end result you predict. This is akin to a liberal in 1982 saying that, say, Ronald Reagan must have really wanted a nuclear war with Russia, since that liberal felt sure that Reagan's policies would have led to war. Would you agree that such a liberal would be justified in calling Reagan an "atomic nihilist?"

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Pete, in context approve means agree.

I don't think so. Did you see Rachel Maddow last night? She's an SSM proponent, and was touting the same figures I've been touting for years ... that there's a majority only if you count Americans who support ssus *and* ssm.

I've argued for years on this forum that the majority of SSM proponents are *not* cultural nihilists and should make common ground with SSU supporters like myself in order to get gay families substantive rights.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, the idea that people who do not believe that marriage is an inherently gendered concept are "cultural nihilists" is inherently offensive. It's like calling someone who favors legalized abortion "pro-baby-murder."

[ May 15, 2012, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Is it definitionally possible to be a nihilist if you do not think you are a nihilist?

Depends on whether we're talking about existential nihilism, cultural nihilism, Epistomological Nihilism, Moral Nihilism, etc.

Here I'm talking about cultural nihilism, so the answer is clearly yes.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't think so. Did you see Rachel Maddow last night? She's an SSM proponent, and was touting the same figures I've been touting for years ... that there's a majority only if you count Americans who support ssus *and* ssm."

But that's not what the survey you cited said. There are lots of opinions and opinion polls. It certainly depends on how you ask the questions, but in the particular poll, the respondents answered that they agreed with his POV.

...""cultural nihilists"...

This is a made up crock. Label anything you don't want or see the value of as nihilism and it sounds really, really bad. By that measure, good Christians are cultural nihilists because they reject a moral code not based on believing in Christ. We're all nihilists on this bus.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You should probably make it clearer.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1