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 » a little fyi on the leading two american anti ssm pundits (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: a little fyi on the leading two american anti ssm pundits
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jasper, Pete's position is wrong, not bigoted. He also assumes that his fellow travellers share his rather nuanced beliefs regarding marriage. The anti-ssm crowd might not be as malice-driven as the social justice twitterati would argue, but they also aren't as high-minded and thoughtful as Pete would like them to be, either.
I don't think Pete has any malice towards gay people.

What he is defending is hateful and odious.


BRAINWASHING???

KOOLAID???

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's very specific in what he defends. While he shares the same ends as some rather unpleasant people, he does not condone their methods or their associated beliefs.

He is rather less specific in what he attacks, but the most charitable interpretation is that the allegations of brainwashing are limited to the pro-ssm "Left" which ought to be considered distinct from gay people (and progressives) generally.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
" r "feelings" about SSM are odious, toxic, and dehumanizing"

You don't know what my "feelings" on SSM are. And I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM so it's misleading and sophomoric for you to misuse quotes in that way. if you want to play with the grown ups, you need to play by their rules.

You come in throwing around words like odious (which means something the speaker hates, FYI). So the hate is in you, not in me. And you don't even understand my position on SSM and you see fit to judge me.

I oppose SSM as enacted by the Goodridge court. I am OK with SSM under some other legal theories.

I suggest that you find out what is what before you jump into a room and start throwing around the ten peso words like a thesaurus in heat.

Ornery is not a place you can just cut and paste arguments from YouTube forums. Think harder, and pay attention.

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ April 28, 2014, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

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 
It's basically the mainstream American pro SSM left I see as linked to the brainwashing. Because it's in America where the SSM .oeent got married to the big lie that anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot, because that's the only way they can hijack Loving v Virginia to shoehorn ssm into equal protection.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


You don't know what my "feelings" on SSM are. And I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM so it's misleading and sophomoric for you to misuse quotes in that way. if you want to play with the grown ups, you need to play by their rules.

You come in throwing around words like odious (which means something the speaker hates, FYI). So the hate is in you, not in me. And you don't even understand my position on SSM and you see fit to judge me.

I oppose SSM as enacted by the Goodridge court. I am OK with SSM under some other legal theories.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were writing (unbeknownst to you and therefore conferring no responsibility) inside of some sort of fever dream.

Pete, even the most casual reader of this forum (which is published on the internet FYI) is well aware of your stance on SSM.

You are someone who I respect and I recognize that you are vastly more knowledgeable when it comes to Constitutional law and I have learned so much (often times much more than I was willing to) from your postings.

As regards SSM, you are wrong. You have been arguing the same illogical thing for a decade.

You have dug yourself a dirty little hole with the dirty little bigots, but you lay a tissue between your behind and them.

quote:

Ornery is not a place you can just cut and paste arguments from YouTube forums. Think harder, and pay attention. [/QB]

I'l be honest, that one stung.

I'd be interested in what exactly I said that seemed "YouTubey".

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JasperWobbly:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


You don't know what my "feelings" on SSM are. And I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM so it's misleading and sophomoric for you to misuse quotes in that way. if you want to play with the grown ups, you need to play by their rules.

You come in throwing around words like odious (which means something the speaker hates, FYI). So the hate is in you, not in me. And you don't even understand my position on SSM and you see fit to judge me.

I oppose SSM as enacted by the Goodridge court. I am OK with SSM under some other legal theories.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were writing (unbeknownst to you and therefore conferring no responsibility) inside of some sort of fever dream.

Pete, even the most casual reader of this forum (which is published on the internet FYI) is well aware of your stance on SSM.

You are someone who I respect and I recognize that you are vastly more knowledgeable when it comes to Constitutional law and I have learned so much (often times much more than I was willing to) from your postings.

As regards SSM, you are wrong. You have been arguing the same illogical thing for a decade.

You have dug yourself a dirty little hole with the dirty little bigots, but you lay a tissue between your behind and them.

quote:

Ornery is not a place you can just cut and paste arguments from YouTube forums. Think harder, and pay attention.

I'l be honest, that one stung.

I'd be interested in what I said that seemed "YouTubey". [/QB]


Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


You don't know what my "feelings" on SSM are. And I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM so it's misleading and sophomoric for you to misuse quotes in that way. if you want to play with the grown ups, you need to play by their rules.

You come in throwing around words like odious (which means something the speaker hates, FYI). So the hate is in you, not in me. And you don't even understand my position on SSM and you see fit to judge me.

I oppose SSM as enacted by the Goodridge court. I am OK with SSM under some other legal theories.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were writing (unbeknownst to you and therefore conferring no responsibility) inside of some sort of fever dream.

Pete, even the most casual reader of this forum (which is published on the internet FYI) is well aware of your stance on SSM.

You are someone who I respect and I recognize that you are vastly more knowledgeable when it comes to Constitutional law and I have learned so much (often times much more than I was willing to) from your postings.

As regards SSM, you are wrong. You have been arguing the same illogical thing for a decade.

You have dug yourself a dirty little hole with the dirty little bigots, but you lay a tissue between your behind and them.

quote:

Ornery is not a place you can just cut and paste arguments from YouTube forums. Think harder, and pay attention. [/qb]

I'l be honest, that one stung.

I'd be interested in what I said that seemed "YouTubey". [/QB][/QUOTE]

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JasperWobbly:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


You don't know what my "feelings" on SSM are. And I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM so it's misleading and sophomoric for you to misuse quotes in that way. if you want to play with the grown ups, you need to play by their rules.

You come in throwing around words like odious (which means something the speaker hates, FYI). So the hate is in you, not in me. And you don't even understand my position on SSM and you see fit to judge me.

I oppose SSM as enacted by the Goodridge court. I am OK with SSM under some other legal theories.

Pete, even the most casual reader of this forum (which is published on the internet FYI) is well aware of your stance on SSM.

You are someone who I respect and I recognize that you are vastly more knowledgeable when it comes to Constitutional law and I have learned so much (often times much more than I was willing to) from your postings.

As regards SSM, you are wrong. You have been arguing the same illogical thing for a decade.

You have dug yourself a dirty little hole with the dirty little bigots, but you lay a tissue between your behind and them.

quote:

Ornery is not a place you can just cut and paste arguments from YouTube forums. Think harder, and pay attention.

I'l be honest, that one stung.

I'd be interested in what I said that seemed "YouTubey". [/QB]

[/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JasperWobbly:
quote:
Originally posted by JasperWobbly:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


You don't know what my "feelings" on SSM are. And I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM so it's misleading and sophomoric for you to misuse quotes in that way. if you want to play with the grown ups, you need to play by their rules.

You come in throwing around words like odious (which means something the speaker hates, FYI). So the hate is in you, not in me. And you don't even understand my position on SSM and you see fit to judge me.

I oppose SSM as enacted by the Goodridge court. I am OK with SSM under some other legal theories.

Pete, even the most casual reader of this forum (which is published on the internet FYI) is well aware of your stance on SSM.

You are someone who I respect and I recognize that you are vastly more knowledgeable when it comes to Constitutional law and I have learned so much (often times much more than I was willing to) from your postings.

As regards SSM, you are wrong. You have been arguing the same illogical thing for a decade.

You have dug yourself a dirty little hole with the dirty little bigots, but you lay a tissue between your behind and them.

quote:

Ornery is not a place you can just cut and paste arguments from YouTube forums. Think harder, and pay attention.

I'l be honest, that one stung.

I'd be interested in what I said that seemed "YouTubey".

[/QB]
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JasperWobbly:


You don't know what my "feelings" on SSM are. And I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM so it's misleading and sophomoric for you to misuse quotes in that way. if you want to play with the grown ups, you need to play by their rules.

You come in throwing around words like odious (which means something the speaker hates, FYI). So the hate is in you, not in me. And you don't even understand my position on SSM and you see fit to judge me.

I oppose SSM as enacted by the Goodridge court. I am OK with SSM under some other legal theories.

Pete, even the most casual reader of this forum (which is published on the internet FYI) is well aware of your stance on SSM.

You are someone who I respect and I recognize that you are vastly more knowledgeable when it comes to Constitutional law and I have learned so much (often times much more than I was willing to) from your postings.

As regards SSM, you are wrong. You have been arguing the same illogical thing for a decade.

You have dug yourself a dirty little hole with the dirty little bigots, but you lay a tissue between your behind and them.

quote:

Ornery is not a place you can just cut and paste arguments from YouTube forums. Think harder, and pay attention. [/qb]

I'l be honest, that one stung.

I'd be interested in what I said that seemed "YouTubey".

Jasper: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ April 26, 2014, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  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 
If you are trying to provoke a response, then here's one.

Please stop.

If your cat has your iphone. Change your ringtone to a dog barking or something.

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 
Jasper, I'm having technical difficulties. Please excuse the delay. I wanted to respond a couple hours ago but was volunteering and am having a problem with my newly fixed internet tether.

I'm glad to see from your last post that we share some values that can be used to communicate. But answering some of your questions requires more than a teeny cell phone, since you want quotes.of what I meant by YouTube. The fact that was horrific is good because it's a shared value. If you band I both find utube comments to be the nadir of debate, that suggests a value that we share in common and some shared value is the heart and soul of any ethical discussion.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
If you are trying to provoke a response, then here's one.

Please stop.

If your cat has your iphone. Change your ringtone to a dog barking or something.

I was provoked into responding by the offensive characterization put forth of SSM advocates.

I'm not sure if you are asking me to stop representing my opinion or if you are truly hoping that typing "Please stop." would be a good introduction to editing comments here.

Your charitable characterization of my unfamiliarity with the commenting system is noted.


Either way, it's nice to meet you.

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  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 
Putting together the 4 quotes of what I found you tuby will require a computer. Might not happen tonight.

Basically it's use of words like bigot, odious, etc without identifying the specific idea or statement you are criticizing. Also your sweeping statements about me supposedly saying I am not homophobic I have gay friends etc. That's a stock YouTube attack and has no place here.

I never claimed not to be homophobic. I was a teenager in the 1980s in Mexico city. How could I be otherwise? I take great pains to acknowledge and try to see past my prejudices. I post my arguments on this forum precisely so the other people here can help me to see when my arguments are based on Prejudice. I have consequently back away from any of my previous position based on feedback here. it's because I take feedback to heart that I'm extremely rude to people that use words like bitch get it without being specific about what they are criticizing.


I'd appreciate if you would identify which ideas and statements you refer to. As I will identify the statements I found utuby as soon as I can quote.

Glad you like my con law explanations.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I'm glad to see from your last post that we share some values that can be used to communicate.

I hope we can communicate with each other but based off a lot of your comments I'm not sure how many values we have in common. That's fine with me though, I love meeting new people who think differently than I do!

quote:

But answering some of your questions requires more than a teeny cell phone, since you want quotes.of what I meant by YouTube.

Nope, I don't need "quotes" of what you meant by YouTube comments, it was fairly clear that you were disparaging my remarks. Touche sir, very funny stuff.

quote:

The fact that was horrific is good because it's a shared value. If you band I both find utube comments to be the nadir of debate, that suggests a value that we share in common and some shared value is the heart and soul of any ethical discussion.

I'm not sure what to make of this word salad.

I will worn you though that you should take care; D.W. will no likely be by shortly to accuse you of posting on a mobile device (which you have already admitted to!) surrounded by various flora and fauna.

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JasperWobbly:
quote:

I'm glad to see from your last post that we share some values that can be used to communicate.

I hope we can communicate with each other but based off a lot of your comments I'm not sure how many values we have in common. That's fine with me though, I love meeting new people who think differently than I do!

quote:

But answering some of your questions requires more than a teeny cell phone, since you want quotes.of what I meant by YouTube.

Nope, I don't need "quotes" of what you meant by YouTube comments, it was fairly clear that you were disparaging my remarks. Touche sir, very funny stuff.

quote:

The fact that was horrific is good because it's a shared value. If you band I both find utube comments to be the nadir of debate, that suggests a value that we share in common and some shared value is the heart and soul of any ethical discussion.

I'm not sure what to make of this word salad.

I will warn you though that you should take care; D.W. will no likely be by shortly to accuse you of posting on a mobile device (which you have already admitted to!) surrounded by various flora and fauna.


Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JasperWobbly
Member
Member # 6865

 - posted      Profile for JasperWobbly   Email JasperWobbly       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry everybody.

I changed "worn" to "warn" and created an entirely new post.

I'm off to the archives to learn how to post properly.

Posts: 21 | Registered: Oct 2013  |  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 
You are using the quote function instead of the edit function. You had done so several times in a row earlier, which was the reason D.W. joked you should stop.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 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 
"Sorry to disappoint Pete, not a sock puppet"

Actually I'm relieved that you're not a sock puppet. And am actually delighted that you're responding to some of what I'd said rather than giving what previously seemed like stock answers.

quote:
I'd be interested in what exactly I said that seemed "YouTubey".
I am happy to oblige, now that I have brief computer access:

Here are the exact things you said that I found YouTubey:

quote:

"To wit, your "feelings" about SSM are odious, toxic, and dehumanizing."

"That you incoherently defend a bigoted position while loudly proclaiming that you are of course in no way a bigot (and have plenty of gay friends to prove it) speaks volumes."

"There is a reason bigots want to exercise "their free speech" in anonymity from the shadows; they lack personal responsibility."

"What he is defending is hateful and odious."

Why I found them "youtubey": extreme language with either no specific reference to what you're criticizing, or else a specific reference that doesn't fit, and looks like it was imported from some argument with a youtube lowbrow.

Taken individually:

quote:
"To wit, your "feelings" about SSM are odious, toxic, and dehumanizing."
Misrepresentation and extreme language combined with failure to connect with what I said. I never said anything about my "feelings" about SSM. I don't mind extreme language so long as you're clear what it refers to. When you use ten peso words like odious, toxic, and dehumanizing you should make clear what you're referring to, lest you come off like a youtube discussion.

quote:
"That you incoherently defend a bigoted position while loudly proclaiming that you are of course in no way a bigot (and have plenty of gay friends to prove it) speaks volumes."
Not sure what you found "incoherent or bigoted." And I never proclaimed loudly that I am in no way a bigot. Whether I'm a bigot or a gnome or santa claus depends on the definition of bigot or gnome or santa claus. By some definitions of bigot, I'm undoubtedly a bigot. By other definitions, you're a bigot. I'm sure there's a definition of bigot out there that fits just about everyone. And I've never claimed that having plenty of gay friends proves that anyone is not a bigot. I'm sure that plenty of bigots have plenty of gay friends. It's a cut and paste argument from youtube. It has nothing to do with me.

quote:
"There is a reason bigots want to exercise "their free speech" in anonymity from the shadows; they lack personal responsibility."
Youtube cut and paste argument. I've posted my full name on this forum, and more details about me personally than are posted about any other forum member. You're the one operating under a pseudonym. you're hurling insults at me that have no reasonable application to me.

quote:
"What he is defending is hateful and odious."
Please identify what I'm defending that you find odious. Based on previous statements that don't apply, I need to be convinced that you know what I'm defending. Do you think that it's hateful and odious for children to have a mommy and a daddy? Because that is what I'm defending.

Also, are you aware that hateful and odious are synonyms? That you've basically just said the same thing twice? That you hate my undefined object of defense and that you also hate it?

quote:
As regards SSM, you are wrong.
I very well may be wrong. I've changed positions before. David Blankenhorn's argument for changing his position and defending the values of marriage and the interests of children from a neutered marriage perspective ... may convince me. I'm thinking it over. I certainly agree with him that many gay couples I know share more values about what kids need and deserve, than a whole lot of heterosexuals that I know.

If you have an argument, then make it. But just repeating your conclusions isn't argument; it's brainwashing. That's not an empty word or an insult; that's what brainwashing means: attempts to change a person's mind that bypass the normal persuasion mechanism. If someone forms an opinion because of stockholm syndrome, or because he's in the power of someone else that holds that opinion, or because it's simply been repeated to him so many times that he accepts and beliefs it, that is BRAINWASHING. And attempts to persuade someone by accusations, threats, trying to convince them that their position is isolated (rather than showing logically or ethically or emotionally that it's wrong) is brainwashing per se.

Not all brainwashing is a bad thing. Potty training is a form of brainwashing, and I can't imagine how civilization would get by if we were all playing around in our feces.

I just happen to believe that politics and morality are issues that we should process with our higher brain functions, through logic, ethics and emotion, rather than being brainwashed.

What I just said used to be the liberal position on discussion and education.

How the wheel turns. [Frown]

[ April 25, 2014, 10:43 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 
"I'm not sure what to make of this word salad."

Thank you, mea culpa, or to be precise, mea cell phone's culpa.

quote:
The fact that you found the youtube reference horrific is good because it means that you and I share at least one value. If you and I both find utube comments to be the nadir of debate, that suggests a value that we share in common and some shared value is the heart and soul of any ethical discussion.

What I mean: to talk about ethics, it helps to have some agreement about what is right and what is wrong. We apparently agree that the way people debate on youtube is "wrong." That doesn't mean that we are likely to agree on much else, but hopefully we'll at least be able to understand each others' pov.
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:
You have dug yourself a dirty little hole with the dirty little bigots, but you lay a tissue between your behind and them
That's pretty homophobic metaphor for you to make, given your accusations of bigotry. There are a number of gay members on this site; please don't speak in a way that equates homosexual to "dirty."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 had missed that there were edits within the re-posting which was taking place far enough apart to appear intentional. I think scifibum has correctly diagnosed the issue.

My point, as noted, was that whatever it was you were trying to do (if that wasn't just being obnoxious) was not working. And given the content of your opening salvo I wasn't positive that wasn't indeed the intent.

I wouldn't tell you to quit expressing your opinion. Without people repeating themselves within the same thread or months apart we would need to add the ability to post animated gif files just to facilitate virtual tumbleweeds or skittering desert creatures.

And I tend to only pick on Pete's phone-fu now when it comes up with something particularly hilarious. Or when my decoder ring fails me.

Flora and fauna above for your benefit.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
"Once again, someone disagreeing with you does not make them ignorant of the subject matter or brainwashed.

[Agreed! Noblehunter, disagrees with me and is not ignorant or brainwashed. Same as Andrew Sullivan. Seriati, Jason, and numerous others on this forum.]


I said what I had to say. There are literally hundreds of pages on this forum of people more eloquent then I rebutting the argument.

" Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education"
[Big Grin]

Using lack of eloquence to hide lack of information or reasoning is a court tactic that goes back to 500 BC, Corax v Tisias.

I'll restate it, since you appear to be confused.

I have no interest in having a debate over SSM and it's imagined harms to society. It's been done before here many, many times. It is not that I am not capable; it is that I don't possess the time or patience to present an argument that is already accessible on this site in the dozens of previous threads on the issue, by people who have presented it in a better way then I probably could.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As to Blankenhorn, his older arguments appear to revolve around the same tired schlock that SSM will harm society and the poor little children of the world.

I'm pleased to see that he has changed his tune in the past few years, and find his current stance to be non objectionable and even, in some ways, admirable. Including gays in his campaign to strengthen monogamous child rearing relationships is a welcome change of course.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 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 
If you have nothing to say, oh surly one, why are you posting here?

I wasn't trying to draw you into a debate, but merely trying to ascertain if you had any knowledge or memory of the items you pronounced judgment on.

because if one allows others to think and argue for him, one might as well allow those others to pronounce one's conclusions. there is a certain dignity in silence, compared to vapid pronouncements.

[ April 26, 2014, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm comfortable just giving my opinion, sometimes. I don't feel a need to Win at Ornery.

There is also something to be said for a lack of persecution complex flavored hysteria.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 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 DJQuag:
As to Blankenhorn, his older arguments appear to revolve around the same tired schlock that SSM will harm society and the poor little children of the world.

Glad you finally got down and read him days after saying his arguments were "stupid"

quote:

I'm pleased to see that he has changed his tune in the past few years, and find his current stance to be non objectionable and even, in some ways, admirable. Including gays in his campaign to strengthen monogamous child rearing relationships is a welcome change of course.

I'm glad that's how you see it. Many receive it as you did; others are even more angry. this Richard Kim of The Nation, for example

quote:
In other words, Blankenhorn once thought gay marriage could be a useful instrument to instill his regressive, archaic and punitive views on marriage in the public and in the law. He still thinks that. He’s just made a political calculation that gays are more valuable now as recruits than as scapegoats.


[ April 26, 2014, 10:49 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 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
I'm comfortable just giving my opinion, sometimes. I don't feel a need to Win at Ornery.

You had me fooled. Me, I love to "win." Win as defined by getting people to actually read the things they have given their "opinion" on.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
As salon points out, the two biggest faces and voices in the marriage preservation movement are Maggie Gallegsr and David Blankenhorn.

Here's an article about Gallagher fro. Salon, a strongly pro SSM source.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/the_making_of_gay_marriages_top_foe/

Any good articles summing up Blankenhorn?

Take a look at these people and their arguments and you may notice that it doesn't fit what you've been told opposition to SSM is all about. That my arguments are actually not so anomalous after all, even though I was making these arguments before either of them ... you may not agree with us but we're three very different people coning from different political and ideological positions that have come to similar reasoning and conclusions about the neutering of marriage.

And here I thought that when you said that the man had similar conclusions to your own, that you were referring to your foolish ideas that allowing gays to marry will harm our society. And, indeed, he had once written such rubbish, and it was those ideas that I was referring to. I did not know that he had become much more sensible lately, but now I do.

I think it is disingenuous to say that in the passage above you were talking about the common conclusions the three of you have that gays should be allowed to get married, just like anyone else.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And what I mean by this, is when you say that you and this man have common conclusions and similar reasoning, then I can know that I can disagree with him, because I know and disagree with your own stance.

Basically, I took you at your word.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  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:
It's basically the mainstream American pro SSM left I see as linked to the brainwashing. Because it's in America where the SSM .oeent got married to the big lie that anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot, because that's the only way they can hijack Loving v Virginia to shoehorn ssm into equal protection.

I think the more mainstream pro-SSM position is that banning SSM contributes to the oppression of homosexuals and is therefore homophobic. The intention of those opposed to SSM is not relevant as to whether or not their position is homophobic.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
I think the more mainstream pro-SSM position is that banning SSM contributes to the oppression of homosexuals and is therefore homophobic. The intention of those opposed to SSM is not relevant as to whether or not their position is homophobic.

"Homophobic" unreasonable fear of homosexuals, since expanded to dislike or hatred as well. What part of that does not require you to understand their intent? Not to be silly, but I think this is the kind of conclusion that keeps Pete in his bunker on this issue.

Pete, I was very impressed with your comment that you found the Blankenhorn quote potentially persuasive. My first thought when I read it is you should seriously consider it for your own position. At some level you have to recognize that even though threads overstated, there are alot of people who's opposition to SSM is rooted in some form of homophobia. I think its the majority on that side of the debate, other's think its all or nearly all. There has to be a better way to work on ideals that are important to you than allying yourself with the truly odius.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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 
" your foolish ideas that allowing gays to marry will harm our society. And, indeed, he had once written such rubbish, and it was those ideas that I was referring to. "

That was blankenhorn's position; it was never mine. I see no harm with same sex couples marrying. My concern is with changing the definition of marriage.

Just more.proof that you pas judgment on things you don't even grasp. Your argument suffers from premature evaluation. Bug mess, little satisfaction.

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 threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
It's basically the mainstream American pro SSM left I see as linked to the brainwashing. Because it's in America where the SSM .oeent got married to the big lie that anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot, because that's the only way they can hijack Loving v Virginia to shoehorn ssm into equal protection.

I think the more mainstream pro-SSM position is that banning SSM contributes to the oppression of homosexuals and is therefore homophobic. The intention of those opposed to SSM is not relevant as to whether or not their position is homophobic.
Your argument results in telling people that they don't have to think before passing judgment. You offer no evidence or objective argument that distinguishing SSM from actual marriage will result in "oppression". I could just as soon declare that SSM results in fewer kids being raised by a mom and dad there for SSM is "anti-child" regardless of intentions.
Therefore by your own discussion standards, your argument is anti-child, anti-brain. Anti human.

[ April 28, 2014, 10:28 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 
-phobic means fear, threads. So to use that word without thought to the object's frame of mind is an anti-brain usage. If you mean will have results harmful to gays, then say that. phobic is a state of.mind.
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 
Let's follow this ghastly thread of bad thinking to its logical extreme, this idea that one can impute evil thinking based on presumed results rather than actually looking at intent:

"Your idea will result in people lying therefore your potion is dishonest."

"Your idea will result in people dying therefore your position is murderous."

"Your.idea would.result in lots of sex therefore your position is horny"

Gibberish, threads. Pure gibberish.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Your idea will result in people dying therefore your position is murderous."

[***]

Gibberish, threads. Pure gibberish.

Pete, you should note this "argument" has shown up on every single thread arguing about a government entitlement. It may be gibberish, but it's persuasive gibberish.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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 
"your proposal would result in the gradual disappearance of a culture, therefore your position is genocidal"

Threads, do you recognize the stupidity and unfairness of the reasoning when it's directed at you?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 find it amusing you use the word gibberish when the heart of your opposition is around how a word is defined. An argument that is the least casualty or quickest to be offered up as sacrificial (depending on which side you are on) by all who even understands that it was of concern to anyone.

Most people already “know” what someone means when they refer to two people of the same sex as “married”. They may have strong opinions or cite law surrounding the legitimacy of that title but they agree the meaning has already encompassed the union of two people of the same sex.

Your attempt to enforce a distinction between this union when referring to those of the same sex and those of opposite sex is an exercise in gibberish. (Unless there are legal distinctions which you do not seem to wish to impose.) It just so happens that I, and many others I think, feel this distinction is socially harmful. You may disagree or take the position that etymology does not bow to anyone’s feelings. Either way, gibberish.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 think it would have to result in the abolishment of one or more religions for it to be genocidal. Don't think that word applies to a socital norm being destroyed. Or is it ok to repurpose genocidal to fit this new meaning?

[ April 28, 2014, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

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