How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

It's that time again

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


0 posted 02-21-2007 10:46 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

I know all you happy people love my topics. Usually because I incite so much discussion. Not to mention the nuisances, aggravations and frequent cases of anger that are thrown into the air. You all love it though . I just felt like saying that. I will probably go down in the books as the guy who spewed alphabet soup on this website. I don't hold back and I won't apologize for how my "discussing" affects people. Call this a waiver. I'm not a lightweight in arguing. Even if I'm so wrong it's a sin, if I think I'm right, I'll go all the way. So enough of that, here's the poop (as they used to say).


_______________________________________
Topic: "The Whole Gay/Liberal Thing"


I've got some beef with the "whole gay thing." After all my religion doesn't permit it but that's not why I'm not too down with it. Here's the reason: I'm just not too down with it. Is that a good enough reason? Not for society, noooo. See I almost just don't care one way or the other. I'm not really for it or avidly against it; I just don't give a horse's heart. The only reason I got beef is because these "gay rights leaders/groups" are rubbing me the wrong way. They are going around making people afraid to not be "ok" with gay dudes and ladies. You have to approve of gay rights or they don't approve of you and they'll make your life hell. There's so many examples but I'll only list a few (that's all my interest will permit before it dwindles)

Look at this Grey's Anatomy incident with that Washington dude and the gay fella, T.R. somthin I'm bad with names. Yes, Washington said the new "F word" which was bad form but the consequences from this was astonishing. These "gay rights leaders" (and the only reason I put that in parentheses is because it's more like 'gay rights nazis') went to town on this guy. They crucified him publicly, made the guy go to therapy then... THEN (my favorite part) they tried to get ABC to turn his character on Grey's Anatomy into a gay guy. Am I the only one a little angered by this? It's RIDICULOUS!!!

Last example:

Jennifer Hudson, I didn't know who she was before this but apparently she was on American Idol. I was reading in the news a few weeks ago that she had made a comment saying that she wasn't too comfortable with gay people and what not. They crucified her as well. They did such a number on her that she apologized.

Hey and calm down... I know you're asking "what about liberalism" I'm getting to it... be patient.

I think they just want total control. I also heard about a new group of gay actors. They all get together and support one another or something. Why don't straight actors have that? Then I heard that a lesbian tennis player, forgot her name, said that she was starting a credit card and donations would go to gays and lesbians.... WHAT!!! Why no donations for heterosexuals?!?! Huh? I like money too. Hell, I need more camera equipment if I'm ever gonna finish my film. Are you saying I have to make out with some guy named Dan to get any free dough? Bull.

Now to the liberalism. The way the liberals have it today is that everyone has to be ok with everything. I shall repeat: EVERYONE has to be OK with EVERYTHING. The only thing you can't be ok with are people who aren't ok with everything. That makes sense right? It's not the easiest to word. Basically they support everyone and everything except people who don't support everything. It's wrong. They're trying to run the whole thing. I don't think they care as much about people supporting them as much as we think. I think ultimately they just want people to acknowledge them and pay attention to them. That last statement might be reaching but you get the gist of it.

Now whoever replies to this with the words: "Homophobe or Prejudiced" is gonna get an earful from me. Yes I'll put the smiley face to tone down that comment but seriously, I will.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


1 posted 02-22-2007 12:18 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

... wince ...
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


2 posted 02-22-2007 01:22 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Now to the liberalism. The way the liberals have it today is that everyone has to be ok with everything. I shall repeat: EVERYONE has to be OK with EVERYTHING.

I don't put a lot of stock in labels, especially when applied to people, and frankly, I've yet to hear a good definition of what liberal is supposed to mean in this context. What do you say, instead of trying to describe what's right or wrong about a nebulous group of people, we limit ourselves to discussing the concept with which you seem to be taking issue?

Everyone has to be okay with everything.

So, you're claiming that "they" insist that everyone has to be okay with murder? And with rape? Not to mention child abuse, suicide bombings, and shooting at stray cats just because they're more fun than stationary coke bottles? All of those things, of course, and so so many more, fall under the umbrella of "everything." And, yea, frankly if you actually mean what you actually said, then I'm going to have to agree with you completely. Any concept that insists we should be okay with "everything" certainly isn't something I could ever get behind.

What did you say, Ed? Speak up, please.

That's not what you meant?

Ah, therein, I think, lies the problem. It might even be the same problem you've faced in other threads when you've said things without really giving them a whole lot of thought first. I think it's called shooting from the hip? Critical thinking depends on the ability and willingness to clearly articulate your premises. When you don't do that you leave the door open to misunderstandings with others, but of even greater importance, you leave yourself floundering in a wasteland of dense fog. Thinking depends on language. You cannot think without words, and you cannot think clearly without just the right words. Sloppy language inevitably leads to sloppy thinking.

So, let's try again.

I think what you probably meant to decry was the concept that people should be okay with everything that is pretty much none of their damn business. That clearly won't include anything that would hurt others, because hurting people makes it their business. You're disagreeing with this concept because, presumably, you think you have the right to express your opinion about the music a man likes, the color he paints his garage, whether he parts his hair on the left or right, right up to and including who he should fall in love with. Never mind that none of these things are your business, never mind that none of these things in any way harms you or others, never mind that the man never asked for your opinion. You don't want to have to be okay with his choices? You dislike being forced to ignore the way other people live their lives?

Does that pretty much cover it, Edward?

And, no, I wouldn't necessarily call you a homophobe. I don't think you've given it enough thought yet to honestly be prejudiced. Indeed, I suspect it's very telling that you made this thread, from the title you chose to the way you presented your arguments, about YOU and not really about sexual preferences or liberalism.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


3 posted 02-22-2007 08:06 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Yep.

Ron's "down with this" because thus far, I have stayed away from your threads because you never seem to have a clear enough stance on a topic that would constitute a true argument.

What you offer is, as Ron said above, is a premise.

And even that is difficult for me to untangle, as your statement is too inept for me to say with any surety that it is a premise.

At best, you offer rants--and that's allowed.

I just don't generally feel compelled to answer them.

Sorry to disappoint ya, Ed. I know you were hoping for more.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


4 posted 02-22-2007 10:37 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

First off Ronnie, let me just say: Get over yourself. You think you can treat people however you want because you're the Mod but guess what it doesn't fly with me. You should look to step over your ego and try to understand that you are not always right. Ok? That's a major problem with certain people on this site; they think they know everything.

And what labels? "I've yet to hear a good definition of what liberal is supposed to mean" Then shall I define it for you? Here's how liberalism started out:

[Liberalism is a philosophy that rejects moral absolutes and authority, especially religious authority. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters.]

And itís still pretty much like that. Why do you have to be so ridiculous? Yes the statement everyone has to be fine with everything is a broad, unspecific and inaccurate. I was making a point. Must you be so condescending and patronizing?

"What did you say, Ed? Speak up, please.
That's not what you meant?"

Please, your ego is blank round fired from a gun. It's makes the sound but doesn't hit the target. You merely intend to make me look bad and allow yourself to look high and mighty. For once, can't you just stick to topic other than resorting to character assassination?

"When you don't do that you leave the door open to misunderstandings with others"

Perhaps you're right. Here's the deal Ronald:

I was talking to this guy (not a friend but a friend's friend). We were just shootin the breeze and gay rights came up because Will and Grace was on the telly. He asked me my views on the matter and I merely said, "I'm not really into it." He asked me to elaborate which I did by saying "I wasn't raised with that thought and I just find the concept uncomfortable and I don't think it's right on a moral basis. I just donít really care one way or the other" Well, he said that I shouldn't think that way because they have rights too and who are we to tell them what to do and bla bla bla. Then another liberal got into the conversation saying "Well, what about abortion?" I told her that I was against that as well. She said that I was wrong because it's a woman's right to KILL her baby. (So yeah I guess liberals are groovy with murder Ron, don't about the rape though. I know a liberal president had a secretary under his desk doing God knows what. But I'm pretty sure it was consensual.) Anyway, I've spoken to other liberals and they share the same ideas.

And none of my damn business? Wow, then why are these forums even up here buddy? What about iliana's post on Nancy Pelosi? What about Huan Yi's post on Jessica Lunsford? Or Brad's post on the FBI? Or what about JCP's post on Michael Richard's racist rant? Be clear Ron, you mean to say that I have no damn business to say anything. All your friends do though, funny how that works. Please be clear and remember that sloppy language inevitably leads to sloppy thinking so you should think about what you say.

"from the title you chose to the way you presented your arguments, about YOU and not really about sexual preferences or liberalism."

Look man, I was making a statement and added a little humorous side note because I'm a humorous guy. YOU on the other hand pretty much only talked about me. You didn't spend too much time on my actual points.

I will not be surprised if you go back and delete some of my comments to "save face" or ban me or whatever you have to do to prevent yourself from being embarrassed. I was only making a statement about a topic that was aggravating me. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that in the Alley. And guess what? Respect is a two way street so when you start respecting me I'll give you the same courtesy.  

Oh and try to be nicer.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


5 posted 02-22-2007 10:44 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Karen,

"you never seem to have a clear enough stance on a topic that would constitute a true argument."

I may have faltered a pinch with this one but not the others so much.

"your statement is too inept for me to say with any surety that it is a premise"

Well aren't you sweet. I sort of expected everyone to agree with Ron anyway, that's how it works right?

And you didn't disappoint me, I'm used to this by now.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


6 posted 02-22-2007 11:04 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Sheesh Ed.

You had to dig really deep to find something to fight about, didn't ya?

Y'got me confused!

I'm sorry, was I supposed to insult you and call you mean names?

Go to aboutu.com--look up "what is an arguemnt" and "what isn't argument", inbetween you'll find some basic terminology of debate, one of which is a definition for the word premise.

*laughig and shaking my head*

Ron didn't make this up, and I ain't exactly known for kissing his behind anyway.

I'm more like...the thorn in his behind.

Unbelievable. At least you made me laugh, so I thank you much for that.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


7 posted 02-23-2007 12:04 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ed, I can see your point of view.  Actually, it was clear to me.  We all communicate in different ways with our words and I thought you got your point across.  Though, I suppose, it could have been more precise....but I didn't realize that was such a big thing in this forum.  

The point I saw was that when a minority begins to not only progress with their rights, but then, is so pro-whatever-it-is that that infringes on the rights of others.  To carry this one step further...people are so afraid to be politically incorrect, that the pendulum swings the other way.  I actually think this type of thinking could eventually deprive us with freedom of speech to some degree.  Anytime in our history, however, when minority movements have occurred, there has been a bit of radicalism, don't you think?  

Someone I know made a comment the other day about "a Jersey girl...you know what I mean."  Well, immediately I knew what she meant.  Then the following day, she was talking about her poor landlord who had "Irish twins" (actually, three babies born within a year of each other).  Neither of the statements this person made were meant derrogatorily, but I am sure that they could be deemed that way.  When a person uses "liberal" like you did, it comes across that that is a bad thing.  I don't believe all liberals fall within the the category to which you allude.  Fox news has given the word "liberal" new definition and dimension (and no, I am not a liberal....but I do believe in liberty, so maybe I am....lol).  In todays USA, we have to be ever watchful about how we use our words, and that can be frustrating at times...and also ridiculous at times.  As for actors who call co-workers names....I think that is a personnel problem to be handled internally, but public figures always go under public scrutiny.  

Your writing is witty and I find your sense of humor refreshing.  When you get down on someone though, it's not funny anymore.  Ron has called me down a time or two -- probably everyone here has gotten it a time or two -- don't take it personally.  If anything, he challenges us to be better writers.  And, FYI, he isn't just a moderator, this is his website and we are lucky to have it.  

Curious about why you referenced my post on Nancy Pelosi?  That was a little bit of interest to many of us taxpaying citizens as it is us who foot the bill for extra expenditures and travel expenses of our Congress.  
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


8 posted 02-23-2007 02:12 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Well Jo? I was a little surprised at Ed's attitude toward me.

I didn't think what I said to him was a personal attack--on the other hand, his response to me and Ron certainly was.

I'm disappointed I guess.

I was just referring to the general rules and merits of debate. I did, however, err by not addressing the subject. (Um, I do that a lot and I'm working on it.)

I certainly have nothing against Ed and I too enjoyed his sense of humor once upon a time.

I'm just seeing very little evidence of it lately.

And he may not realize it, but I have been here awhile, so the other topics he posted I have discussed before and thus I saw no reason to go over the same issue again.

I do suspect he came here, as evidenced by his subject line and demeanor, looking for a fight, and when he didn't find one, he created one by choice.

If he doesn't "like" me--that's fine. It's not written in the guidelines. I've got other crap to deal with, as you well know.

I do apologize to Ed for not taking his feelings on the topic into consideration though--I should have done what I have been doing--remained silent.

In the broader scheme of things, a lot of this stuff just doesn't matter to me right now, and I suppose the most polite thing for me to do is stay out of conversations druther than trivialize someone else's, um, pain?

Ed? I miss your sense of humor. I'm very sorry that your prejudicial attitude toward a private practice and preference isn't taken seriously. I honestly wondered, considering some of your phrasing, if this wasn't a sarcastic editorial of the entire tone of the alley of late.

For example:

quote:
The only reason I got beef is because these "gay rights leaders/groups" are rubbing me the wrong way.


I mean, read that again, and if you read it through my eyes, as the "queen of innuendo", perhaps you can see the quirky irony of that statement. And nod, it's that very quirky irony that made a fan of yours early on. I guess I gave you credit for a clever phrase that was intended as a serious statemnt.

Too bad. It's actually funny if you read it as sarcastic innuendo.

But along with those words I told you about that were listed in that online course I am enrolled in regarding critical thinking were also "connotation", "denotation", "context" and "subtext".

I think, (and I am just assuming mind you, because I do not presume to judge Ron's intent since I already misjudged yours) but? I think that is what Ron meant when he said:

quote:
Thinking depends on language. You cannot think without words, and you cannot think clearly without just the right words. Sloppy language inevitably leads to sloppy thinking.


Just a guess here, but I don't think he was criticizing you personally, just your presentation.

And as for butt-kissing? Shrug. Ron's a nice guy, but more than that-- he is a GREAT teacher.

Note the lack of "cooing" in my statement. That's not butt-kissing, Ed, just an observation, and from one who has butted heads with Ron on many occasion, and I like to think with no loss of personal respect on either side. (At least I like to think so.)

So anyhow, Ed, no harm intended, and I thought there was no harm done. And btw? I consider the discussion forums a bit like Vegas--what happens in here, stays in here.

If you write a poem I enjoy, I don't have qualms about replying and saying so--because as at least one other member has learned--I may never agree with someone philosophically, but I reserve the right to applaud well written poetry, regardless of personality conflicts elsewhere.

Now.

*peace*


iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


9 posted 02-23-2007 02:29 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Ser, I was surprised by the sudden shift of tone, as well, toward both of you, and that is why I was moved to make the comments I did.  

Yano, this is one of the reasons (not the main one though) I have not been around here lately....it just seems to get ugly and too personal.  I will be the first to admit, there's at least one time I made it personal myself, but I regretted that and apologized for it.  I don't think that should stop us from posting though if we feel moved to write.  I have to tell you that within the past month, I have written several posts to other threads in this forum and then erased them.  Just didn't have the "fight" in me, nor the time....and I sure understand where you are coming from, my friend.....no I am not sucking up....you know I love ya.  

[This message has been edited by iliana (02-23-2007 03:01 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


10 posted 02-23-2007 02:34 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Aw...we have gone from butt kissing to sucking up--dangerously close to total naughty!

*laughing*

Why not? Where's kit?

I wanna butt kissin' smilie! grin

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


11 posted 02-23-2007 11:30 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Karen,

I'm a little surprised myself. I didn't call you any names. I actually I didn't say anything mean to you. I was a little sarcastic with you about the "aren't you sweet" thing but you called my argument inept and said that I never seem to have a clear enough stance on a topic. I think those are insults. My beef is with Ron, not you. I didn't say anything to you that you should be upset about.

"You had to dig really deep to find something to fight about, didn't ya?"

And yet another insult Karen. All I wanted to do was share my thoughts and Ron had to be the way he was. I'm not looking for a fight. I seem to be the only one that's not allowed to share my views, it's a little sad.

I'm sorry you got upset, it wasn't my intention and there really wasn't anything there for you to be upset about. So there's really nothing more I can say...
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


12 posted 02-23-2007 11:58 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

Thank you Iliana, I'm glad that someone wants to discuss the actual topic. I appreciate your kindness. Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not some flaming Irish dude looking for a fight. I try not to start them but by God I'll sure as hell finish 'em. I've taken enough junk from people in my life and I don't take it anymore. The only reason I mentioned your post (sorry to bring you into it) was to give an example about people's business. Ron said I had no business talking about this so I just gave some quick examples of other people's posts asking why they have the right and not me. I honestly didn't even read your post, I was just making a point.  Thanks again

Karen,

"Ed? I miss your sense of humor."

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. That sounds a little passive-aggressive. I still have my sense of humor. The very beginning of my first post was humor.

"I'm very sorry that your prejudicial attitude toward a private practice and preference isn't taken seriously."

Prejudice? See Karen, this is my point. Just because I don't agree with something on a moral level, that makes me prejudiced? I have a gay friend; I just don't want to hear about her conquests, if you catch my drift. I just want her friendship and she just wants mine. My beef is with the gay rights ďgroupsĒ who are making a big deal when someone doesn't agree with them. I gave the examples, look what they did with this Grey's Anatomy thing. I think that's a legitimate thing to discuss.


"I honestly wondered, considering some of your phrasing, if this wasn't a sarcastic editorial of the entire tone of the alley of late."

Yes the rubbing me the wrong way was a play on words. Donít take me so seriously. Iím only serious when Iím defending someone or defending myself.

Karen I really meant no disrespect at all like I already said. I can honestly say that I don't know why we have this problem but at any rate I want our problem to over. So this is an apology for whatever I did to offend you and I want peace.  
Sincerely, Ed
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


13 posted 02-23-2007 02:06 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Why is Ed's ability to express himself being attacked?

I feel as if he's been "weighed, measured, and found wanting" and I'm not even sure what the reasons may be. Form? Presentation? Mount and Dismount of a topic?

From my perspective, Ed is expressing his thoughts and feelings toward certain groups who are currently in the headlines. He has questioned their methodology and seems bothered by their headway in their attempts to establish change. All is addressable whether he's formally addressing particular groups or casually addressing them.

I don't feel he approached his issues in the argumentative sense, so I'm not sure why his skills for debate were even intimated as necessary elements for his post. I didn't know the posts in the Alley required anything but following the protocol for appropriate content and topic.

I think Ed was just trying to share and state opinions on a topic that's hard to approach, casually, let alone argumentatively, because of how taboo it has become to feel that homosexuality is taboo.

Change is hard...and slow...and very slow in society, but I see society evolving from moral and religious conjecture/conviction into something that requires one to be politically correct, open-minded, tolerant and completely respectful of another's privacy in their personal choices, and their pursuit of equality. That seems easy enough, practical, and wise, but we're just getting used to that notion, say since Freedom of Religion? I don't know, my historical sense is sketchy, but let's just say anytime in the recent past, because the King (dare I say Pope) was saying about the same thing to us peasants and protestants as you said in this quote, Ed:

"The only reason I got beef is because these "gay rights leaders/groups" are rubbing me the wrong way."


I also used religion as an example of how freedoms can be used to tax, label, oppress, cast out or exclude others from groups, which is slightly effective in causing some to want to change or alter to become part of the group or forget it altogether and just move on/be on their own. I think knowledge can be used this way too, by way of condescension. The only thing I know is that I don't know everything.

Ron, I felt your tone toward Ed's method of writing and expression was condescending and so was Karen's. I admire you both for your forthright talent and ability to express yourselves, but in this instance, your knowledge seems to have been used as a tool to slap down someone you both pegged as inferior in ability.

I disagree. Ed shows courage. It takes confidence and backbone to open up on controversial topics, and I'm glad he's sharing his feelings instead of hunting down homosexuals and killing them as a "Messenger for God." I feel his tone changed in his next post, not because of the subject but because of the negative manner he and his writing skills were addressed. That's how I see it.

I don't understand why you felt Ed must present this post in critical or argumentative form, when that takes a fair amount of study and practice just to have a grasp on language. Why must he express himself on that level to be regarded as a worthy thinker? Sometimes people have to feel through things or expose random thoughts to get to the root of issues. This method may be simplistic but no less important to me in human interaction and expression.

I read these forums daily because these pages are an interaction of all kinds of thoughts from people around the world and I learn something from everyone. I thank you for that, however, I regret to say how I can't blame Ed for feeling more on the defense and less on the edge of learning something positive, which is what I hope he is able to do through life and living with others who are different than he is.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


14 posted 02-23-2007 04:43 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ed said:

quote:
You have to approve of gay rights or they don't approve of you and they'll make your life hell.


I think it all comes down to this statement.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


15 posted 02-23-2007 09:44 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

A Short One In lieu of Criticism


There is
A war on
And young ones
Are dying

Perhaps then again
You didnít know

.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


16 posted 02-24-2007 10:29 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I for one will be the first to admit that Ed's presentation can be well ... untactful at times (luv ya Ed).  And I have my own problems with some of his points, perhaps I'll explain these later.


But I do agree with him that terms like "homophobe" (or the thoughts behind them) amount to little more than belittlement of someone else who doesn't agree.      


Stephen.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


17 posted 02-25-2007 02:31 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Edward: Yes the statement everyone has to be fine with everything is a broad, unspecific and inaccurate. I was making a point. Must you be so condescending and patronizing?


quote:
iliana: We all communicate in different ways with our words and I thought you got your point across.  Though, I suppose, it could have been more precise....but I didn't realize that was such a big thing in this forum.


quote:
rwood: I didn't know the posts in the Alley required anything but following the protocol for appropriate content and topic.


Hey, guys, it's a writing site, remember?

I greatly appreciate good writing, I empathize deeply with bad writing, but I have very little patience with lazy writing. Especially when it's used to verbally assault others.

When you attack a group of people by attributing a statement to them, it behooves your argument to make sure the statement is accurate. "EVERYONE has to be OK with EVERYTHING," is not an accurate representation of anything and, indeed, doesn't even make sense. I've never heard any group make any such claim, not even anarchists (who presumably would not be okay with their own murders).

It's a lie, albeit a careless one rather than an intentional one. And at the end of the day, you can't really argue with lies. You can only denounce them.

Edward wants the freedom to "got some beef" in these forums, but apparently wants to relegate me and everyone else to mere chicken. We don't get to disagree with him, or his methods, lest he feel slighted. Sorry, but if Edward or anyone else wants to simply express an opinion, they should write it on a piece of paper and stick it in a desk drawer. Better yet, fictionalize your opinion and post it as a poem or short story. This forum, however, is for discussion, and not everyone is going to agree with your opinions.

Especially when you use the podium here to attack other people.

Coincidentally, Andrew Anthos, better known to his friends as Buddy, died about a hundred miles down the road from me this past Friday from injuries sustained in a February 13 beating. Buddy was riding the bus from the public library to his apartment in Detroit when another male passenger approached him and asked if he was gay. When Buddy left the bus (to help a wheelchair-bound fellow passenger through the snow no less) the man followed. He hit Buddy in the back of the head with a metal pipe and fled on foot. The police have no suspects.

Oh, yea, I almost forgot. Andrew Anthos was 72 years old.

You know, in retrospect, it's probably not all that coincidental after all. These kind of hate crimes happen often enough that one was bound to coincide with Edward's little rant. This one just happened to hit close to home for me. I'm certainly not going to suggest this is the kind of thing Edward wants to be able to publicly support. I think he's careless, not criminal. However, what Edward doesn't understand, in his carelessness, is that this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when no one stands up to condemn it. Instead of condemning the violence and hate, Edward wants to rail against those who do condemn it?

No one ever said you have to be okay with everything, Edward. That was just reckless rhetoric, a sin for any man, I think, but gross negligence for a writer. What they have said, I believe, is that you can't be okay with just anything. You can't, for example, be okay with hitting an old man in the back of the head with a metal pipe. And if you say you are, if you actively promote hate, they're going come down hard on you. They're going to condemn your words and actions. Much as you've tried to do to them in this thread.

The difference, of course, is that their condemnation is going to carry some serious weight with other people. And THAT, I think, is what really pisses you off.

quote:
Ed said:

quote:
You have to approve of gay rights or they don't approve of you and they'll make your life hell.


I think it all comes down to this statement.

It only comes down to that statement, Brad, if you accept the statement at face value.

There might be some truth to the statement if you're a high profile celebrity or politician. For most of us, though, we don't have to approve of gay rights to escape disapproval because, frankly, our opinions aren't really all that important. What we can't do with impunity is actively promote hate and prejudice.

It all strikes me as eminently fair.

If you disapprove of gay rights then gay rights is going to disapprove of you. Tit for tat. It seems a bit childish to get mad just because they do it so much more effectively.

quote:
But I do agree with him that terms like "homophobe" (or the thoughts behind them) amount to little more than belittlement of someone else who doesn't agree.

And I'm sure, Stephen, that the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing about terms like "racist." No one, I guess, likes to have their opinions belittled.

Sometimes, though, I think it's necessary.

(For the record, homophobe technically indicates a fear of homosexuality. It is only through common usage that it has also come to mean a hatred of homosexuals, thus making it a parallel for racism. Sadly, I suspect such common usage tells its own story.)


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


18 posted 02-25-2007 03:12 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
And I'm sure, Stephen, that the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing about terms like "racist."



That's what I mean.  That kind of comparison is always on the lips.  Usually before the ideas are even dialogued.  As I'm quite certain that those who oppose Gay Marriage are automatically viewed as bigots, by some.  


Actually, it's funny that "bigot" is often said today with such a sneer that it airs much the same tone with which a hateful person might say "f*ggot".


A distinction needs to be made between Gay-haters, and those who disagree with the lifestyle as sinful, and view the radical changing of the present institution of Marriage as unwise.

  
quote:
Sometimes, though, I think it's necessary.


You're right.


quote:
(For the record, homophobe technically indicates a fear of homosexuality. It is only through common usage that it has also come to mean a hatred of homosexuals, thus making it a parallel for racism. Sadly, I suspect such common usage tells its own story.


The problem is, when the opposition of something, is automatically ascribed to fear.  It's not really a psychological diagnosis as much as it is a way to end discussion.  The abolitionists could have been called "slavophobes".  Philanthropists could be called "pauperphobes".  See my point?


But even if fear were involved, I find the use of the word "fear" in a universally derogatory way interesting.  After all, virtually everyone recognizes (and practices) fears that are healthy and proper.

    
Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


19 posted 02-25-2007 07:39 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
A distinction needs to be made between Gay-haters, and those who disagree with the lifestyle as sinful, and view the radical changing of the present institution of Marriage as unwise.

Everything is a sin, Stephen. To someone. Morality is something to be individually lived, not forced onto others against their will.

You have every right to live your life as you wish, following your own moral convictions, so long as doing so harms no one else.

So do they.

Sorry, but I see no useful distinction. Whether a man kills out of hate or because his god told him to, the result is much the same.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


20 posted 02-26-2007 09:37 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Okay, here's my take on it. First of all, nobody would be cool with it if I wasn't down with the "whole black thing." And T.R. Knight would probably be in as much, if not more, trouble if he called Isaiah Washington a n*****. I think it's kind of funny that he had to go to "therapy" for it- but that's just me.

I ahve to ask- and this isn't out of sarcasm, I'm genuinely curious- to Ed, and Stephen... what would you guys say or do if one of your kids was gay? How would you feel if your kid was being called f*****, or if people ridiculed him/her just for riding a bus, or finding love? Would you defend your kid? Would you be angry at the people who were "disagreeing with their lifestyle?" Would you defend your kid's right to live (and let live)?
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


21 posted 02-26-2007 12:58 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

All:

I've been criticized by some activists as promoting the segregation of disabled people by not supporting proposals to fully include all children with disabilities in regular education classrooms (known commonly as "inclusion").  I counter such accusations by asserting that some children need more specialized and intensive attention in order to overcome the debilitating effects of their condition and, therefore, acquire the skills they need to benefit meaningfully from a fully inclusive education.  They counter by telling me I support segregation of the disabled and that this is tantamount to bigotry.  Then I ignore them and keep doing what I believe is right.

I see some parallels in the homosexual rights debate.  You have some arguing that homosexuals relationships should be recognized as being legally equivalent to heterosexual relationships.  You have others who argue just as vehemently that such a proposal is a threat to the very institution of marriage and, therefore, all efforts to promote such policies should be struck down.  I'm a little offended by both views because I rarely hear compelling reasons put forth by either side to support their respective views.

What's missing, either in fact or in the headlines, is a dialogue between interested parties that weighs the pros and cons of both proposals and seeks a mutually agreeable compromise.  I can't believe I'm the only person out there who considers homosexual behavior to be potentially harmful and sinful, but also recognizes that, under the standards of legal equity, there seems to be some wiggle room.

To try to answer Hush, I think I would handle my own child's hypothetical homosexuality in the same way I would handle any of his behaviors that ring inconsistent with my sense of moral standards.  He would certainly know I disapprove of his behavior and, to the extent my authority allows, I would attempt to discourage any behavior I see as potentially harmful to him.  But I would also make it frequently and abundantly clear that I will always be his father, and would continue to love him unconditionally.  Granted, this is tricky territory, but the key to navigating it is good communication, free from both patronizing, unconditional acceptance of all behavior AND heavy-handed ostracising of the person.  How is either of these extreme reactions "Christian" or moral by any standard?

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


22 posted 02-26-2007 03:07 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
Everything is a sin, Stephen. To someone. Morality is something to be individually lived, not forced onto others against their will.

There are many people who do not agree with homosexuality, who are not trying to "force morality on others against their will".  


Though to completely divorce morality from the arena of legislation, seems quite arbitrary on your part.  We are moral beings in all arenas of thought, to some degree.  Just a casual reading of the writings of certain leaders of the past (who were involved in changing and establishing certain laws) reveals that morality wasn't divorced from the conversation.  


quote:
You have every right to live your life as you wish, following your own moral convictions, so long as doing so harms no one else.

So do they.


Why doesn't relativism (which you are so quick to apply to morality) extend into the question of what constitutes "harm"?  Why doesn't the same subjectiveness apply?  You always talk of one as hoplessly obscure, and the other as perfectly obvious.


quote:
Sorry, but I see no useful distinction. Whether a man kills out of hate or because his god told him to, the result is much the same.


No doubt that's true.  But it's interesting that derisive terms like "homophobe" are being applied to many who fall quite short of hatred and especially the extremes you've been bringing up.  Half the irritation is that these extreme comparisons always happen.  Figures like KKK Grand Wizards, and Islamic Terrorists keep popping up with all seriousness.  In this thread alone, they've already been mentioned (not failing to generate a little sadness and amusement on my part).  It's kind of like if we were talking and I constantly called you "Hitler" because you believe in Gun control.  Probably wouldn't be a very productive discussion eh?  



Hush:
quote:
Okay, here's my take on it. First of all, nobody would be cool with it if I wasn't down with the "whole black thing."


There are significant difference between variances of race, and variances of behavior.  This is another version of the KKK comparison, although milder in tone.  

Of course, I do think it's valid to ask the question of how it's so different, if you don't yet see how.


quote:
what would you guys say or do if one of your kids was gay?


I really doubt that I could answer that any better than Jim did.  ditto.

quote:
How would you feel if your kid was being called f*****, or if people ridiculed him/her just for riding a bus, or finding love? Would you defend your kid?


Ridicule and disapproval are not the same thing either.  Did your parents (or anyone for that matter) ever disapprove of something that was proper to disapprove of, without ridiculing you?  Mine did.


Is it possible to defend someone without defending their wrong behaviors or views?  I think it is.  I would defend my child at school, from false accusations, or over strict punishment, but I would never "side" with my child unconditionally (I didn't say 'love unconditionally') just because he was my child.    


Jim:
quote:
What's missing, either in fact or in the headlines, is a dialogue between interested parties that weighs the pros and cons of both proposals and seeks a mutually agreeable compromise.  I can't believe I'm the only person out there who considers homosexual behavior to be potentially harmful and sinful, but also recognizes that, under the standards of legal equity, there seems to be some wiggle room.


I actually agree with you here Jim, more than you might think.  But total agreement might depend upon how much "legal equity" might alter the present institution of Marriage.  


Stephen.
    
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


23 posted 02-26-2007 05:38 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Why doesn't relativism (which you are so quick to apply to morality) extend into the question of what constitutes "harm"?  Why doesn't the same subjectiveness apply?  You always talk of one as hoplessly obscure, and the other as perfectly obvious.


I don't understand this. 'Harm' is the point of discussion, not relativist obscurantism.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


24 posted 02-26-2007 05:58 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad,

My point is, what constitutes "harm" is just as subjective as morality, if we follow Ron's obscurantism about moral questions.  It's not immediately obvious what "harm" even is.  Many believe that allowing homosexual marriage, will harm us as a society.  Many believe that it will harm their children to be taught that a homosexual relationship is "normal" in the same what that a heterosexual relationship is normal.


Ron would argue that that's not harm at all, but rather "fear" of nothing.  


I'm simply letting him know that the relativism he applies to morals, makes his views about harm equally dubious, if we are to accept his subjectivism as a valid method of reasoning these things out.


Stephen.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> It's that time again   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors