»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Content Of Poems
| The Alley |
|
Content Of Poems |
|
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Content Of Poems Yes of course comments on any poem should be on the poem as a piece of poetry, not on the content, but inevitably there are poems that will promote a debate on the content. In my experience both as a contributor and as a staff member on other writing forums, discussion boards do pose problems for moderators to control. The lack of a chairman to keep order is one reason and more relevant is the majority who are taking part in the discussion have little knowledge of the cut and trust of a debate i.e. when their views are rejected will respond with hurt and anger, its human nature. There are many very emotive subjects which the battle lines are rigorously established. Religion, gun control and abortion, to mention just a few and to state your own personal view on either of these will always get an opposing view in return. I try to pass them by but I admit it’s hard to do at times. The massacre of Sandy Hook for example that took the lives of 20 little children in cold blood promoted disgust and revulsion world wide. I was a member on a writing forum at the time and it took me as an ex soldier and a father of three girls a super human effort to stay out of the views being expressed on the discussion board. Entreaties to show respect for all views by the admin in my experience fall on deaf ears when members get involved in a heated debate. I don’t have any answers, I wish I did. Cari. |
||
| © Copyright 2016 Cari - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ari Squire Member Posts 488 In The Phallus Lane |
Good of you to bring your comments to this forum Cari. Like yourself, I served in the military (USMC) and have 3 girls (all married) and had a son (deceased}. I reflect your feelings here to the letter: quote:Cheers. More feelings and fewer words please |
||
|
Lori Grosser Rhoden Member Patricius
since 2009-10-10
Posts 10202Fair to middlin' of nowhere |
Does my poem really need to be moved to the discussion forum as Ari suggested? Is it really such a hot bed of contention? Or was it my reply to Blues too opinionated that it raised hackles and crossed a line somewhere? I have never had responses like this before so this is all new to me. I would have assumed if they didn't like the content of the poem they would have read it and let it pass without comment. That's pretty much what I do. Appears to me as if the "discussion" so far has been supportive of my position (until Ari said take it somewhere else). I'm not offended, just bewildered. |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Lori No of course your poem is not required to be moved to the discussion board, you have done nothing wrong at all by posting. It’s the discussion of the content that is out of place on the poetry board i.e. if members want to discuss the contents of a poem then the place to do that is on the board provided. That was what Ari was saying. They are not commenting on the merits of your poem but adding their two pennyworths on the content and not to the post on how stands as a poem. I can’t make it any clearer than that other than to give you an example. Take a very emotive subject; say abortion. A subject that inspires extreme views on both sides for and against, which sadly leaves little room for commonsense to prevail. A poem by Spike Milligan. Unto Us. Somewhere at some time They committed themselves to me And so, I was! Small, but I WAS! Tiny, in shape Lusting to live I hung in my pulsing cave. Soon they knew of me My mother --my father. I had no say in my being I lived on trust And love Tho' I couldn't think Each part of me was saying A silent 'Wait for me I will bring you love!' I was taken Blind, naked, defenseless By the hand of one Whose good name Was graven on a brass plate in Wimpole Street, and dropped on the sterile floor of a foot operated plastic waste bucket. There was no Queens Counsel To take my brief. The cot I might have warmed Stood in Harrod's shop window. When my passing was told My father smiled. No grief filled my empty space. My death was celebrated With tickets to see Danny la Rue Who was pretending to be a woman Like my mother was. My views are firmly on the rights of the woman to decide on the fruits of her own body but I when read this I thought how can I support a rich couple who think that the gift of new life is just an unwanted distraction to their life style and don’t take the necessary steps to avoid it happening? My point is that very good poetry can question our beliefs, if we are intelligent enough to allow it to. Cari. |
||
|
BluesSerenade Member Patricius
since 2001-10-23
Posts 10549By the Seaside |
You are smart, wise and reasonable Cari. Not long ago someone posted a "rhyming rant" about how they would not vote for Hillary...funny my reply was edited because i said it did not read like poetry!! But hey it rhymed. I guess my reply was considered a personal attack...although it seems tame compared to a certain reply to loris poem...I am so nervous about even posting this as I'm sure I will get chewed up and spit out...but What gets me is most of the replies to the said Rhyming Hillary poem were in the form of discussion that went on about Hillary being the big liar and all..and whom I don't necessarily support. Thing is it was never even suggested that the said rhyming poem or replies should be moved to discussion. That's all I have to say about that..peace, out. |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Transgender incorporates two distinct categories. First are the males that get a sexual kick out of dressing in women’s clothing, the other is a female who is born and locked into a male body. In regards to the right to use public toilets it should be fairly easy to reach a moral decision between the two, i.e. I don’t think that a male who has an obsession for occasionally dressing as a female should simply use his fetish as an excuse to enter a female toilet, would gain much support for doing so. But I can only imagine the pain and mental anguish of being born in the wrong body by a quirk of fate. Some live with it and some elect to go through trauma and pain to alter their bodies to live the life they are happy to live. While one is just a sexual masquerade the other is not. However to frame a law that covers these two examples together is virtually impossible. The lawyers would have a field day. Cari. |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Transgender incorporates two distinct categories. First are the males that get a sexual kick out of dressing in women’s clothing, the other is a female who is born and locked into a male body. In regards to the right to use public toilets it should be fairly easy to reach a moral decision between the two, i.e. I don’t think that a male who has an obsession for occasionally dressing as a female should simply use his fetish as an excuse to enter a female toilet, would gain much support for doing so. But I can only imagine the pain and mental anguish of being born in the wrong body by a quirk of fate. Some live with it and some elect to go through trauma and pain to alter their bodies to live the life they are happy to live. While one is just a sexual masquerade the other is not. However to frame a law that covers these two examples together is virtually impossible. The lawyers would have a field day. Cari. |
||
|
Lori Grosser Rhoden Member Patricius
since 2009-10-10
Posts 10202Fair to middlin' of nowhere |
Cari, I agree there is an issue with cross dressing men and transgender as they are completely different breeds of people. Still, I maintain, use the bathroom you look like. Cross dressing men aren't known to be predatory, but normally hetero males that would get the crap beat out of them in the men's room. Considering that ladies rooms have stalls with doors and most new structures have "family" bathrooms, privacy shouldn't be an issue and none should be the wiser. Commonsense needs to prevail here. Plenty of women have used a single stall men's room with a lock on the door when the line in the ladies room is too long (myself included). The loophole that needs closed is the one that lets the predatory male in the ladies room using transgender as a ruse to avoid indecent charges. Transgenders in the restrooms are not the threat, nor do I believe are cross dressers. The threat is the predators that have found a convenient loophole. ~L |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Exactly Lori, being in or using the wrong toilet is not a crime in itself, nor is dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex. It may seem to most of us a bit odd but it’s not an offence. The crime is assault, whether a sexual assault or not. You simply can’t make it a criminal act on how an individual is dressed or by being in the opposite sex public toilet. Sure, that person can be asked to leave but no offence has been committed. If no offence was committed then how is the burden or proof, necessary for prosecution to be established? Mere suspicion carries no weight in a court of law. I think that the law that this guy put forward stems from a gut feeling against transsexuals than a constructive proposition that deals with a real problem that exists. |
||
|
Lori Grosser Rhoden Member Patricius
since 2009-10-10
Posts 10202Fair to middlin' of nowhere |
Thank you for taking this conversation here. I feel like I have had my full say and have been heard and understood. Matters not if nobody else agrees with me or thinks I'm just blowing liberal blather. Like you have commented before, this Country has more important issues to get in an uproar about. ~L |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hi, Cari! It was an excellent idea to bring this into the Alley. Although it is a standard to respond to the poetic ability of the poem and not the content, still we all want the content responded to, also. If we write about the death of a loved one, we appreciate the sympathetic replies. If we write about the beauty of a part of life, we like the responses applauding and agreeing to such beauty. Should the responses be contrary to the writer's belief, then many times the "respond to the poem" gets cited. It's a very slippery slope, trying to manage the two. My reply went too far and I apologize for that. What spurred me on was your first stanza beginning with OH HUMANITY! What you are doing there is chastising humanity in general for not believe in your opinion. I, along with many people here (except for Toerag), are part of humanity and I don't particulrly consider my animosity to be monstrous or to be told my views are ignorant simly because I think males sharing female bathrooms is abnormal. Referring to transgenders and cross-dressers, you state "While one is just a sexual masquerade the other is not. However to frame a law that covers these two examples together is virtually impossible. The lawyers would have a field day." Actually, since you are stating that a law covering the two would be impossible, you are then speaking against a law which would allow such actions as this new law would dictate. You have said that exposure would be wrong and that shouldn't come into play since female bathrooms have stalls. You are not seeing the whole picture. What about locker rooms? Shower stalls? If bathrooms are ok to integrate, why not them? You think that is not coming next? You can feel the transgenders pain? Imagine their pain of having to shower with a group of smelly men or changing clothes for gym with a roomful of guys instead of showering or changing with females that they relate to? Do you approve of that also? I find it unlikely. No, I can't know what transgenders go through, not being one, but I see no indication that their pain has been so unbearable up until now. As you say, bathrooms have stalls. I've seen no gay or transgender groups ever bringing this up before, no complaints that their lives are filled with torture because they are restricted to men's rooms. Who do I see bringing it up and making an issue of it? The government. Ask yourself why. |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Breaking news. I see that the US government has got involved in this topic. Why do we ignore using a bit o commonsense instead of taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut? How about doing something far more relevant. For example: Getting firearms off the streets of America and out of civilian hands. That alone would save the deaths of over 30,000 a year plus double that or more in injuries. Yeah, I understand, even for a politician to whisper such a thought would be committing political suicide. Cari. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I dont know about political suicide but it should get him committed to Happy Acres...unless, of course, he cares to explain how taking guns from civilians will make them safer and get guns off the streets. Heck, lets make heroin illegal and solve the drug problem? Great idea! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By the way, the government getting involved is not breaking news. The government created this sledgehammer. At least you seem to be acknowledging the absurdity of it. I agree. http://dennismichaellynch.com/obama-issues-nationwide-federal-bathroom-decree/ |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
You really want an explanation as to why a society without firearms is far safer than a society with? Spend 10 or 15 minutes on the web, the evidence is overwhelming but commonsense will do the job just as well if you let it. America pays a very heavy price for allowing civilians to own guns, a listed massacre every 68 days and this; In May 2015, a two year-old boy died after shooting himself in the head in Virginia. In April the same year a three year-old boy killed a one year-old in Cleveland after picking up an unattended gun. Tell me if you want more or better still do it yourself. Cari. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Cari, you come up with two examples of parental neglect and try to make a case for gun control? We have more than enough laws on the books, including making parents responsible for insuring their weapons are not accessible to children. Obviously these laws were not followed. For everyone like you who claim we need gun control, I ask...how? What is the plan? How do you keep guns out of criminal hands at the same time you take them from law-abiding citizens just trying to protect their families? Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country. They also have the highest murder rate. How do you explain that? Maybe it's that criminals don't follow laws....ya think? The old saying still holds true..when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Is that the society you want to live in? I'll pass. Switzerland has NO gun control. They also have the lowest murder rate in the world. You want more statistics or perhaps you can look them up for yourself? The two examples of the children are sad indeed but do not speak of gun control. It takes more than shouting "We need gun control!". It takes a plan. If you have that plan, I'd be very interested in hearing it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
What criminal activity is HB2, enacted by the North Carolina general assembly, supposed to address and curtail? |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Quote--Cari, you come up with two examples of parental neglect and try to make a case for gun control? We have more than enough laws on the books, including making parents responsible for insuring their weapons are not accessible to children. Obviously these laws were not followed. You actually get to the crux of the issue namely by allowing firearms to be owned by civilians. You may indeed have the laws in place in some States but as you know America is a republic and individual States have their own laws which differ from other States, in fact it’s a bit of a hotchpotch. However let’s assume there is a federal law that covers the safety aspects of gun ownership. Then we have to know how that law is to be enforced. A law that can’t and never is enforced isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. How many guns are legally owned by civilians in the US? I only know it runs into many millions. Can you imagine the cost of carrying out even the most basic checks in safety control on millions of gun owners? The answer is obvious; the cost alone renders any law unenforceable. You say I have come up with two examples of parental neglect. Correct, do you want more? Ok.-- Gunshot wounds send about 20 children to the hospital every single day in the United States, a new study says. A review of hospital records found that firearms caused 7,391 hospitalizations among children younger than 20 during 2009, the most recent year for which records are available. These are American figures, not mine. They took me a few minutes to find on the Web. Quote-- For everyone like you who claim we need gun control, I ask...how? What is the plan? How do you keep guns out of criminal hands at the same time you take them from law-abiding citizens just trying to protect their families? Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country. They also have the highest murder rate. How do you explain that? Maybe it's that criminals don't follow laws....ya think? To answer your question is you can’t stop guns getting out of criminal hands, especially when the country is awash with them; which is part of the problem. My answer is the same with your next quote. Quote-- The old saying still holds true..when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Is that the society you want to live in? I'll pass. No, but neither do I want to live inside of an arcade game where the goodies can constantly pop off at the badies. Come on, you have a police service to protect you, if it’s not working to your satisfaction then get it sorted, but the answer is not to hand Mrs. Brown an assault rifle and tell her to get on with it. Quote-- Switzerland has NO gun control. They also have the lowest murder rate in the world. You want more statistics or perhaps you can look them up for yourself? I did and found your statement is wrong. Switzerland has a comprehensive gun-control regime that is governed by federal law and implemented by the cantons. This regime may be somewhat less restrictive than that of other European countries, yet since 2008 it has complied with European Union requirements. The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned. By the way, Switzerland has over twice the amount of gun deaths annually than the UK. Work to do methinks. Quote-- The two examples of the children are sad indeed but do not speak of gun control. It takes more than shouting "We need gun control!". It takes a plan. If you have that plan, I'd be very interested in hearing it. Really? No friend I’m not shouting "We need gun control” I’m saying much more, guns have no place in the hands of the civilian population. The cost of allowing unlimited ownership of firearms carries a horrendous price which you have to pay each and every day. I understand the fascination with firearms, its universal, especially with the young. But if your attraction to guns is overpowering, then do what I did and join the armed services. I was given a SA80 for free WOW!! Together with excellent tuition harnessed to a safety code that was rigorously enforced and you may even get to use your weapon for what it was designed to do. The downside is that you may also get to know what real conflict does to you. As to your need for a plan, look to Australia, they worked one out and if you think Australians are pussies, think again. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Cari, but nowhere in your eloquent reply did I see the answer to the question "What is your plan?" You offered none except to say that guns can never be taken away from criminals. Well, then, how can you support disarming those who will be victims? I don't live in a penny arcade shooting gallery environment and I doubt you do, either, although a little melodrama always spices up any conversation.  Why don't I join the service to learn about guns? I had that same idea once, which took me to the jungles of Viet Nam. Perhaps we can get together sometime and share war experiences. SHow me any survey that says our society would be safer if only criminals have guns and I'll agree with you. SHow me anyone who has an actual viable plan to eliminate guns for both criminal and non-criminal parts of society and I'll agree with you. The problem is you can't show either. They don't exist. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/31/shock-as-americans-bought-170-million-guns-violent-crime-fell-51/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Interesting link Mike but do you believe the claim they make is actually true? That more guns equals less gun related incidents. . |
||
|
Cari Member Posts 411 Englnand |
Quote: SHow me any survey that says our society would be safer if only criminals have guns. This sound’s like the NRA mantra coming to the fore. The organisation that represents the Arms manufactures whose sole interests are selling you their products. Hardly a sensible question is it? It assumes that armed criminals are intent in shooting unarmed members of the public which is fundamentally untrue. In the UK criminal gangs do have a few illegal guns which are used almost exclusively in drug wars between rival gangs, whereas the ordinary UK civilian wouldn’t have a clue of how to get their hands on a firearm. The multiple shootings, a sad recurring fact in the US, are not committed by criminals in pursuit of their illegal operations. Where is the profit in killing 20 small children or opening fire in a crowded cinema etc? No, massacres are committed by ordinary civilians with mainly legally owned firearms. This is a direct result of arming the civilian population without any control over their handling of weapons or even the most basic safety rules enforced. The truth is that civilian owned firearms are far more likely to kill or injure the owner, their partners, children, relatives and friends, other than any criminal. The figures bear out the same facts year after year. I’ll leave you with one very chilling fact. The death toll of civilians killed by firearms from the 1960s to the present day is greater than all American service men killed in action from the War of Independence to the present day. Time period 240 years against 66 years. Cari. |
||
|
Redstart Senior Member
since 2014-05-16
Posts 535 |
Personal attack removed This is not the first such attack on other Members of pipTalk, nor even the most egregious. Poster suspended for one month.  Ron [This message has been edited by Ron (09-25-2016 04:25 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
