Subject: Re: that's... interesting logic
Author:
Posted on: 2009-06-02 14:46:00 UTC
It'll be the former I hope. Otherwise, my word's not exactly good for anything, is it? I'll be like *whispers in horror* a politician.
But yeah, chances are I will have a mental debate and I'll hate myself regardless of my decision.
I don't watch Home and Away - I only know the title because half the people in Australia seemed to watch it - so usually I'd ignore anything about it, but according to this article, the show recently introduced a lesbian love story and is being berated for it.
The first thing that jumped to my mind when I read that was one of Pads' responses to my interview questions about fanfiction a few months ago: She said a lot of fanfic slash is "a response to the total lack of slash available offline", and that "The media is saturated with sex, and it's all heterosexual sex. A fairly hefty proportion of the population is alienated by the images they're subjected to all day, every day. I'd like a rather more realistic portrayal of sexuality, and that means including gay characters as well as straight."
And she's absolutely right. I'm not a slash fan, but I get really, really angry reading things like this:
"I think it's another example of an agenda that's being pushed by several parts of our society to try and depict the gay lifestyle as normal and natural," says Presbyterian Youth Minister Andrew Vines.
"Normal and natural"? It IS "normal" and "natural"! It's not for everyone, but... *growls*
Thoughts?
(And let me add I'm ranting. I know that not everyone will agree with me, but it's a touchy subject, so please, guys, don't let this turn into a nasty argument, 'kay? Friendly discussion only. I don't want to be responsible for a flaming mess.)
I'm finally doing research for my essay on John Wilmot and his most excellent play Sodom, or, the Quintessence of Debauchery. This has involved looking up attitudes to homosexuality during the Restoration. We're talking 250-350 years ago. Interesting points of note:
Homosexuality was viewed as having great potential in theatre, generally as a means of social commentary or satire. Rochester goes a bit beyond most (and there was a whole lawsuit about obscenity), having sodomy equated with Catholicism.
However, sodomy wasn't viewed as a sin, or against Church doctrine. (That'd be the Anglican church; the play passes comment on Charles II's motives for pushing religious tolerance in Protestant England.) It was just viewed as not the best way of expressing sexual desire.
Plays were generally seen by the upper classes, but there was worry that the themes and ideas within would trickle down to the lower classes, and warp the thinking of a lot of unsophisticated young men.
So there wasn't the "omg sin not normal get it away like NOW!" response, but there was still the idea that youngsters might be getting ideas.
Just thought I'd throw that in, since it's an interesting parallel.
Which to kill every moron in the world with? Hmm... decisions, decisions...
For God's sake, seriously? WTF?
First of all, I should point out that I have no idea what orientation I am. I'm a ''total'' virgin who's never even been kissed. For now, I'll identify as heteroflexible (because Pads thinks it sounds funny).
I'm not exactly a Slash fan, but I think that's more because none of it that I've encountered has been written well at all. If I find a good one, chances are I'd enjoy it regardless of pairing.
I presume that I'd be vaguely uncomfortable with gay people in that, if they start to hit on me, I'll be slightly confused as to how to respond. That's theory as that's not happened to me yet. However, that's nothing bad, because I feel uncomfortable if women hit on me (it happened once :P). I just have no idea what to say, my stammer hits like an anvil dropped from the sodding atmosphere, my head could be mistaken for a tomato. I presume that it'd be the same for gay people.
However, I do support gay relationships and gay rights. I think that Star Trek should have one, even if it's only a minor role at first. No more beating around the bush, an actual proper gay episode. As Gene Roddenbury said "In the 24th century, no-one gives a shit!"
I have at least three bisexual friends, two lesbian and one undecided, on top of my indecision. In fact, the only part of gay rights activism that I don't approve of (that I know about, anyway) is gay couples being allowed to adopt children. This isn't religious fanaticism or mindless homophobia (after all, if I find myself in a homosexual relationship, my views will affect me). This is pity for the child in question. Children can be utter devil-spawn when they want to be. I've bullied to the brink of suicide throughout my life. Can you imagine the type of flak that'd get thrown a child's way if the others found out that they had two fathers or two mothers? I hope that one day, I can support gay adoption, but that day won't be a long time if it's even within my lifetime. That day will only come when homosexuality is accepted for what it is: nothing to be afraid of.
But that's the problem isn't it? This generation's homophobia is infecting the next generation. Our children won't be able to tell that it's wrong if all they see and hear are homophobes ranting mindlessly about shit like this. Therefore, I come back to my original question: P90 or phaser?
Just my two pennies.
... from the end of "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"; while I'm still reasonably fit, I'll hire a private detective to track down the people who are saying that kind of thing, go to their homes, and beat the everloving hell out of them. (In the movie, the titular guys use the money they get from a movie about characters based on them to travel around the country beating up everyone who said bad things about the film on the Internet. I figure this idea has great potential.)
Is it any good?
Heck, the film opens with a flashback showing baby Jay's first word to be "f---" (censored because of Board filtering system) and it goes on from there. The plot goes roughly like this:
Jay and Silent Bob are a pair of stoners living in New Jersey, who spend most of their time hanging around outside a convenience store selling weed. At the start of the film the convenience store gets a restraining order against them, so they go to hang out in a comic book shop instead. They meet up with a friend who, in a previous film, wrote a superhero comic entitled "Bluntman and Chronic" with characters based on them, but has now sold the rights to Miramax. This basically means that the movie's going to be made and Jay and Bob won't get any of the money, and on top of that they see that random kids are making fun of them on the Internet. They decide that the best way to stop this is to go to Hollywood and stop the movie being made. They hitch a lift with what they think is an animal rights group, Jay following along because he's attracted to Justice, one of the girls with the group. (Most of the fans of the movie loathe her and think she was just put in to prove Jay's heterosexuality. If she was, she failed miserably, because he still has WAY more tension with Bob, though I don't think she did anything to deserve the level of hate she gets.) Anyway, Justice persuades him to "prove his love" by breaking into a research lab and stealing Suzanne the orangutan. This is actually a decoy, because the "animal rights group" is actually a gang of international jewel thieves, and they're breaking into the bank across the street while Jay and Bob free the animals. They go on the run with Suzanne, and eventually get to Hollywood and try to sabotage the movie. It doesn't work, but Bob does persuade the director to let them share in the profits, which they use to travel around the country and beat up people who said bad things about them online.
And the Board has a filtering system now?
They try to smuggle her out of a diner where the cops have cornered them by dressing her up in a hoodie and claiming that she's their "son". This inexplicably fools the cops and the wildlife marshal even though Suzanne is hanging by her feet from the railing in front of them:
"My apologies for detaining you and your unorthodox but constitutionally-protected family unit. And may I say that's one fine-looking boy you're raising there."
"Oh, that's because he's from my sperm. I knocked up a hot woman friend of ours, so as not to be all-the-way gay."
(Methinks Jay doth protest too much, but this is me, so I would say that.)
... which was made by the same guy. If I told you what Dogma was about, you'd probably think I was making it up, so go check out the Wiki page.
Sounds as ridiculous as the Da Vince Code. Regardless, I think I want to see it.
*spends half the movie staring at Jay's hair*
They have one-handed weapons so you can hold another in the opposite hand. An alternative would be dartgun ammo coated with especially painful and invariably lethal poison. That way, you can tell them just how far they stretch the definition of failure before they bite it.
Best grab my MJOLNIR Mark VI armour so I can easily dual wield the P90 and a phaser compression rifle. :P
If kids are only exposed to the standard one-mummy-one-daddy-per-child thing, they grow up learning that's the norm. If they're exposed at a very young age to the idea that some people have parents of different genders, some have parents of the same gender, and some have only one parent, and some have three or four or five parents, and the reasons why are explained, little kids at least tend to be pretty accepting of the whole deal.
Might be a bit different when they hit teenage years, but if you're going to take the "let's not give the bullies ammunition" route, you could just as well argue that my parents shouldn't have been allowed to have me, because a child who's a) ginger b) fat c) bespectacled d) socially inept and e) the smartest kid in the class is going to get a lot of shit.
Basically, pretty much everyone will get bullied for something. You won't improve matters by pretending homosexuality doesn't exist until kids hit their teens. All you'll do is ensure they come across something very different to anything they've ever known at a time when most of them, frankly, are utter shites who could do with a damned good smack and then solitary confinement for ten years until they turn into reasonable human beings. Kids pick on anything different. If gay couples can adopt, then it's not such a big difference; kids are more used to the idea.
"you could just as well argue that my parents shouldn't have been allowed to have me, because a child who's a) ginger b) fat c) bespectacled d) socially inept and e) the smartest kid in the class is going to get a lot of shit."
I fit everything but a).
I'm not saying that we should shield children from gay people. That's ridiculous and will make the problem worse. I'm saying that it can't just happen. It has to be a gradual thing, slowly introducing them to concepts that the current generation finds distasteful. As time goes on, we'll introduce these concepts faster and faster until it can by a child from birth that people are all different and that's nothing to be afraid of. That's what I'm aiming for, slow gradual change. Fast change could possibly do more harm than good.
Yeah, but the thing is, it already just happens. And it doesn't automatically lead to children being bullied to the point of suicide. Might be handy to hear Trojie's perspective here, on how her bloke coped having three mothers.
Anyway, half the problem is that gradual change is bloody hard to effect. It sounds like you're suggesting we need to eliminate homophobia in every parent, in every media outlet, in everyone who might at all affect a child enough to make them bully other kids based on their parents' gender, before gay adoption can be allowed. That sort of blanket acceptance is pretty much impossible, and one way to work towards it is to expose kids to the idea that there's nothing wrong with it from a young age. Having schoolmates with same-sex parents is an excellent way from children to learn that. Sure, later on they'll some of them likely pick up homophobia from other sources, but not all of them will. Some who'd never really think about it, not be opposed to the idea per se, but would be mildly uncomfortable about the idea, would have some basis for reference and would have examples, from an early age, of perfectly normal and healthy same-sex relationships. Takes away the mystery, takes away the difference, takes away the fear, and so takes away the hate.
My partner was mocked at school for having 'two mums'. He dealt with it in a very mature and typically teenage boy fashion from what I've gathered - he by turns ignored, offered violence to, or mocked in retaliation the people who did it. And he grew up fine. Except for the odd detention for the violence, I understand.
Being bullied at school happens. Kids who bully don't need excuses. If they can't get you on one thing they'll get you on another. The way to deal with bullying is to deal with bullies, not to try and 'not give them reasons'. They don't *need* reasons. They don't care about reasons. Kids who bully do it because they like control and they like power. They're not doing it because they feel it's their right to persecute those who are different.
This was my primary argument against uniforms being compulsory - parents and teachers tried to make it sound like A Good Things by saying it would prevent bullying, but we argued the opposite. They DON'T NEED REASONS.
Sadly.
I'm not suggesting everyone's opinion be changed, because that's just stupid. Just most of them, and definitely the mainstream media. But gradual change is coming all the time. This Home and Away thing. The garbage Fox talked about the Shepard/Liara relationship in Mass Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassEffect#FoxNewsonthesexscene). The Star Trek books with gay characters. Every fanfiction author who writes slash (good or bad). It's all helping. Slowly, maybe, but the more things change, the quicker change can happen.
Well, same-sex adoption is a change. You want more change, that's one more bit of change. Surely by your argument here it's therefore a good thing?
I think it's still too big a change for now. I'm praying that I can see it happen in my own lifetime as children are a major, major hope for my life. I've wanted them since I was twelve. If I find out I'm gay, that hope is ruined for me. The way things are going, I'm beginning (and praying) that we could see it happen within the next decade.
It's still a gradual change though - it's not like every gay person in the world is going to immediately want to adopt a child. And the hope wouldn't be ruined in the slightest - there's adoption, surrogacy, fostering, etc.
"it's not like every gay person in the world is going to immediately want to adopt a child."
Sometimes, it does seem as if they are. *shrugs*
And the other options you all pointed out come back to the same issue that adoption has.
So if you turn out gay you can either never have kids, or decide that gay adoption isn't so bad after all. That's going to be a fun mental debate for you to have.
It'll be the former I hope. Otherwise, my word's not exactly good for anything, is it? I'll be like *whispers in horror* a politician.
But yeah, chances are I will have a mental debate and I'll hate myself regardless of my decision.
I can't believe people still get away with spouting this sort of nonsense about homosexuality being something that should be kept away from 'normal' people.
Here's me. I'm straight (well, probably logically what I am is just someone who hasn't found a member of the same sex attractive *yet* :P). I'm engaged. When I get married, I will find myself with (to all intents and purposes) three mothers-in-law - my partner's mother, her ex-partner who helped raise my partner and is acknowledged by him as his second mother, and his mother's current partner who has recently given birth to my partner's adoptive half-brother. Yes, it's a confusing wee family tree, but they are a happy, stable family. I go round to visit and to cuddle my brand-new almost-half-brother-in-law and it's like being in any other family home. It's not that much different than going round to see my friend (who is a single mother) and cuddle my godson.
Thing that really gets me, right, is that people happily interact with people of the opposite sex all day long without worrying that they're being eyed up. But tell them that someone of the same sex who they're interacting with is gay, and they suddenly start getting worried that they're going to get jumped in the locker-room, as it were.
When I was a girl guide, we had one (1) male leader. He was gay. He was not allowed to supervise us unless a female leader was around at all times (which sort of defeated the purpose of having him as we were really short on leaders at that point in time). For some reason a large number of the mothers got it into their heads that because he was a GAY MAN he automatically wanted to molest their TEENAGE DAUGHTERS.
Wtf? The logic, I see it not. They eventually got him kicked out, I might add.
But then again I get angry at things like national stereotypes and other kinds of sweeping judgements against large groups of people, so perhaps this is all just part of that.
- Trojie, half an hour past her bedtime and it's showing ...
... maybe they thought he was transexual? Regardless, epic, epic fail.
It's basically inexcusable fail and You Fail Logic Forever blending seamlessly into pure Grade-A facepalm. And the fact that it's true shows just how far human ignorance and prejudice can go, given the chance.
It also irks me that many people react the way you described. My stance is 'If you're gay, and you try anything funny with me, I will clock you on the head a bit and leave. If you don't, then I'll treat you the exact same way I would treat a straight friend/enemy/normal associate/dumb jerk, whichever the case may be', basically. Gay people are people. Straight people are people. Doesn't matter who they're after.
-Buta, who is also way past his bedtime
Are you familiar with the webcomic Suicide For Hire? At one point the main character Hunter is harassed and threatened by a gay guy and ends up warning him off by threatening him at gunpoint. The guy's reaction is to scream "hate crime". Hunter responds that he does indeed hate him, but because of his behaviour rather than his orientation. Storyline starts around here: http://suicideforhire.comicgenesis.com/d/20060920.html
Before anyone gets offended by it, the unfortunate implications caused by the only gay character to appear in the comic so far being, quote, "a vile, disgusting would-be rapist" are mostly cancelled out by the fact that the nature of the comic means all the *straight* people are pretty damn unpleasant individuals as well, Hunter himself actually being possibly the worst.
Annoying straight people are still annoying, annoying gay people are still annoying, and it doesn't matter much at all. Besides, no one I've seen in the comic so far can possibly be described a shining example of human decency anyway. Especially not Hunter.
Mitch Marks seemed to have his head screwed on fairly well even if he did take a little more joy than he should have from humiliating Autumn, Father Jude was apparently pretty awesome, Arc's coworkers at the food stand seemed decent, and the squirrel lady in the latest storyline was fairly nice if insanely gullible.
But overall, yes, the comic is set in what TVTropes.org would refer to as a "Sick Sad World".
"This is a typical gay agenda propaganda exercise, we should be used to it. It's been going on since the AIDS epidemic started. Trying to normalise homosexuality, AIDS is everyone's problem etc. Get used to it folks!" -Dave
"So if you think it's normal ponder this if everyone turned gay the human race will be extinct in less than 50 years! I for one are turning off home and away shame I did really enjoy it but now I will turn to a good book with an uplifting story. I have very close girlfriends who I absolutely adore but why confuse it with a sex! They should get a life! Shirley" -Shirley
"So as always homosexuals get special treatment (even tho they don't think so). There is uproar when a natural heterosexual couple kiss and make out on daytime TV for kids veiwing but hey, lets put 2 girls doing it and confuse our kids more than they already are! A lot of people get cancer, but does that make it normal?" -Jacqui
*facepalm* This type of narrow-minded viewpoint is all too common. Just look at 'Global warming isn't real', 'L0Lbanz0rz violent videogames!1!!one', and 'Muslims are ALL terrorists'. Might be a medical condition - lack of live braincells, perhaps? First one has extra fail points though, for the 'only gay people have AIDS'. AIDS is most definitely not exclusively sexually transmitted - this one's never heard of blood transfusions or injections, methinks.
I agree with WarriorJoe - I don't mind alternative sexuality, but I'm more comfortable with heterosexuality. Basically, if a gay guy doesn't go after *me*, then it isn't a problem. Although some overly flamboyant homosexuals can be disturbing - but then that's the Philippines for you. Some gay people here are a bit strange, but others aren't.
"L0Lbanz0rz violent videogames!1!!one"
Don't forget Mass Effect! Fear the alien sideboob!
"Muslims are ALL terrorists"
The view most of my family has is that they're not all terrorists, but they're not doing themselves any favours either. They allow extremists to teach in mosques, they protest about the Iraq War in ways that are just utter BS (see the protest about the Poacher's march through Luton a few months back (I was there and it was complete bollocks)), coming to Britian to get away from Sharia law and then demanding Sharia law (*headdesk*?) and other things like that... then they complain when governments attempt to tighten their security to prevent terrorism. If Muslims were to police themselves and weed out extremists, then they would find that the world would think of them far more favourable. This view is also shared by a Muslim friend of mine, so it must have some good points in it.
"So if you think it's normal ponder this if everyone turned gay the human race will be extinct in less than 50 years!"
*headdesk* I heard somewhere that ninety percent (I believe) of sex between lions is homosexual. That's not made them extinct has it? No-one's saying that everyone should be homosexual. That would be stupid (except in Lady Land, which is also stupid, but for different reasons). In fact, if everyone were to turn homosexual instantly, that would be a good thing. It'd solve world overpopulation in an instant. In fact, that's one theory I read about homosexuality in humans. It's evolutions way of trying to help us survive. Besides, fifty years? What about all the children?
"So as always homosexuals get special treatment (even tho they don't think so)."
But they don't, unless "special treatment" translates to "keep them away from me, the horror, the horror"...
"There is uproar when a natural heterosexual couple kiss and make out on daytime TV for kids veiwing but hey, lets put 2 girls doing it and confuse our kids more than they already are!"
As far as I know, no gay person has ever complained about heterosexual kissing being viewed by children. After all, that would kind of hurt their own agenda, wouldn't it now?
"A lot of people get cancer, but does that make it normal?"
Err... yes?
On one hand, Muslims who are extremists and all-around nutcases love mass murdering and ransoming people for no good reason.
On the other hand, we have- err, had- George Bush and his dubious motives in Iraq. There's the off chance he really was just after free oil. And there are some militant non-Muslims who would like nothing more than to have the whole Middle East glowing greener than the Hulk on a bad day.
We basically have two large groups trying to destroy and/or sabotage each other. Assholes are assholes. And assholes are just bigger assholes when they use religion as an excuse. Religious groups are not the problem. Idiot followers are.
That theory about homosexuality emerging as some sort of failsafe against us overflooding the world with people actually sounds plausible. And now that you mentioned the children as a response to the extinction comment, it sounds like the person thinks worldwide gayness would kill people with an immovable 50-year countdown. It's actually downright hilarious when you think about it in that context.
I think that there must have been some reason other than oil (though that would have been a big motivator) or false WMDs. I also think that Britian should never have been involved.
One crucial difference though, is that the US and the UK have never killed civilians on purpose (or at least without good reason). The Taliban do on a constant basis.
But yeah, religion is not a problem in the slightest. It's idiots using it for their own agendas. Those people who spread anti-homosexual progaganda in the name of Christanity? They're not Christians. How can they spread hate in the name of a religion that is all about love and tolerance?
Remember that, in some cases at least, Humans Are Bastards. Case in point: A certain long and brutal witch-hunt in Europe, involving torture until death... or death.
Or throw her in the pond to see if she's guilty - and she's not innocent unless she drowns :P Whoever thought *that* one up had a nasty turn of mind.
...a total asshole, or a complete bloody dumbass. Leaning towards 'both'. The TV Tropes page on You Fail Logic Forever should be at least 1.5x its current size.
I would agree on the 'both' part, though :P
...it's just not very nice logic. From memory, it's something like 'the water, being a symbol of purity/something-or-other, will accept her if she's innocent and reject her if she's guilty' So if she floats, you can haul her out and burn her.
Or occasionally until death by skirts-modified-into-explosive-nail-bomb, inflicted upon those doing the hunting. Good old Agnes Nutter...
well, you work it out.
religion is not a problem in the slightest
Excuse me while I weep in the name of Dawkins.
As for anti-homosexual Christians, I refer you to Leviticus 18:22. They're taking their word of god a lot more seriously than Christians who preach love and tolerance for everyone. And fair play to them for that. (Which does not, of course, change the fact that they are stark raving bonkers severely misguided.
Quick googling listed that first. Never heard of him until now, but I do have a few comments on his theories. I will read his books sometime though, given the chance.
In my opinion, there isn't too much of a problem in believing that there is a supreme being. I'm personally set to believe the truth if it is proven, no matter what it turns out to be. If there is a God, then disbelievers are wrong. If there is no God, then believers are wrong. And it doesn't pose much of a problem for me, unless either side starts a war.
Having an image of a governing deity or deities is not in itself bad. If people are just deluding themselves, sure. It's fine with me, unless the supposed delusion leads to fanaticism. If it leads people to become better because they're making themselves think they have to be to avoid damnation, then good. The true problem lies in the zealots who twist and manipulate religious teachings to fit their malignant and almost invariably wrong beliefs, then use theism as a shield to justify the atrocities they commit in their god's name.
Religion is not in itself the problem, per se. It's just one piece of a combination that, depending on its other parts, can lead to great good or great evil. And sometimes great genocidal assholes. Some atheists can likewise commit great crimes due to hatred of religion in general. Religion changes causes and possibly targets, but usually not effects in general. The Catholic Church used to have people killed for not converting. Some Muslims have people killed for whatever militantly religious reason they might have. Some atheists might harbor thoughts of killing people just because they're preachers. An Omnicidal Maniac is an Omnicidal Maniac. Religion's main problem is that it can be so easily exploited as justification, and that's most of it as far as I know.
Scientology seems to be another case entirely. Exploiting belief for profit is just being an arse. That's the other main problem about belief. Not much more I can think of there.
And on that line of Leviticus, I facepalm at whoever the hell felt like sticking that into the Bible. The book was written by people, and people are frequently biased, after all. Hence 'left-handed people and tattoos are evil', among other things.
I'll grant you there's no problem in believing per se, so long as you're not buggering anyone else about in the process. But Dawkins's main point revolves around this:
If it leads people to become better because they're making themselves think they have to be to avoid damnation, then good.
This is reminiscent of the notion expressed by many believers that morality comes from their god. Dawkins thinks that we shouldn't be good because, effectively, we're scared of monsters under the bed or retribution from a higher authority. He thinks we have the capacity to be moral without any gods at all.
A parallel, if it helps: say you've hurt me in a major way, and I want to kill you as vengeance. I might not kill you because my god would punish me, or I might not kill you because I know killing's wrong. The effect is the same, and your mileage may vary, but I for one would rather the latter than the former.
And I'm with you on the bias of people, but the bit that irks me is when someone thinks it's divinely inspired, and still disregards it.
Tattoos are wrong? Where's it say that?
Ganked this off... someone over on LJ ages ago.
I wonder how all those saying 'homosexuality is evil coz the Bible says so' would manage without all the things listed there.
Oh, Leviticus, thou hath huge loads of crap within you. Most of those are utter failure and idiocy, but the cute, fuzzy, and mostly harmless bunnies are where I draw the line.
I wonder how they'd manage Easter without the bunnies.
Someone on Yahoo Answers asked, someone answered, I read. One passage (I think it was in Leviticus, which Trojie proved to sometimes spout bull out of many orifices) had something about not having them. Back then, though, tattoo artists were apparently nonbelievers who slapped pictures of their idols specifically onto their skins.
As for the other stuff, good point. Logic is good, because it stops people from being idiots effectively. Although, one thing particularly struck me: the issue of morality.
I think it's important, but can take a bit of a backseat to what provides necessary progress and general advancement. Say, if some lucky asshole acts out popular fiction and takes over the world with a money-guzzling corporation, then it wouldn't change the fact that Robin Hooding the guy out of trillions and knifing him would be morally viewed as bad, because stealing and murder obviously doesn't mark you as a pillar of society. However, it would probably be the right thing - if it helps all the others survive, it saves people who are helpful and useful to society when looked at in the bigger picture. It also puts a dent in a megalomaniacal dick's plans. Moral sacrifices can be necessary, but not all the time. Balance is good.
When did I prove Leviticus wrong?
*confused*
*facepalm* That was Pads quoting the homosexuality bit, sorry. Got confused for a second there. Note to self: When posting past midnight, check facts better. At least *this* proves that research does prevent epic failure when writing.
I just went, wait, what? Cos my knowledge of the Bible could probably comfortably fit in an acorn cup and leave room for the acorn :D
I'd guess the edict against tattoos was probably one of many ways of distinguishing between Us and Them. (I'd be buggered, I have three.)
You seem to be assuming that morality is fixed and immutable; that Killing Is Wrong, for example. That's the line that religions tend to take - no shades of grey, just right and wrong as defined from above. Generally, in a society in which one can lead a money-guzzling corporation, then by that society's morality robbing one of one's money would be morally wrong. Stealing it all and redistributing it? Not necessary wrong, dependent upon the consequences (but positive consequences would be very hard to implement). You could argue it'd be right to kill the megalomaniac, or you could argue it'd be wrong, but the point is you'd be thinking about it, and considering all options logically, before coming to a conclusion, rather than simply denouncing the one for greed and the other for theft and murder.
Most people have morality as set in stone. Stinks of ignorance, really. My philosophy is that if you pull yourself up, then it's only really wrong if you kick everyone else off the ladders. Pulling other people up with you is just *better*.
And how about getting to the top of the ladder, seeing others flailing halfway up, and so lending them your ladder? Because that's what Dawkins tries to do when he encourages people to think instead of believing without question.
Actually, I think I'm getting to like the way Dawkins does things. He actually bothers to explain things properly, instead of going all 'Don't do this because God dislikes it, therefore it's bad'.
He is an excellent read. A tad militant, but it's to be expected, really.
I've got a friend of mine reading him at the moment. She's very into her spiritual wossnames and psychic doodads and crystal skulls and so on. Her main response so far? "He makes some interesting points, but why can't he just let people get on and believe what they want?" I think she might have missed his most important point...
"Excuse me while I weep in the name of Dawkins."
Who's Dawkins?
And you'll have to forgive me, I'm not greatly familiar with the Bible. Leviticus is the Old Testament, correct? If so, the OT is fanfiction (*wonders if he'll get flamed for that*). God was a bloody psycho in the OT. Frankly, I ignore it completely. After all, Genesis: Eve is Adam. Then they have lots of children. Who have sex with each other. If that's true, then humans are all deformed monsters of what we once were (especially since the gene pool was again destroyed with Noah). So, really, the Bible promotes incest. But that's another rant.
Who's Dawkins?
*continues weeping*
He's about the most militant atheist you can get. Your library should have a copy of The God Delusion; read it. And then read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene.
Leviticus 18:22 states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination." It's fairly clear (and also leaves room for lesbians - if a lesbian reads it then it pretty nicely affirms that she should stay away from penises. Funny how homophobic Christians tend to miss that one).
Also, I'm not sure the Old Testament could be fanfiction, given it's written rather earlier than the New Testament. So far as I understand, the God of the New Testament, and his teachings through Jesus, supposedly supersede the Old Testament, but then you have to wonder why they keep the Old Testament in there.
And as for the incest bit, you have to remember that when that creation myth was coined, there was no concept of genetics. Fertility itself was surrounded in mystery - look at all the Greeks who were fathered by Zeus in his guise of a swan or a bull or a vase of flowers; look at Rerir's wife being pregnant with Volsung for six years in the Volsungasaga; look at Henry VIII steadfastly refusing to believe his inability to father a son could have anything to do with him; look at the eighteenth century notion that the womb caused hysteria. It wasn't even all that long ago that a firm link between sex and pregnancy was understood and recognised in scientific literature. Look at Darwin too - many of his children suffered congenital illnesses, and this helped inform some of the ideas he later set forth. But a few thousand years ago? It wasn't known. For a start because it's rare - women would be married out to someone of a neighbouring tribe, not to members of their immediate family, because the latter had no point. And if a deformed child was born of an incestuous union, it would be presumed that the parent(s) had angered the gods, or were under a curse, or whatever, rather than being a simple matter of genetics. Adam and Eve, and Noah, were God's chosen, and therefore not cursed (except for the original sin thing), and so would not have deformed children.
Uh, that was rambly. The point is, it's myth, not legend. When you start throwing the supernatural into the mix, rules of genetics no longer apply.
"Your library should have a copy of The God Delusion; read it."
I find myself doubting that.
"Leviticus 18:22 states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination." It's fairly clear (and also leaves room for lesbians - if a lesbian reads it then it pretty nicely affirms that she should stay away from penises. Funny how homophobic Christians tend to miss that one)."
Exactly why no-one should listen to them when they pick and mix parts.
"So far as I understand, the God of the New Testament, and his teachings through Jesus, supposedly supersede the Old Testament, but then you have to wonder why they keep the Old Testament in there."
That's why I ignore the OT. I prefer the NT God.
"And as for the incest bit, you have to remember that when that creation myth was coined, there was no concept of genetics."
So? We have knowledge of genetics now and you still get people saying that evolution is clearly fake.
Correction: any good library should have a copy, and they can order it in for you if they don't.
The pick and mix aspect of religion is a whole different rant. But by ignoring the Old Testament God and sticking with the New Testament one because you prefer him, you're doing it yourself. The entire thing's meant to be the word of God and so infallible. If it's the word of God, then you have to believe all of it or none of it. If it's not, then the entire argument is a moot point because there's no way to verify the truth of any of it.
Yes, you still get people saying evolution isn't true. I'd direct them to Darwin himself, because, in Origin of Species, he at no point states that evolution and religion are incompatible; simply that animals, once on earth, evolve. There are two problems from the religious point of view: God's creations are meant to be perfect, but evolving to suit their environment suggests imperfection; and God created the world about six thousand years ago, but evolution requires considerably longer time periods (if Trojie will forgive the gross understatement). The problem's not with evolution, it's with trying to reconcile evolution with scripture.
That was rambly too. Basically, there's nothing (that I know of) in the Bible that simply cannot be reconciled with modern understanding of genetics, especially when you remember that (except for the hardcore fundamentalists) Adam, Eve and Noah are taken as myths, not legend.
Yeah, well, as I've told you before, my library's not good. Besides, I owe them £30 or so right now and I'm not paying it back for a while.
The bits I've read of the NT are so wildly contradictory to the OT that that essentially cancel it out. Since it's the New Testament, I feel that's a fairly sound POV.
I've got to read Origin of Species one day. That way I can mock intelligent design more effectively. And actually, there's one theory that said God created the world, let it sit around in space for billions of years and then thought "Damn! I forgot to garden the thing!" and then chucked life onto it.
But then you've got to deal with the notion that the infallible word of an omniscient god can be cancelled out, and that's problematic in the extreme.
If you ever get yourself into an argument with someone who disputes the veracity of evolution, Darwin's very handy. I've never heard an argument from them that he didn't have a very good answer to. A philosophy course will cover it in a lot more detail, and you should look up the wossname, bacterial flagellum or whatever they call it, too, because they tend to bring that one out at the end as though it's inexplicable (thus demonstrating total lack of understanding of the theory).
Forgetting to garden wouldn't work - fossils have been found from a lot of millions of years ago.
"But then you've got to deal with the notion that the infallible word of an omniscient god can be cancelled out, and that's problematic in the extreme."
I think he had some sort of personality transfer.
"A philosophy course will cover it in a lot more detail, and you should look up the wossname, bacterial flagellum or whatever they call it, too, because they tend to bring that one out at the end as though it's inexplicable (thus demonstrating total lack of understanding of the theory)."
Yep, that's the one we learned about in science. I laughed through the whole video.
"Forgetting to garden wouldn't work - fossils have been found from a lot of millions of years ago."
That's what I said. The timeline doesn't work however you look at it. We've been around for longer than six thousand years. I think I heard of something from 5000 BC being from our current evolutionary stage.
But he can't have a personality transfer. He's ineffable. Plus he's outside space and time, and thus cannot change.
What do you mean by our "current evolutionary stage"?
"Plus he's outside space and time, and thus cannot change."
Q's outside space and time and he changed. (Knows this is full of plotholes but had to say it anyway).
"What do you mean by our "current evolutionary stage"?"
Homo sapiens rather than homo erectus, say.
Wikipedia's telling me that homo sapiens, based on fossil and DNA evidence, was about in Africa 200,000 years ago. "Language, music and other cultural universals" thought to be in place by 50,000 years ago.
And Star Trek science is not applicable, because it's a myth. :P
Okay. Last I heard, 5,000 BC was the earliest found. But yeah, exactly. 50,000 years ago rather than 6,000.
And how did I know you'd say that? :P
Honestly, one of these days I'm going to go see that film with a pen and paper and note down every instance of hideously warped science, just so that I can bitch more accurately.
Depends what you consider human, anyway. Intelligence, communication, tool use, imagination etc seem to be the key factors, and there's evidence of those a lot longer ago than 5000 years ago. Look at the Egyptians for a start. The Pyramids are 7000 years old, if memory serves.
And yeah, I'm going to do the same with Trek XI when I get the DVD. :P It'll be fun. I'm actually going to test a theory soon that the most popular Star Trek films are also the ones with the most plotholes in.
And the Pyramids were created by the Goa'uld, so faulty example. *blocks out reality* :D
By "go after" you do you mean actively trying to get in your pants even though you're straight or simply checking you out and finding you attractive? I can see you being upset by the first one but the second one isn't really the gay person's fault and it shouldn't be a problem. Unless you think all the unrequited crushes you've had over the course of your life were unfair to the girl and meant something was wrong with you. You probably wouldn't even notice, anyway. Most people don't.
I guess being more comfortable with heterosexuality makes sense but it's a little annoying to find that practically everyone agrees that being gay is "weird", even if they don't say it's bad.
Also, lots of heterosexual people are strange. Very very strange. Crazy strange. Others aren't.
Well, I suppose I'd better stick my hand up and say I don't think it's weird in the slightest. Mind you, I wouldn't call myself straight. Pansexual celibate, maybe, in the manner of Stephen Fry.
My brother's decidedly straight, but also doesn't find homosexuality weird at all. This, I think, is because he ran Scientific tests at the age of sixteen, involving getting drunk and snogging a lot of people. The kissing he was fine with, but then a bloke shoved his hand down my brother's pants and he realised it really didn't do anything for him. And I can't fault him for that.
If the guy's not aiming to get my pants off, it's fine. I probably wouldn't notice if a gay guy was checking me out, as you said.
For me, being gay's more of... well, not weird, but just not my thing. It's more of a 'Being gay is normal, but I'm not gay, and it doesn't make a difference anyway unless a guy tries to bed me' thing. I'm fine with anyone who has a decent personality regardless of orientation, usually.
On that last bit, true. Apparently, my country just got a lot of very noticeably weird people thrown in.
Australia, you're my home, my native country, and I can't wait to return to you in the summer. SO STOP SUCKING ALREADY.
Luckily a few people still have their heads on right. I like that TV critic guy. Honestly, with all the other stuff that goes on in Home and Away, any parent who lets a child watch it has way more to worry about than GASP the child thinking that maybe being lesbian isn't a big deal. ("But that might give them the courage to come out of the closet! Then where will my denial go?") Honestly, I vaguely remember witchcraft or something when my friends watched it around five years ago. And it mentioned drug abuse in the article.
*cringes* What happened to us not being so bad? *shakes rest of Australia* Wake up, guys, we're supposed to be cool and awesome and tolerant and you are making me want to genocide my own country right now, damnit!
I hate it when this happens. Not "normal" and "natural"?! *GROWL*
why some others think a religion-free world would have been better. I can't help but think of the line about the wall and the revolution...
On a related note, Britain banned an American minister from visiting due to his homophobic speeches, so there is some justice in the world.
One with somewhat extremist views? If memory serves, he wasn't allowed in thanks to laws about inciting racial hatred. I forget the specifics. Anyway, we're reasonably good at not letting utter dickheads in the country. Or at least, not letting really vocal and high profile ones in.
But, is PETA prominent in Britain? Boot 'em if they are, it's been proven that they stuff poor little recently-dead strays in their meat freezer. And killing animals is not in itself cruel, it's all about the methods. Do it right, and there's less pain involved. Doing it right meaning not stuffing chickens in coops tinier than those extra-small dog carriers and such.
...Now I've utterly derailed a topic. Yay for me!
Do not mention PETA to me today. I've just been out chasing my dogs back into the house because one of those morons opened the back gate and let them out. Seriously, as intelligent as my pair are, they're far too used to getting food from humans to survive on their own, especially since one of them needs medicine to be able to digest food properly.
Geez, sometimes I think that they don't think.
That... sounds like they're indirectly and possibly-unknowingly trying to murder your dogs. What with cars, starvation, predators that may be found in the nearest forest... Oy. Hearing things like this make me very, very angry. I agree that a lot of the time, they trade thought for blind obedience to their beliefs. Personally, they have *no* right to take pets from loving, caring owners who might just be the only reason they've lived. Padlock the gate, might help.
(offtopic, and completely irrelevant socialization) For some reason, whenever I hear about dogs, I want to see them or know more about them. What can I say, I like domestic animals if they aren't violent. What breeds, and any random pictures?
We don't have a forest near here, per se, but there is a hunting wood... on the other side of a railway line. I'd hate to think what would happen if the dogs got in there. There's also the problem of the idjits who think they're the next Lewis Hamilton racing around, not caring about anything.
I'd love to know how they got the gate open without being attacked, really. It is padlocked, but unfortunately it isn't the best gate in the world and can just be lifted off the latch quite easily. However, the dogs are usually on guard and one normally goes to the door and the other the gate when someone approaches the house.
You want pictures?
Lady:
Monty
Lady and Monty
Lady is a German Shepherd, and we've had her since she was a pup. Monty is a Rottweiler crossed with Glod knows what, that we got from the RSPCA. They're both big softies who bark at anyone who approaches the house, but are absolutely friendly once you're inside.
I'd hate to imagine anything happening to them. If something *did*, I'd support a course of action that goes along the lines of 'hunt down the culprits and knock them off a tall cliff'. And the railway arguably sounds a bit more worrisome than the wood itself. Stupid drivers are still the worst danger, though.
Maybe those PETA guys had some treats or something as a distraction, and waved them around for a bit. Honestly, it's disturbing how fanatic these people are. They never even stopped to consider any of the things mentioned here, that they might be causing as many problems as they solve. Faith in Humanity meter -5 points, and Glod knows I already dislike PETA. Least the RSPCA does their job properly, without the lethal injection and cold storage.
Lady somewhat resembles an ewe in the first picture. Bit ironic, but cute and funny all the same. Monty just looks like a Rottweiler crossed with a cute, lovable, and snorgleworthy thing to me, never mind the genetic makeup of the other parent. Win is a legitimate half in my books.
On second thought, maybe I didn't use the best word choice. More of 'they placed your dogs in a dangerous situation'.
I think we have PETA, but they're not a big thing. For animal rights we have the RSPCA.
Are we having the animal rights debate now? *goes to get a cup of tea to warm up for this one*
Need to get another topic into this somehow for variety. By all means, someone start.
Discussions like this are why I got to love the Board. You get randomness, insanity, and serious semi-philosophical debate all in one.
Hmm, what can I say that's bound to be inflammatory to someone?
*thinks*
You're not a vegetarian perchance?
Never believed in it. For some, it's a life choice for health reasons. Fine by me. For others, it's because they don't want to 'be mean to the animals'. Facepalm for me. As I said, I'm of the opinion that specific parties are at fault and not the act of killing animals for food per se.
Bugger. That would've been the easiest line to take.
My housemate was vegetarian for years because he objects to the treatment of animals. About a year ago he decided he was going to be "freegan" instead, and only eat stuff if it was free or going to waste. Of course, this meant he had to eat some poor quality sausages that would have been thrown away after a barbecue. When he bitched about them being gross, I promptly fed him pheasant, which he loved. And now he'll eat meat but not buy it.
Of course, while he was still vegetarian, I could never get him to eat free-range chicken or game...
While some parties, possibly some large corporations, keep animals in inhumane conditions, they aren't everyone. I know that if I kept animals for food or by-products, I would ensure that they could live out their lives in comfort. Killings in the wild by other animals can be several times more brutal and painful than a farmer having to put down poor Bessie to feed his family, especially when you consider that some animals like live meals or playing with their prey. Ah, generalizations. Can't live with them, can't live without 'em.
And I agree with you. I dislike slash, but only when it has canons acting out of character or having sex with relatives or trivializes rape or other things like that. I get flamed for this sometimes. One person posted several all-caps flames calling me an immature, stupid, homophobic little bitch on my dA homepage because I had said that I didn't think two certain canons would have sex with each other. Sigh...
...what? Not thinking that Cloud and Sephiroth (just an example) would get it on makes one an "immature, stupid, homophobic little bitch?" That doesn't follow.
Ugh. If anything, making judgments like that is "immature, stupid bitch" behavior. (What? I call guys "bitches," too. I'm equal-opportunity like that!) But replace "homophobic" with "irrational."
Sorry for the angry rant. But the idea that being opposed to a particular slash pairing makes one "homophobic" is just ridiculous.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking it's the people who get so gloddammed angry about the exist of gay people and characters that aren't natural/normal. They clearly have some issues. (My gay-ness is perfectly natural, thank you very much, and what's so great about being normal, anyway?)
I, for one, am well aware that homosexuality is a part of nature. Not just in humans, but in a truckload of other species as well, so there's no arguing that it's a perversion or something that can be changed.
However, that doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it anyhow. I'll be honest-- I find it weird. Not necessarily bad, and I'm certainly not the type who's going to go parading down the street with a GAYS ARE THE DEVIL'S CHILDREN sign or anything, but I can't help finding it weird. I don't think it has all that much to do with the way I was raised, since I was raised to be tolerant, so in the end it just IS weird to me.
People get angry about things they find weird or not like them because, deep down (or not, in some cases) they feel threatened by them. It doesn't matter how silly that feeling is, or the fact that it's caused more problems for humanity over the years than anything else under the sun; it's a long-ingrained response. Changing that is almost as hard as changing being homosexual. And it doesn't help ease the threatened feeling when people seem to be so intent to push homosexuality into the spotlight.
Granted, keeping it in the dark forever isn't a good idea either; a balance has to be reached. But it hasn't been found yet. So in the end we have two indelible traits of nature clashing against each other.
But think about what you're saying. Homosexuality should kept quiet because you think it's weird, or it makes you uncomfortable?
Some people find interracial relationships weird. That's not a valid reason to keep them 'out of the spotlight', is it?
You probably think that homosexuality is weird because our culture tells us that it is. It doesn't matter how tolerant you think you've been brought up to be. You'd probably think two men walking down the street holding hands would be weird -- go to the Middle East, and you'll see it all the time. Weird in one culture is normal in another. What you talk about isn't some 'indelible trait of nature'. When society becomes more accepting and less hateful, the balance will be reached.
"Should" is such a horrible word in that it means someone is wrong not to do one thing or the other. I don't think that's what Joe was saying anyway, though.
I certainly agree that Western culture doesn't help matters; everything from gender-specific clothing shops to 'sexy' pairs of models reinforces the message that everything is about the differences between people, and that's horrible. Even knowing tht, homosexuality does make me a bit uncomfortable - I have three female friends who are to some degree either bisexual or lesbian, and it's hard not to be aware of that a lot of the time, but the degree to which they choose to display it is none of my business.
I mean, I'm not going to go into random displays of prejudice or anything, but I feel more comfortable among hertosexuals and hetrosexual culture. I mean, not that I don't enjoy books or fics that have homosexuality, but still...
I belive that homophobia is a deeply ingrained respone, and that it can't be removed that easily. There will be always people that would perfer stories where gays and lesbians don't exsist (but don't bash them for the same reason).
I find homosexuality weird - not bad or wrong or anything, just weird. It's not for me. Just as carelessly failing classes or working at McDonald's is not for me. People make too big a deal out of it all, I think - and yes, I think you're right; people feel threatened. It's not conscious, and it's definately not rational, but it's there. It's a matter of people not being comfortable with themselves, I think.
I don't know; am just rambling. :)
But facts are, I find heterosexuality to be a little weird. I'm bi, but the idea of only being attracted to one gender is a little off putting to me.
That said, I'm not going to be parading down the street protesting straights either. So I can't be angry at you for thinking homosexuality is weird, especially since you're aware enough to know it's not weird and perfectly natural.
As for pushing homosexuality into the spotlight... That's more trying to end the discrimination and get rights like marriage. Being discreet never worked for any other civil rights battles. If people aren't aware that these people actually exist, they won't care about the issues. Otherwise they think the homosexual population is limited to a handful of perverts littered around the country and nothing anyone should be concerned about. (BTW, by "pushing into the spotlight" I mean the normal forms of protest that are perfectly peaceful but extremely noticeable. Violent protest is never the answer and I perfectly understand feeling threatened if that ever went down, though I haven't heard of any cases).
Just adding that some people don't want to display their sexuality at all, no matter what 'type' it is, and I think that while those who are comfortable shouldn't be stopped from making a loud issue out of it to get their rights, there also should be nothing wrong with people keeping it to themselves. (Which I know isn't what you were saying; I didn't misunderstand - I'm just commenting.)
To me, sex is a really weird and kind of icky process, and relationships just look like an unnecessary lot of trouble. I can get why other people are interested, but the whole business just seems kind of stupid to me. I still enjoy romantic storylines in fiction in the same way I still enjoy gruesome murders in fiction; fun to read about, but damned if you'll catch me being involved firsthand.
Hey, we're not gonna be angry at you. It'd be hypocritical. I'm glad you can post your opinions online in a place where you won't get criticized. That's what we're here for, isn't it? Oh, and the sporks, too.