Olympic gold medalists Bruce Jenner was born with a sexual identity disorder that science has identified, religion has a problem with that--based on what? What is the morality/ethics of religion based on in the modern world?
What if Caitlyn Jenner were to back a certain US president in the upcoming elections? Would it be ethical for her to speak up today and influence something so important to this country and the world? Is Bill Mayers mockery of Caitlyn that she is not a 'Rosa Parks' funny--or more idiotic bigotry and misunderstanding?
Olympic gold medalists Bruce Jenner was born with a sexual identity disorder that science has identified, religion has a problem with that--based on what? What is the morality/ethics of religion based on in the modern world?
In what sense does "religion" have a problem with that?
But, granting for the sake of the argument that "religion" has a problem with that, then what if it's on the same basis as the medical science? Don't doctors have a problem with disorders and such?
"[He] was born with a sexual identity disorder that science has identified" and was later bullied out of…
If you're not aware of it, Jenner is going to be a high-profile poster "child" (he's 65, you know…) in the campaign to — Jeeze, what should it be called?
I'd most likely term it the rush to hedonism. A philosophy of great antiquity, and quite dubious value. But it does comport with materialism quite well! :(
I hope he supports Jeb Bush!
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6LuvK1c10s[/video]
What is the morality/ethics of religion based on in the modern world?
What are they based at any time in history? Ethics and morality aren't scientific constructs, and they differ culturally by region and over time. In Japan, where Western religious influence is far weaker than in Brazil, the reason for discomfort with the LGBT community has less to do with religion than social reasons. Frankly, I don't know what "social reasons" means, but I can't come up with anything that fits better.
India’s Supreme Court reinstated the colonial-era law making homosexuality a crime. The law calls for a ten year prison sentence for “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.”
The ancient city of Palmyra is a Syrian archaeological treasure and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Some 2000 years ago, it was one of the most important cultural centres in the world. Now it's controlled by ISIS fighters, who have threatened to destroy it as part of their campaign against religious idolatry.
(In Japan) Homosexuality is frequently kept silent. There is still no religious basis for discrimination, but gay people struggle to face Japan's strict family and gender roles. Though crime is low, LGBT have been harassed or even attacked because of their identities.
Brazil’s lawmakers on Wednesday killed a draft bill that would have prohibited discrimination or inciting violence on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The vote on the Senate’s floor rejected both the draft bill and excluded the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity from a review of Brazil’s penal code.Brazil’s LGBT activists had hoped that if the bill was defeated it could be incorporated into the country’s penal code reform.
But the country’s powerful evangelical lobby blocked the effort with an amendment deleting mentions of sexual orientation and gender identity, which they claimed are neither firm nor stable concepts in legislative context.
(H)omosexual relationships between men in Egypt were not celebrated as they were in Rome and Greece, given that fertility was a big part of Egyptian magic and life. Yet homosexual acts themselves weren’t a moral outrage like they are in parts of today’s world.
For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.
The ancient city of Palmyra is a Syrian archaeological treasure and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Some 2000 years ago, it was one of the most important cultural centres in the world. Now it's controlled by ISIS fighters, who have threatened to destroy it as part of their campaign against religious idolatry.
Attaboy ISIS!
Scientism appears at its most desperate in matters of evolution, where things clearly explicable in physical terms (astronomy, electronics, combustion) bump up against things not nearly so explicable (life, consciousness, motivations). Scientism always finds a way, however strained, to avoid the ravages of doubt. Conceding or even considering anything outside of that small scientific box would open up a Whole Lot of Doubt.
Consider Cochran’s Virus. Evolutionary theory of course says that traits that make for successful reproduction will flourish in a population. This makes sense and can be observed in many things. It fails badly in the case of homosexual men. As these produce no or few children, the selective pressure to eliminate them from the population would seem to be great. Yet they are not eliminated. Scientism cannot say that here perhaps is something not explained by the theory. That would shake the whole edifice. How does it manage this difficulty?
Desperately. The biologist Greg Cochran says that homosexuality is a disease caused by a virus. Which virus is that? We don’t know because it has not been discovered. What is the evidence for it? Why, homosexuality. Round and round….
(source (http://www.fredoneverything.net/Scientism.shtml))
What is the morality/ethics of religion based on in the modern world?
What are they based at any time in history? Ethics and morality aren't scientific constructs, and they differ culturally by region and over time.
And, as Razib Khan reiterated recently (http://www.unz.com/gnxp/can-a-religious-person-be-a-good-scientist/), "Because of the nature of the academy outside of religious colleges there is often silence from this minority [religious scientists…] lest they be pigeon-holed as out of step with the social culture of science. That’s human nature.
And scientists can’t escape that, whether they are in the majority, or the minority. For all the talk of logic and empiricism, scientists are all too human in their basic wiring."
Wasn't Science
supposed to investigate "the basic wiring"? :) So, what went wrong?
It seems that science has the most difficulty coping, in this case.
Wasn't Science supposed to investigate "the basic wiring"? :) So, what went wrong?
Nothing went wrong. Science isn't a monolithic enterprise. Some scientists concentrate on the noble fruit fly, some on ungulates, others on black hole theory. Psychologists...psychologists?..."basic wiring"?...Hell, psychology is more a hobby than a science.
Scientism appears at its most desperate in matters of evolution, where things clearly explicable in physical terms (astronomy, electronics, combustion) bump up against things not nearly so explicable (life, consciousness, motivations). Scientism always finds a way, however strained, to avoid the ravages of doubt. Conceding or even considering anything outside of that small scientific box would open up a Whole Lot of Doubt.
If you wish to give 'life' to science then it could be said that science is better than human beings, sure. Science, for what it is, already has all the answers, it is simply left to humans to slowly ferret them out and prove them. If there are questions that science can't answer yet, why do you so quickly assume they never will? Does the idea that science may some day answer the questions of life, consciousness and motivations scare you? If there is no free will, would you jump off the nearest high bridge?
Homosexuals don't breed homosexuals, so there is no environmental pressure to eliminate them by natural selection. Why is this not so painfully obvious to a man like you and what idiot homophobe are you quoting here anyway? (Your source link is unavailable). Homosexuality is not a human trait, i.e. there is no gene for it. Identical twin studies worldwide have proven this over and over in the past two decades where nature and prenatal nurture are 100% equivalent, therefore, homosexuality must be caused by post-natal factors. Cochran has methodically eliminated all other possible causes for homosexuality and has determined that it is likely caused by a yet unidentified pathogen--a non-lethal pathogen. (One in seven humans died of TB, before that pathogen was identified and drug resistant strains are still being fought in the 21st century). The reductio ad absurdum can sometimes be a useful method of getting at the truth, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"--not strictly scientific, but it can point one in the right direction.
And, as Razib Khan reiterated recently (http://www.unz.com/gnxp/can-a-religious-person-be-a-good-scientist/), "Because of the nature of the academy outside of religious colleges there is often silence from this minority [religious scientists…] lest they be pigeon-holed as out of step with the social culture of science. That’s human nature. And scientists can’t escape that, whether they are in the majority, or the minority. For all the talk of logic and empiricism, scientists are all too human in their basic wiring."
Wasn't Science supposed to investigate "the basic wiring"? :) So, what went wrong?
It seems that science has the most difficulty coping, in this case.
Is this suppose to say anything meaningful or just point out the obvious? Do you see scientists as highfalutin cowboys willing to have a showdown at high noon with anyone who challenges them? They have a competitive spirit just like most people, and just like most people, they will sometimes go awry in their zeal to win. I can't think of a single pursuit, venture, enterprise or activity of man where this is not applicable--(not even religion of course...especially not religion!). And what makes you think scientists would be immune to what their peers think of them?
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-06-06, 14:28:14 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1185.msg41153#msg41153)Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-06-05, 23:54:58 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=1185.msg41087#msg41087)What is the morality/ethics of religion based on in the modern world?What are they based at any time in history? Ethics and morality aren't scientific constructs, and they differ culturally by region and over time.
Get real Jimbo, certainly not true in any Abrahamic religion where morality is still dictated by the dead from books written millennia ago. Societies all across the world are accepting the LGBT community for who they are (people), religious text condemns it as an abomination and detestable in the eyes of god (Lev. 18:22, 20:13), and the major religions still adhere to this today. Religion wishes to dictate all sexual behavior across the board: most people in the US ignore this anyway (97% have premarital sex), so is religion really keeping pace with the times?--Hardly. :knight: :cheers:
EDIT: I must apologize for doing this poorly written post (my first), in a rare Sangria stupor (mangos are in season here), I will leave the drinking and driving up to Oak from now on.
I will leave the drinking and driving posting up to Oak from now on
Corrected that for ya!
Was your edit also a plea to let your comments slide…? :)
Get real Jimbo, certainly not true in any Abrahamic religion where morality is still dictated by the dead from books written millennia ago. Societies all across the world are accepting the LGBT community for who they are (people), religious text condemns it as an abomination and detestable in the eyes of god (Lev. 18:22, 20:13), and the major religions still adhere to this today. Religion wishes to dictate all sexual behavior across the board: most people in the US ignore this anyway (97% have premarital sex), so is religion really keeping pace with the times?--Hardly.
I'm not a shill for religions, so I'm not sure why you mention this in response to my comment. I don't think that 'societies' accept much of anything but people do.
Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. And "The highest percentage ever of Americans – a 63% supermajority - back the freedom to marry as a constitutional right for gay couples." I can't do a Venn diagram, but it's pretty clear that there's a significant overlap of Christians (religious) and those who accept the LGBT community.
Such is not the case everywhere. "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)."
Guess the religion.
In religions, homosexuality is a matter of right and wrong. Are homosexuals guilty? How should we handle them?
Outside religions, homosexuality is sometimes a matter of normal and abnormal. Homosexuality has a cause. So, is homosexuality a disease? Should it be cured? And does it really matter?
In law, and for me, personally, it's a matter of privileges. Why should homosexuals have granted a special kind of protection? Aren't they against gender based discrimination? So, let's not discriminate. Law should be the same for everybody.
You touch on an interesting point. I am not known for being in the homosexual corner indeed the very opposite. I am not interested in mounting campaigns on them either but the thing that I do find irritating is that they make 2 - 3% of the population but act as if they are 50%. Recently a knight of the realm here who as an actor played the captain of the Star Trek Enterprise is of that corner ilk but he has said publicly that people who went daft about the Belfast bakers should get themselves sorted as the baker simply did not agree with what was to go on the cake. He felt although with that corner that the shop has rights too and was wrong for them to be found guilty. Now that is a sensible homo stance.
Being ridiculous on some matters of religion is not a one-sided thing as those who are daft on space and it's science side can be just as guilty of making one sigh. Coming from the centre of the Universe it gives me an added bonus regarding opinions.....
I will leave the drinking and driving posting up to Oak from now on
Corrected that for ya!
Was your edit also a plea to let your comments slide…? :)
'Driving' on DnD. Good, bad or indifferent I own my comments. Have you read the novel Middlesex? I am reading it now--won a Pulitzer in 2002. :knight: :cheers:
I'm not a shill for religions, so I'm not sure why you mention this in response to my comment. I don't think that 'societies' accept much of anything but people do.
Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. And "The highest percentage ever of Americans – a 63% supermajority - back the freedom to marry as a constitutional right for gay couples." I can't do a Venn diagram, but it's pretty clear that there's a significant overlap of Christians (religious) and those who accept the LGBT community.
Certainly no offense intended my friend, it's just that the large number of Christians who accept rights for gay couples and the even larger number of Christians who have premarital sex, just goes to show that the morality of the religion is largely ignored in the US of A. How does religion contribute anything to morality? The devotees thumb their noses at what Christianity calls morality and the new morality that comes in stands on higher ground. It seems people have a better innate morality than what the Church has to offer. :knight: :cheers:
Finding something immoral about pre-marital sex is a stretch for me but not for others I suppose.
I've been rid of religion for longer than many here have been alive, so I don't get very excited by the issue much any more. The last person I remember bothering about the subject was the man whose tombstone is below, a great guy who finally told me to stop bothering him. I did.
I'm not sure what innate morality is. If there was anything like it there would be millions of Indians in the U.S., lots of Romani and tens of millions of additional Russians.
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/t31.0-8/11425198_10204820515767805_4807949672745568416_o.jpg)
Bruce Jenner was born with a sexual identity disorder
Seriously? The entire world is in deep sorrow...
Bruce Jenner was born with a sexual identity disorder
Seriously? The entire world is in deep sorrow...
You are a throwback to the male chauvinist pig...the entire world is in stitches. :knight: :cheers:
You are a throwback to the male chauvinist pig...the entire world is in stitches.
Stitches can be hell!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F158%2F384004478_06808c2eed_m.jpg&hash=1c781f32e0ffa42dea7dcd6f39f2d24c" rel="cached" data-hash="1c781f32e0ffa42dea7dcd6f39f2d24c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/384004478_06808c2eed_m.jpg)
You are a throwback to the male chauvinist pig...
You start speaking like a feminist, you end being a feminist. Already stopped using your bra? :)
What's more troubling, Bel, is that he's speaking like a medical quack… On what basis was this "condition" determined to be something Jenner was born with? Genetics? Environmental shocks, in utero?
I'd say wishful thinking — but, since he doesn't believe in free will, his actions, opinions (feelings…) and words are mere responses to causal chains for which there can be no blame, nor praise!
Even his smugness is meaningless. :)
What's more troubling, Bel, is that he's speaking like a medical quack… On what basis was this "condition" determined to be something Jenner was born with? Genetics? Environmental shocks, in utero?
He didn't say "condition". He said "disorder". This is a medical term. (Not saying that he knows what he is talking about. Just saying that he used a medical term.)
For me, there sticks out "...religion has a problem with that--based on what?" because he could just as well have said "...medical science has a problem with disorders--based on what?"
"...religion has a problem...", period. In fact, a multitude of problems.
On what basis was this "condition" determined to be something Jenner was born with? Genetics? Environmental shocks, in utero?
The below is from this source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html)
I hope it doesn't get in the way of the fixed opinions y'all have come to with no more knowledge than I possess. :devil:
In the most comprehensive study of its kind, Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, has been studying 400 sets of twins to determine if some men are genetically predisposed to being gay.
The study found that gay men shared genetic signatures on part of the X chromosome - Xq28.
Related Articles
Global genetic map shows impact of colonialism and slave trade around the world 14 Feb 2014
Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation.
“Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.”
Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an 'oversimplification’ to suggest there was a 'gay gene.’
“We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.”
Now for the big question. When appropriately lettered scientists disagree, what do the rest of us do?
There are very rare psychiatric diseases (or disorders, whatever) that the patient, for example, doesn't recognizes his hand as being part of his own body and wants to cut it.
Transsexuals, if they are real transsexuals, would be the same kind of situation, what I don't understand is why they aren't locked up in psychiatric hospitals for treatment but instead are shown in the media circus as... what? clowns? celebrities? examples??
…nope, Jimbro. Such studies don't get in the way — at all: They remain murky, and weak statistically. (Much more so than, say, studies of g, often cited as general intelligence… If you've followed arguments over this for any appreciable time, you'll have noted that positions are mostly ideological.) But such is the nature of "social" science.
And believing that —eventually— all of science will be subsumed by physics is similarly an ideological position…
Transsexuals, if they are real transsexuals, would be the same kind of situation, what I don't understand is why they aren't locked up in psychiatric hospitals for treatment but instead are shown in the media circus as... what? clowns? celebrities? examples??
India has about 500,000 transsexuals and that developing nation recently recognized them as the "third gender" with equal rights under the law. Acknowledgment of transgenders as a third gender is not a social or medical issue--it is a human rights issue. Is this something that you and/or your country would applaud? :knight: :cheers:
it is a human rights issue
James, how can there be "human rights" if there is no free will, no praise, no blame?
Do you begin to see why I consider the "no free will" position to be incoherent? (If its a choice between reductionism and free will, you're on the horns of a dilemma…)
If there is no free will, then there is no "human rights"-- or any other kind of rights-- either. For that matter, "human intellect" falls apart in the face of what can only be described as base animal instincts.
So--- you've got a problem. You can't be the smartest man in the room if your intelligence is only animal instinct, after all.
Acknowledgment of transgenders as a third gender is not a social or medical issue--it is a human rights issue. Is this something that you and/or your country would applaud?
Transsexualism is not a human right. There is no such a thing as "third gender".
Enough of moral relativism at its worst imaginable level.
If there is no free will, then there is no "human rights"-- or any other kind of rights-- either. For that matter, "human intellect" falls apart in the face of what can only be described as base animal instincts.
Human rights are a relatively recent
invention and nothing more. What are base animal instincts? All animals that I'm aware of limit and target their violent behavior. Lions tend to not kill other lions and the same is true of other animals. I think that humans are much worse than other creatures in dealing with their own kind, although it isn't always the case for most of us most of the time. War is another matter entirely. In war the gloves come off, bombs are dropped, the enemy is gassed and shot with abandon.
Enough of moral relativism at its worst imaginable level.
Your religious bias is showing, Pope Belfrager. Ever heard of WWII?
Transsexualism is not a human right. There is no such a thing as "third gender".
Also, importantly, let's not screw with language categories: Many languages use three genders, male, female and neuter… It's the conflation with
sex and gender (a grammatical category) that's required by
transsexualism; biology and grammar are not very similar disciplines. One's sex is determined by one's chromosomes. Your genes got Ys, you're guys. (Source: Nature. Cite: here (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/SexChromosomes.html), among others… :) )
[A money-quote:]
SRY (for sex-determining region Y) is a gene located on the short (p) arm just outside the pseudoautosomal region. It is the master switch that triggers the events that converts the embryo into a male. Without this gene, you get a female instead.
What is the
- On very rare occasions aneuploid (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Chromosomes.html#sex) humans are born with such karyotypes as XXY, XXXY, and even XXXXY. Despite their extra X chromosomes, all these cases are male.
- This image (courtesy of Robin Lovell-Badge from Nature 351:117, 1991) shows two mice with an XX karyotype (and thus they should be female). However, as you may be able to see, they have a male phenotype. This is because they are transgenic for SRY. Fertilized XX eggs were injected with DNA carrying the SRY gene.
| see Making Transgenic Animals (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/TransgenicAnimals.html) |
- Another rarity: XX humans with testicular tissue because a translocation has placed the SRY gene on one of the X chromosomes
- Still another rarity that demonstrates the case: women with an XY karyotype who, despite their Y chromosome, are female because of a destructive mutation in SRY.[/l][/l]
That's more than I ever wanted to know on the subject.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/SexChromosomes.html (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/SexChromosomes.html)
I have heard of having three different sexes involved in reproduction. As you might have guessed, in a sci-fi movie.
"Battle Beyond the Stars". There's a passage in that movie which refers to this phenomenon, and apparently there is only one planet in that galaxy which has it. Most everywhere else, it only requires male and female for reproduction.
Oh, man---- I gotta stop watching such crappy movies!
Oh, man---- I gotta stop watching such crappy movies!
If you only like topnotch space movies, try this one, perhaps the best such movie ever made.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7WF78PolA[/video]
Lions tend to not kill other lions and the same is true of other animals. I think that humans are much worse than other creatures in dealing with their own kind, although it isn't always the case for most of us most of the time.
Re: the lions, except when they don't… A mere tendency is not much to go on! We know that they do, fairly often: Young male lions are aggressive! ( Hey! — can we please get a Fosse to go live with the lions? :) )
Many animals eat their young (perhaps "perceiving" an upcoming food shortage… :) Or merely counting teats and offspring; that's not something that requires "AP math".)
Might I posit that people just make shit up to support the conclusions they're most comfortable with? :)
Oh, man---- I gotta stop watching such crappy movies!
mjm, the bio-pic Ed Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wood_%28film%29) got (finally!) Marty Landau an Oscar!
There's a reason: schlock sells!
That's more than I ever wanted to know on the subject.
Really?!
Didn't you go to high school…? :)
This thread will end well......said nobody ever. :devil:
it is a human rights issue
James, how can there be "human rights" if there is no free will, no praise, no blame?
Do you begin to see why I consider the "no free will" position to be incoherent? (If its a choice between reductionism and free will, you're on the horns of a dilemma…)
I have said before and I will say it again, the illusion of free will is so complete that no one (even those of us who can grasp it), will ever live their life as if it there is no free will--think about it for a moment before ridiculing it out of hand.
Every decision that you make is downstream from the subconscious and conscious thoughts (data), that sifts through your mind to arrive at the only solution or result that is possible based on that accumulated data--the mind has nothing else to work with. Going back in time and doing it again--with all else being equal--will only produce the one and only and same result. One has to invoke the supernatural/metaphysical realm to give the mind complete autonomy over what it is--a living machine--and I don't buy any of that nonsense.
We are all egotistical sons of bitches who like to think we are independent of our circumstances, but we can never change or escape from what has already been set in motion...nevaaaa. :knight: :cheers:
the mind has nothing else to work with. Going back in time and doing it again--with all else being equal--will only produce the one and only and same result. One has to invoke the supernatural/metaphysical realm to give the mind complete autonomy over what it is--a living machine--and I don't buy any of that nonsense.
It would be much simpler, if that were an accurate description.
How do you make "all else be equal"? You nor I have anywhere near that level of information; and our education(s) should convince us that we never shall. Your hubris says otherwise… Convince me!
But even you don't believe it. (Although you're cussedly stubborn — not to mention stupid! BTW: Don't bother reporting me for my "personal insult"… There is no person to be insulted; and no person to "perform" the insult: There is only cause and effect. So, you'd have to ask that all of reality -in your sense- be banned. Why would you do that? Of course, because you are "programmed" to do so… :) )
Going back in time and doing it again--with all else being equal--will only produce the one and only and same result.
You have or know of a way to do this? :) (Nah. This is your weird form of uniformitarianism… Some things do need to be assumed. I just think you've made a few bad choices, for your initial assumptions.) You're very fond of counter-factuals! Do you know how silly that makes you look?
But: Why would you care?
You don't exist. There's only the causal chain. Right?!
In other words (the words you
should use, if you believe what you say…), nobody gets hurt; nobody hurts anybody. No one's to blame for anything. No one gets praise…
Us machines just do what we're programmed to do.
Why won't you accept that?
One has to invoke the supernatural/metaphysical realm to give the mind complete autonomy over what it is--a living machine--and I don't buy any of that nonsense.
Just because you were ill-educated doesn't mean that the little bit you understood was wrong!
You don't need to "buy" much. But if you won't accept the gift of generation's past you should probably re-name yourself
Igrate!
mjm, the bio-pic Ed Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wood_%28film%29) got (finally!) Marty Landau an Oscar!
There's a reason: schlock sells!
But it didn't do well at the box office. In other words: What do you mean by "sells"?
But it didn't do well at the box office. In other words: What do you mean by "sells"?
"A very good actor was finally awarded the highest accolade from his peers!" What will you get,
ersi? :)
"Schlock sells" means the common taste — arbitrated by intelligent people — will attract an audience. Or the Soviets will win the Cold War.
Your choice.
Oops! That one's over…
You'll note (or not…) that the Soviet Union focused its military expenditure on a First Strike Capability. Which sold well, in the Caucasus and elsewhere.
When Reagan met Gorbachev in Reykjavik, the point of contention was simple: Either America (and her allies) would refuse to defend themselves or the Soviet Union would no longer treat them as … what?
Meanies? Belligerent antagonists? (Hey! That was not a leap… :) )
We left that to the Soviets to answer.
Reagan said plainly that SDI would continue. The Soviet Union had such programs; the U.S. would too.
Some people took exception to our using our wealth and intellect to gain the upper hand. (They continue to do so, today! Silly gooses…) The "Talks" broke down…
Eventually, so did the Soviet Union.
But it didn't do well at the box office. In other words: What do you mean by "sells"?
"A very good actor was finally awarded the highest accolade from his peers!" What will you get, ersi? :)
"A very good actor was finally awarded the highest accolade from his peers" equals "schlock sells" in Oakdalean. And Oakdale thinks this requires no further explanation. This is what I get.
But it didn't do well at the box office. In other words: What do you mean by "sells"?
"A very good actor was finally awarded the highest accolade from his peers!" What will you get, ersi? :)
"A very good actor was finally awarded the highest accolade from his peers" equals "schlock sells" in Oakdalean. And Oakdale thinks this requires no further explanation. This is what I get.
I think Oakdale confuses winning an award with box-office success. An actor can win an award from his peers--- after all, the Academy Awards are really just "The Business" patting itself on the back. However, that has nothing to do with the box office, where a movie may have seriously bombed. "We the People" who watch movies--- don't vote in the awards, which is entirely an inside-the-industry affair.
Human rights...
Is anyone denying to people with "a sexual identity disorder" basic human rights, such as the right to be alive, to get food, to get a job and to earn one's wages honestly, to leave in peace, to be protected from violence and so on and so on?
No. The "human rights" in question use to be the rights to say "we are a couple", "we are a happy family" and "we are married (in the church of our own choice)".
Come on!
Human rights...
Is anyone denying to people with "a sexual identity disorder" basic human rights, such as the right to be alive, to get food, to get a job and to earn one's wages honestly, to leave in peace, to be protected from violence and so on and so on?
No. The "human rights" in question use to be the rights to say "we are a couple", "we are a happy family" and "we are married (in the church of our own choice)".
Come on!
I'll go you one better. This is really about the "human right" to be worshiped and adored for your "heroic" choice to change genders because you thought you were the other gender from the one you were born with. Anything less than absolute rapturous wonder as you regard the person who has a transgender operation is to be regarded as a denial of that person's "rights".
As you can tell by the above, I am more than a little guilty of denying B/C Jenner its "rights".
If the Pope is ok with it, so am I.
If the Pope is ok with it, so am I.
This from a guy who, elsewhere, hates celebrities.
OOOOOKAAAAYYYYY!!!
Ed Wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Wood_%28film%29) got (finally!) Marty Landau an Oscar!
Isn't that Ed Wood the worst ever movie maker? He is a kind of cult celebrity for the European decadent elites.
As for Martin Landau he is known here in Europe for the Space 1999 series. Nice sound track by the way, by Barry White.
Anything is better than transsexuals.
Isn't that Ed Wood the worst ever movie maker? He is a kind of cult celebrity for the European decadent elites.
It's a decadent elite opinion that Ed Wood is the worst ever movie maker. Regular people haven't even heard of him. Ed Wood is about as memorable name as John Smith. Some may remember Elijah Wood and mix them up.
Anything is better than transsexuals.
Now, Eurovision is occasionally rather popular. Even though I heard that Russian TV managed to live-broadcast the latest Eurovision so that Conchita didn't appear, or almost.
Some of the comments here reinforce the idea that we are still quite primitive as social beings. Technologically we are awesome (right rj?), but we are still basically a warlike civilization. Some of the people here mouth the words that they 'tolerate' certain minorities, but it is clear that they are not 'tolerant' of them. For many here, if the LGBT community and other minorities will just sit in the corner with their own kind and shut up, then they can be tolerated--somewhat anyway. God forbid that LGBTs should celebrate their recognition out in the open--better to go to a bullfight than see that shit. Some people here simply don't realize that but for the grace of their 'phantom' god, go they.
There is no empathy here, no walking in another man's shoes, no concern for a fellow man, whatsoever by some. I have a transexual friend and quite frankly, she could easily hold her own with the best of the members here (she is honestly quite amazing--but then I'm amazed by Bozo the Clown--right? ).
It may not show, but I have a lot of respect for many of the members here. That respect, in certain cases, has lost some of it's shine. :knight: :( :cheers:
I haven't found the verb "tolerate" in this thread. Whom are you referring to?
He must be referring to himself in plural.
Even though I heard that Russian TV managed to live-broadcast the latest Eurovision so that Conchita didn't appear, or almost.
Eh eh, brilliant... it surely drives mad our pro gay/transsexual/whatever friends.
Eh eh, brilliant... it surely drives mad our pro gay/transsexual/whatever friends.
I am not hearing this here, I am tired and must be dreaming. Belfrager....never mind. :knight: :cheers:
Edit: You go for this Eric?
From someone who was an early-adopter of straight talk about twisted subjects:
Women are inexorably different from men and childbirth is a miracle. You can’t buy womanhood from a surgeon. It can’t be acquired. You can be an incredibly feminine homosexual. You can even wear a dress. If you think you’re anything but a gay man in a dress, you’re a mentally ill gay man in a dress. Men are different. They have evolved to be better providers. They’re physically stronger. You can be a butch lesbian. You can even wear a strap-on, but you’ll never be a man. To deny these basic natural truths isn’t progressive. It’s “a state of mind that prevents normal perception,” which is the very definition of insane.
(source (http://takimag.com/article/trans_fixed_gavin_mcinnes/print#ixzz3cuO1Wn9y))
And the presumption that "happiness" is what matters most is juvenile… Don'tcha know? :) I don't care what Bruce Jenner does. (It's unlikely that I'll ever watch his "reality tv" show; or watch or read his interviews.) But I am slightly miffed by such promotions, which will —you too should know this,
James— mislead some adolescents down some very dark paths…
But
why should anyone care? I suppose that's the real question, the nub of our disagreement.
Eh eh, brilliant... it surely drives mad our pro gay/transsexual/whatever friends.
I am not hearing this here, I am tired and must be dreaming. Belfrager....never mind. :knight: :cheers:
Edit: You go for this Eric?
Go for what? (I agree, you are tired and must be dreaming.)
Belfrager was replying to something I said about Eurovision. Eurovision is a (primarily) European thing. It has Euro in it, this should have given you a clue.
In turn, I (and I'm quite sure Belfrager too) never heard about this Bruce Jenner mentioned in your title and I have nothing to say about him. I have a fairly clear stance about LGBT-etc. people and your Bruce is totally ordinary in these terms. You'd better check out Conchita, it might brighten up your world.
Things I've heard enough about:
1. Putin
2. Bruce&Caitlyn
3. The Kardashians
=================
Things I've not heard enough about:
1. The new crop of fresh tomatoes
2. The new push-up bras at Victoria's Secret
3. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.diffen.com%2Fuploadz%2F0%2F03%2Fsashimi2.jpg&hash=c1eb962667ae23be276b786276ac9f2b" rel="cached" data-hash="c1eb962667ae23be276b786276ac9f2b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static.diffen.com/uploadz/0/03/sashimi2.jpg)
Jimbro-- This one's for you.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbglifestyle.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2Fmichelle-168.jpg&hash=6d343134b0b6076de09e07d0a3aae076" rel="cached" data-hash="6d343134b0b6076de09e07d0a3aae076" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.pbglifestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/michelle-168.jpg)
I wonder what kind of bra the Cardassian wears.
If a large Kardashian slammed into the Earth...
If a large Kardashian slammed into the Earth...
She has. People here find it too icky to talk about reasonably. :knight: :cheers:
If a large Kardashian slammed into the Earth...
She has. People here find it too icky to talk about reasonably. :knight: :cheers:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.istockimg.com%2Ffile_thumbview_approve%2F35146818%2F3%2Fstock-illustration-35146818-vector-cute-cartoon-white-shy-face.jpg&hash=a8b73de8f0b09199288f9aaa7e7f36e5" rel="cached" data-hash="a8b73de8f0b09199288f9aaa7e7f36e5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/35146818/3/stock-illustration-35146818-vector-cute-cartoon-white-shy-face.jpg)
I have a fairly clear stance about LGBT-etc.
In 100 words or less, what is your stance...just curious. :knight: ???
I have a fairly clear stance about LGBT-etc.
In 100 words or less, what is your stance...just curious. :knight: ???
Start here https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=430.msg23536#msg23536 and if curiosity continues, follow my posts down the line.
Since the "science" that posits sexual orientation as an innate or inborn trait has been mentioned, I'd like those who've read papers that purport to give evidence for such something to consider:
[…] while trying to explain that no statistical model or test is necessary when looking at time series to discover whether there was a “trend”, I hit upon the following simplification.
I don’t have the facilities [here], so draw for yourself a standard x-y plot, with x the time and y the measure of interest, say temperature. At some early time point, place a dot for the first “temperature”. And at some later point, place a second dot higher than the first.
Now I ask you: was there a trend in the data?
This question causes distress in anybody who has had classical statistic training. They want to answer, but feel—and I do mean feel, not think—they cannot. The objections will be “There’s not enough data to tell” or “I can’t fit a model to that” and the like.
It is very difficult, almost impossible, for people with training in classical statistics to look at data without reflexively wondering what model “best explains” the data. This is why classical statistics, especially hypothesis testing, has to go. [a comment that reading the whole post would make plain :) : Put it in the same place as the Hotel’s “art.”]
Firstly, the probability models in the classical quiver do not say word one about what caused the data. If we knew what caused the data, we would not need probability models. We would just point to the cause! Probability models are used in the absence of knowledge of cause. And they should never be used to say what happened.
Let me repeat that, and let me shout it: probability models should never be used to say what happened. We can simply look at the data and it can tell us what happened.
So why does everybody think “fitting” a, say, straight line to time series data think that straight line explains the data? Well, that’s what they’re taught. Sort of. The concept of causality is vague in probability and statistics. So vague that people are allowed to take away from any analysis whatever they want.
This is why hypothesis testing is so toxic. Once a wee p-value is spotted, “randomness” or “chance” are rejected as causes and whatever other idea the researcher had in mind is said to be the cause. This is wrong in every possible way. Randomness and chance are never causes, and to assume a cause is not a proof this was the sole correct cause.
Secondly, the answer to our question is: there is no way to tell because there is no definition of trend.
We’ve talked about this many times. Trend is analogical. My idea of the word might not match yours. Thus in order to say whether there is a “trend”, we need a definition. If that is “any increase” then, yes, unambiguously, there was a trend. If the definition is “at least three increased in a row”, then there was no trend.
(source (http://wmbriggs.com/post/16200/))
With that info in mind,
James, I'd say that
sexual orientation is a concept in search of a justification… And that the "scientific" evidence offered (so far?) is just bad statistics.
—————————————————————————————————————
On a personal note,
James: You've targeted religious organizations (and, presumably, individuals) for your bigoted animosity. Might I suggest you recognize an age old cause: You've got a "hair across your ass"… :)
With that info in mind, James, I'd say that sexual orientation is a concept in search of a justification… And that the "scientific" evidence offered (so far?) is just bad statistics.
Would you say the same thing if you were gay? Or can't you see that far?
It is quite plain that what you, ersi and others abhor--is change. You fear it and even dread it. Rather than try to understand what the make up of our society really is, so perhaps we can get along better through that understanding, you want to keep the status quo. Ersi says he doesn't hate queers, so I'm sure he doesn't hate 'niggers' either, or spics or wops or guineas, or kikes. He knows 'queer' is a slur, so please don't defend him. As social beings we stink, bees do better than us.
You Oak, use what science doesn't know yet to defend your attitude toward these people--how rational is that? Bad statistics before the truth is discovered, is the norm in science. You don't have a beef with science, you are just trying to justify your ugly feelings in your own mind. Have another drink, it's much easier than looking up silly quotes to back your prejudices. :knight: :cheers:
Ersi says he doesn't hate queers, so I'm sure he doesn't hate 'niggers' either, or spics or wops or guineas, or kikes. He knows 'queer' is a slur, so please don't defend him.
Of course you're sure he "doesn't hate 'niggers either, or spics or wops or guineas, or kikes. By which you mean, he does… And you know and use all the "old" terms too.
Why are
you sure? :)
I will defend him, because he speaks to sensible concerns about a society that you don't care about.
You're a hedonist or a narcissist… Would you argue such positions, philosophically? :)
(I doubt it.)
BTW: You're understanding of statistical reasoning is deficient. (Yes,
ersi, I suspect
our language differences makes us seem to disagree… But I could be wrong! :) ) I doubt,
James, that all or even most engineers are so burdened as you: Hedonism and narcissism, what have these to do with engineering?
It is quite plain that what you, ersi and others abhor--is change. You fear it and even dread it. Rather than try to understand what the make up of our society really is, so perhaps we can get along better through that understanding, you want to keep the status quo.
As my posts should have made clear, I am not afraid to analyse and judge change. Change for change's sake is as pointless as status quo for status quo's sake. If there's evidence that change will make things better, let's have it. But you are notably devoid of evidence. Anyway, all evidence about the LGBT movement points to the worst case scenario - annihilation of the concept of marriage, which started already with previous unabashed decadent movements.
It may surprise you that, given the statistics in my own country, I think it makes sense to do away with the concept of marriage here. When more than half of children are born outside marriage, it demonstrates that marriage is socially meaningless, and in my opinion it doesn't make sense to carry on with a meaningless concept in law. How's this for change? On the very same grounds, I argue against any rights for gays, pedophiles, and whatever - such rights would at best be meaningless, but more directly they are a mockery of the concept of rights.
Moreover, some of those groups are better considered criminals, really, for corrupting the youth. If "corrupting the youth" sounds meaningless to you, then it's better for you to not speak of rights and tolerance, because it's evident that you hate youth and you don't give a damn about youth's rights.
Ersi says he doesn't hate queers, so I'm sure he doesn't hate 'niggers' either, or spics or wops or guineas, or kikes. He knows 'queer' is a slur, so please don't defend him. As social beings we stink, bees do better than us.
As Oakdale correctly noticed, you are implying here that I actually hate them all. Some people indeed work hard to deserve hate, yes, and LGBT movement is among them, but still, I don't argue from hatred. I argue from the point of view of common sense and of social continuity.
I don't hate even criminals in the way you imply. It's objectively factual that correction facilities are the best place for them, and it's better for everybody else too when criminals are kept where they belong. Try to argue against this. Similarly, all marginal groups have their correct marginal places.
(Yes, ersi, I suspect our language differences makes us seem to disagree… But I could be wrong! :) )
And wrong you are. It's not just language differences. I gave a read to your quoted criticism of "classical statistic training" and it bears no resemblance at all to the statistics courses that I have been through. Nobody taught me to believe that probability models imply causality. I was carefully taught that (purely statistically) correlating trends may turn out to be sheer coincidence - statistical models are radically distinct from cognition, physics, and metaphysics.* Sad when your schooling has been all wrong, but this doesn't mean everybody else's schooling is also wrong. It may very well be that you are extraordinary in this area.
* This is how I know that all financial analysts here are lying and they know it. They were taught to handle statistics correctly. Then along came Friedmannian schooling and those who agreed to give up the correct basics became financial analysts and economic advisors.
It may surprise you that, given the statistics in my own country, I think it makes sense to do away with the concept of marriage here. When more than half of children are born outside marriage, it demonstrates that marriage is socially meaningless, and in my opinion it doesn't make sense to carry on with a meaningless concept in law.
I think those statistics are about the same all over the western world, here, there, everywhere. Is that a symptom of the meaningless of marriage or is that the demonstration of a clear and orchestrated campaign to void marriage from its social meaning? The multitudinous masses are lead to wherever we want them to go, that's a classic, they go nowhere by themselves. Those statistics reflects exactly that.
Law must, in the first place, protect the unity of the People and to maintain the continuity of the Nation along generations, beyond the limitedness and selfish views of the individuals.
With this in mind, it turns clear what the architects of the pro gay movements wants to achieve. Their activists are just useful idiots for the final objective.
Same goes for the rest of "modern culture" movements.
I think those statistics are about the same all over the western world, here, there, everywhere. Is that a symptom of the meaningless of marriage or is that the demonstration of a clear and orchestrated campaign to void marriage from its social meaning?
Now, let's pause here. I think it's both. There's a campaign, but it's not merely orchestrated. It coincides with a general social trend. If it were merely orchestrated or imposed, there would be a contrary social undercurrent.
Now, the LGBT "marriage rights" campaign is indeed an orchestrated and imposed campaign - and there's a clearly perceptible corresponding widespread social undercurrent opposing it. But I maintain that the "loss of faith" in marriage as a legal concept and as a social requirement in general began long before this. To me it seems the culture of rape, wartime romance and prostitution during the world wars started the trend. The "sexual liberation" of the 60's and later feminism accelerated it and the LGBT campaign can now conveniently ride on this.
Law must, in the first place, protect the unity of the People and to maintain the continuity of the Nation along generations, beyond the limitedness and selfish views of the individuals.
I agree. The question is, what to legislate and how so that the unity and continuity would indeed be maintained.
There's an important difference between Catholic and Protestant countries in terms of marriage. In Catholic countries, there's a civil registration service separate from the church thingie - the civil registration you
must have in order to be considered married, whereas the church thingie you
may have in addition. Not so in Protestant countries, where the church can represent the state in this matter. Should one want a churchly ceremony, the priest will do it on behalf of the state and a separate civil registration is not needed.
Now, either way, registrations of marriage are on decline. The only ones asking for it are gays (because marriage is cute, dresses and all that, like on parade). There's no attraction in it for the bulk of the people, no legal or social or monetary incentive. What do you suggest to amend this?
When the parliament thinks it's possible to legislate marriage so that all meaning is taken out of it (as in gay marriage laws), then it's time to consider the option of omitting marriage from laws altogether, just like royal and noble titles were omitted when they became meaningless. To me it seems a better option to drop the concept than trying to keep it in laws while facing its general unpopularity and having to fight the silly re-definers at the same time.
I agree with you ersi that the diminution of legal marriages amongst the heterosexual population and LGBT campaigns are not exactly the same thing and must be treated separately.
What I defend is that there's an attack on the role of traditional marriage and LGBT movements are already a by product of that attack.
As you well said, "There's no attraction in it for the bulk of the people, no legal or social or monetary incentive.". That's a deliberate policy going on against it to void it of meaning and that created the LGBT appearing and all the unbelievable time of media and constant propaganda that it's offered to them. Offered by who and why? What for?
Family constitutes the most important cell, the basis, the nucleus of human societies. To whom serves to destroy it?
Very honestly I start doubting that we are still governed by humans.
I will defend him, because he speaks to sensible concerns about a society that you don't care about.
The perpetuation of this type of bigotry is what I see. Whether you wish to call it intellectual analysis of our society or some other nicety, it is still hate. Did either of you have a bad personal experience with LGBTs or is this all just left over from the schoolyard playground blustering? I can understand young boys who are just feeling their testosterone posturing in such a way against gays in order to assert their new found masculinity, but what's up with you guys?
Change for change's sake is as pointless asr status quo's sake.
Nature has been doing this for billions of years and it worked out pretty well for you, I would say. It's called evolution and there is evolution in social order as well--you seem to wish to impede that.
Anyway, all evidence about the LGBT movement points to the worst case scenario - annihilation of the concept of marriage[...]
You trying to vie for Belfrager's position of top-conspiracy-theory-nut on DnD?
I argue against any rights for gays, pedophiles, and whatever - such rights would at best be meaningless, but more directly they are a mockery of the concept of rights.
Moreover, some of those groups are better considered criminals, really, for corrupting the youth.
Your contempt overfloweth in this ridiculous and hateful attempt to equate gays with pedophiles. Homosexuality is not contagious, you are simply homophobic--not to worry--people have all kinds of phobias.
Some people indeed work hard to deserve hate, yes, and LGBT movement is among them, but still, I don't argue from hatred. I argue from the point of view of common sense and of social continuity.
The last thing you use in your arguement is common sense and social continuity=status quo...see that? LBGTs simply want recognition as human beings (instead of monsters), that's all--they don't want any part of you...especially you.
I don't hate even criminals in the way you imply. It's objectively factual that correction facilities are the best place for them, and it's better for everybody else too when criminals are kept where they belong. Try to argue against this. Similarly, all marginal groups have their correct marginal places.
This may be the the most contemptible thing ever said here. Would you like to see them exiled to a place like Elba or the South Pole? The latter I'm sure. If your heart truly bleeds for the innocence of youth, then people like you should stop projecting your bigotry onto the young who commit so many of the hate crimes against innocent minorities--you perpetuate hate on your one and only planet sir! You are blinded by your inability to see all human beings as equal on this earth. Moreover, you want to believe that you are better than some humans--but I can tell you right now Eric (and Oak and a few others), you ain't better than anybody. :knight: :cheers:
I argue against any rights for gays, pedophiles, and whatever - such rights would at best be meaningless, but more directly they are a mockery of the concept of rights.
Moreover, some of those groups are better considered criminals, really, for corrupting the youth.
Your contempt overfloweth in this ridiculous and hateful attempt to equate gays with pedophiles. Homosexuality is not contagious, you are simply homophobic--not to worry--people have all kinds of phobias.
Such as your pedophilophobia?
In other threads you keep talking about scientific evidence, while scientific evidence is conspicuously missing in this thread. You should show by whatever means possible that gays and pedophiles are somehow different enough so they cannot be mixed up. The gay rights movement would very much appreciate it if you manage to make such a point. Until then, try to deny these cases of pedophiliac abuse from
leaders of LGBT movement in Sweden
http://mobil.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/rfsl-ledare-domd-for-sexbrott/
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=128&artikel=6104534
LBGTs simply want recognition as human beings (instead of monsters), that's all--they don't want any part of you...especially you.
They already have recognition as human beings. Even criminals are recognised as human beings in Europe (less so in United States, but let's not go there, it would be too embarrassing for you), so this is not what LGBT people are asking. They are asking for "right to marriage" which doesn't make sense.
Consider this. It's generally thought that ancient Greece and Rome were very gay-friendly. It's assumed that pretty much every man went through a pedophilia (!!!) phase before marriage. It's assumed it was seen as culturally permissible, perhaps even encouraged. On the other hand, nobody in ancient Greece or Rome ever asked for right to get married to their homosexual partner. Why? Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense, that's why. Marriage never was any sort of general right. It's a contract between two
families, i.e. the parents of the partners always had to accept it, and it was meant to create another family, the minimal socio-biological unit just like the ones where the partners came from. Therefore, by definition, it's not for homosexuals.
There may have been weird things going on in ancient Greece and Rome, but they certainly knew what makes sense and what doesn't.
The perpetuation of this type of bigotry is what I see.
Oddly enough, that's what I see too: on your part! :)
But I think I see why you don't believe in free will… (Of course, you
do believe in it — for everyone
you disagree with!)
Whether you wish to call it intellectual analysis of our society or some other nicety, it is still hate.
Hate?! What exactly are you talking about?
you are simply homophobic--not to worry--people have all kinds of phobias.
So, what's the problem?
LBGTs simply want recognition as human beings (instead of monsters), that's all
Monsters?! What, for heaven's sake, are you talking about?
You are blinded by your inability to see all human beings as equal on this earth.
Or equally unequal. Whatever, I fail to see anything resembling hate in this thread, and all I see so far are vague accusations from your part against some imaginary entity, and bigotry is all by your side. I wish you could be more specific.
So-- what have we learned today, kiddies?
Well--- we learned that refusal to bow down and worship Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner because he/she/it got a mangina is a sign that you're homophobic. Same thing applies if we reverse the thing and a woman who wants to be a man gets an adadicktome. Bow down and worship or be homophobic.
So-- I reckon that by the "new math" of LBGTALPHABETSOUP I am homophobic because I won't accept as heroes the practitioners of every aberration that comes along. Being a celebrity and getting an operation to make you what you are not doesn't change the thing. Rather than being a hero, Frankenstein's Monster comes to mind.
Go away Bruce/Caitlyn!
Go away Kardashians!
=====================They have a child named North West...I kid you not!
Go away Kanye West!
Go away Bruce/Caitlyn!
Go away Kardashians!
=====================They have a child named North West...I kid you not!
Go away Kanye West!
Dear God--- let's hope they don't have a large family. "North West By West" "North West By Half West", "West By South West" "South West" and so on, covering the Western half of the compass. This can't end well.
North West by Half Wit.
I coulda wished I had said this. But-- I agree with it so that's something.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGCL2g46.jpg&hash=d21e103e7addcd430a8163a41fa8f8db" rel="cached" data-hash="d21e103e7addcd430a8163a41fa8f8db" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/GCL2g46.jpg)
I'm sure you would have fixed the typos. :)
How bad of you. You are treating them as monsters, hating them to the point of denying them the human rights of requiring everyone else to appreciate the spectacle of themselves. :left:
They aren't typos, they're honest mutterings of a poorly educated person.
I coulda wished I had said this. But-- I agree with it so that's something.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGCL2g46.jpg&hash=d21e103e7addcd430a8163a41fa8f8db" rel="cached" data-hash="d21e103e7addcd430a8163a41fa8f8db" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/GCL2g46.jpg)
Yeah, it's only 252 million people--worthy of a snappy genocide in your opinion, eh sport? Just so you can continue on unheeded in your own intolerant little life--what am I saying?--You don't have a meaningful life. ..lol.
You almost had me fooled sir. :knight: :cheers:
I coulda wished I had said this. But-- I agree with it so that's something.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGCL2g46.jpg&hash=d21e103e7addcd430a8163a41fa8f8db" rel="cached" data-hash="d21e103e7addcd430a8163a41fa8f8db" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/GCL2g46.jpg)
Yeah, it's only 252 million people--worth a quick genocide in your opinion eh?
You almost had me fooled sir. :knight: :cheers:
I want documentation on my desk by morning that I have EVER said I favor genocide. Without fail, Mr. Seaton. Without fail. Otherwise--- you make too much noise.
Mental genocide mjm, you are intolerant. What have these people done to you to deserve this kind of flippant response? They are struggling....you ever struggle against the hate of a world? You don't have a clue pal. Do you think you have an elite status or is it that you can't get passed the mind shivering sexuality of these people? Relax, you are in good company here. :knight: :cheers:
For a slightly more intellectual (and sane!) view, see here (http://takimag.com/article/nothing_is_real_john_derbyshire/print#axzz3dUwfee4A).
You're welcome.
That's what I thought. If anybody DARES to disagree with Mr Seaton, he's guilty of genocide.
Mr, that charge needs to be PROVEN..... Where's the proof??? Otherwise you're just calling somebody a name nobody should be called. In which case---.
So, I reckon I jump right past "homophobe" and head straight to the likes of Hitler and his cronies, Stalin and his cronies, and several dictators of times past and unfortunately present.....wanting, according to Mr Seaton,, to annihilate whole groups of people. This without ANY proof whatsoever except that I don't accept that his sacred cow is to be worshiped.
Well---- I DON'T worship your sacred cow. Those people DO make too much noise, demanding that we have to call them heroes (or heroines) because of their sexual deviations.
I've called you out on your BS. Prove genocide----- or stand revealed as an intolerant yourself.
For the genocide accusation to be true, a few preconditions must be met. Only ethnic or major national groups qualify. Some say religious groups also qualify and I'd agree if the religion works as a uniquely identifying characteristic with the self-reproductive capacity, like for example in case of Mandaeans.
Genocide is mass murder of such groups so that the self-reproductive capacity is either cut or so that there's intention to cut it. The problem with gays etc. here is that they don't self-reproduce. They are not an ethnic group or a religious group.
Or, as a last attempt, to take the word 'genocide' by its own word - it has 'gene' in it. Is there such a thing as 'gay gene' so that killing gays would qualify as genocide in this sense?
Anyway, the only one talking about killing them is Mr. Seaton. The others here are talking about keeping them where they belong - in the closet. Or maybe not even in the closet, just out of sight of children would be good enough.
But yeah, Mr. Seaton interprets this as genocide. Logic and proof is not his forte.
Mental genocide, Mr. Ersi, not genocide.
It would be nice if we could get through one of these discussions without name-calling.
Mental genocide, Mr. Ersi, not genocide.
At first it was "snappy genocide" - and directed at you personally. "Mental genocide" does not make it any better, because it would require some nasty twists of semantics to make sense of. This cannot be explained sensibly, so I'd rather Mr. Seaton would not try to explain himself.
How do you commit genocide against a group of people who have already removed themselves from the gene pool?
It's like killing a dead man. It can't be done. So the charge makes no sense to begin with.
But, we're here. The clock is running out, American Central Time. I expect documentation. Without fail, Mr Seaton.
Gay people can have children.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/ig/Famous-Gays-With-Kids/ (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/ig/Famous-Gays-With-Kids/)
This is almost beyond idiotic to even discuss. Gay men CAN father children, Lesbian women CAN be mothers. Whether they would actually choose to do what's necessary to make that happen is another issue.
Transgender people--- not so much. A fellow who gets tired of being a man and decides to get his very own mangina can't become a mother. Technology hasn't yet progressed to the point where a fully functioning uterus, ovaries and so on can be put into a formerly male body. In the same way, a woman who decides to get an adadictome will not be able to sire children--- the ability to place functioning testicles and so on into the formerly female body still aways off into the future IF it ever can be done.
So---- how exactly do you commit genocide against people who (a) aren't all of the same tribe in the first place and (b) have already-- by means of the operations necessary to perform sex-change-- taken care of that issue by themselves?
Seems a little silly to even think about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-herman/can-transgender-people-be_b_839703.html
Morning, Chicago time, comes to an end. Still no proof that I ever spoke in favor-- in any way-- of genocide.
Why am I not surprised?
To borrow someone else's phrasing, words mean things. When you accuse another man of a heinous crime--- and genocide is as heinous as it gets-- you'd better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is as they say. If you can't produce supporting documentation that what you say is so---- then don't say it.
Genocide is mass murder of such groups so that the self-reproductive capacity is either cut or so that there's intention to cut it. The problem with gays etc. here is that they don't self-reproduce. They are not an ethnic group or a religious group.
Besides I never saw any mass murder of homosexuals. Not even at the Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist, whatever "genocidal masters" you chose, they were the main target.
No need to use intelligent justifications, it's enough to stay with the basics.
That said, we also should admit the usage of allegorical language. "Genocide" was the hyperbole used by the gay defender to accuse his opposition of... being opposition.
When you accuse another man of a heinous crime--- and genocide is as heinous as it gets-- you'd better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is as they say. If you can't produce supporting documentation that what you say is so---- then don't say it.
This is DnD. We don't document...we post.
When you accuse another man of a heinous crime--- and genocide is as heinous as it gets-- you'd better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is as they say. If you can't produce supporting documentation that what you say is so---- then don't say it.
This is DnD. We don't document...we post.
When someone makes a BS charge against someone else-- expect to get called out on it. In this case, JSeaton employed the now-travel worn device of charging somebody who doesn't agree with him that transexuals are the best thing since sliced bread with a terrible crime. At least last time I checked most people agree that genocide is terrible, anyway. A real nice shut-up, wouldn't you say? So-- I called him out. Still no documentation. Gee, I wonder why.
Note: My editing of Jimbro's post above was entirely accidental, I fixed it back the way it was before responding in a separate post as I should have done.
In my power as a poster and general all-around pest (note: not as a moderator-- that's another issue) I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Sorry, JSeaton, but by bringing a false charge of genocide into the debate, you lose. Think about it: Who have been the great genocidal leaders of the past? Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Idi Amin. Saddam Hussein.
According to Godwin's Law, the first person to mention that his opponent is like Hitler or his Nazi party loses the debate by default. I suspect this is primarily because by the time the debate has gotten to that level the person who charges the other with a crime realizes he can't win by reason and logic, so appeals to base emotion. Nobody likes being called a genocidal maniac, so it is hoped by the person making that charge that he will silence his opponent by shame.
So--- JSeaton, collect your booby prize, on that table to the left. You've earned it... place it on your trophy shelf with pride.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.owenparachute.com%2Fimages%2Fbooby_prize.jpg&hash=87d3090164a0d51ab8ca3d4f55c6ce68" rel="cached" data-hash="87d3090164a0d51ab8ca3d4f55c6ce68" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.owenparachute.com/images/booby_prize.jpg)
Anyway, the only one talking about killing them is Mr. Seaton. The others here are talking about keeping them where they belong - in the closet. Or maybe not even in the closet, just out of sight of children would be good enough.
I wouldn't go that far. They have granted the
right to expose themselves the way they wish; they just don't have the
right to require anyone else to appreciate it. Tolerance works both ways.
Anyway, the only one talking about killing them is Mr. Seaton. The others here are talking about keeping them where they belong - in the closet. Or maybe not even in the closet, just out of sight of children would be good enough.
I wouldn't go that far. They have granted the right to expose themselves the way they wish; they just don't have the right to require anyone else to appreciate it. Tolerance works both ways.
+1
Anyway, the only one talking about killing them is Mr. Seaton. The others here are talking about keeping them where they belong - in the closet. Or maybe not even in the closet, just out of sight of children would be good enough.
I wouldn't go that far. They have granted the right to expose themselves the way they wish; they just don't have the right to require anyone else to appreciate it. Tolerance works both ways.
Is there a right to expose oneself the way one wishes? As far as I know, it's a matter of regulations about behaviour in public space, always was. Any other way is changing the way public space works. For example one can be naked if one so wishes, but at designated places, not anywhere anytime. Approximately like with smoking. So, I wouldn't go as far as speak about "
right to expose themselves the way they wish".
I stand corrected.
When someone makes a BS charge against someone else-- expect to get called out on it. In this case, JSeaton employed the now-travel worn device of charging somebody who doesn't agree with him that transexuals are the best thing since sliced bread with a terrible crime. At least last time I checked most people agree that genocide is terrible, anyway. A real nice shut-up, wouldn't you say? So-- I called him out. Still no documentation. Gee, I wonder why.
Had I known you were in such a tizzy over this mjm, I would have responded earlier. But as it is, I have a life and a rather full and rich life in my estimation, and I don't always come rushing back here every 10 minutes to see if someone has responded to a comment of mine...besides it was Father's Day weekend and Monday was...well just Monday.
A 'snappy genocide' could only occur in one's mind--I thought you might have picked up on that. I should have been more clear by calling it a 'snappy mental genocide'. You can pretend these people don't exist and blot them out of your mind; you can believe like ersi that there is a nefarious "homosexual agenda" of sorts, or like some conservatives you may believe that gay freedom is a “zero-sum game,” meaning that if LGBT community achieves equal treatment under the law, you will lose some of it. Believe what you will, but these people are NOT going away, nor should they. Clearly some people here, certainly not all, are angry, afraid or simply freaked out by the LGBT movement.
I find it hard to believe that in 2015, qualified and hardworking Americans are denied job opportunities, promotions, fired or otherwise discriminated against simply because they are LGBT. These people simply want to be judged on their work, not fired for their sexual orientation. (Side note: I asked a lady friend of mine if she thought that it was right to fire people because they are gay. She thought for a second before responding, "Not as long as they don't act gay on the job"...I am still reeling with laughter.) There is no federal law that protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination (although with ENDA, hopefully there soon will be); in 29 states there is no state law that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and 32 states that do so based on gender identity.
Gays are demonized by many "Christian" groups who make it seem as if the end of days were approaching with their description of gay marriage as “an assault on the foundations of our society.” The institution of marriage has long been crumbling all by itself without the assistance of LGBTs. At this point I find in interesting to note that in your comments, you seem to feel that gays cannot be mothers and fathers, and that the mere "act" of making a baby makes you a father. You have a very odd definition of what makes a man a real father. Simply because these people can't, or choose not to bear children doesn't mean they can't be good mothers or fathers by adoption or surrogates.
Your sensitivities have been irked by what these people do behind closed doors and you have lost sight of the fact that they are otherwise normal people with the same hopes, dreams and aspirations as anyone else. Other minorities have fought for and won their equal rights and they were quite vocal about it as well. What do you see that is so different from the plight of these people who for millennia, have had to hide for fear of being beaten, ridiculed, losing their jobs, and all of their resources? If you actually believe that LGBTs should have rights, why do you perpetuate the stigma and disgrace against them?
As with all equal rights movements, these people will win theirs, things will settle down and life will simply be business as usual once again. :knight: :cheers:
It's better now. I can see some specific things that can be debated - but I still can see accusations on things that haven't been declared on this thread, at least.
"Acting gay", depending on what it means, can really be a big problem. :right:
About "equal rights", I really would like to know specifically which rights aren't equal - hopefully recalling "(basic) human rights".
You hope for a "federal law that protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination". Well, isn't that discrimination? Shouldn't everybody be protected from employment discrimination? Fighting against discrimination, they are making their own.
On the other hand, employment discrimination is a tricky subject. Why should a private employer be forced by law to choose whatever person to the job? Although I comprehend the unfairness of discrimination based solely on sexual orientation, I find it difficult - and perhaps immoral - to use the law specifically against the freedom of individuals to manage their own businesses.
If they practiced it behind closed doors there'd be no problem. The problem is they parade it down Main Street, stand in front of cameras making as big a spectacle of themselves as they can, shouting "LOOK AT ME!!!!" So-- the idea that my nose is out of joint because of what they do behind closed doors isn't exactly accurate.
Now-- about discrimination: Isn't that already against the law? Can a construction company discriminate legally against hiring a LGBTQWERTYUIOP person? Can a law office refuse to hire? I understand certain religious groups DO refuse to hire such--- but there you're dealing with people who hold a whole different belief system, and last time I checked the First Amendment covers free exercise of religious belief.
Note: I half suspect that the real issue is that companies aren't compelled to hire LGBTwhatever people--- that they have to take their chances just like everybody else-- that's not fair!
I still insist: if you're gonna throw around words like "genocide" you'd better be able to prove it--- or realize that you're just throwing feces on the wall to see what sticks. It's a fairly common practice these days with certain groups. "Dare to disagree with me? You are a (insert terrible criminal type here)." No proof that the charge is actually so--- the criminal charge is just a shut-up phrase designed to silence opposition.
The problem is they parade it down Main Street, stand in front of cameras making as big a spectacle of themselves as they can, shouting "LOOK AT ME!!!!" So-- the idea that my nose is out of joint because of what they do behind closed doors isn't exactly accurate.
All minorities have paraded it down Main St. and shouted from the roof tops about being discriminated against. Women burned their bras to get the attention and media coverage that they wanted--were you offended by that spectacle as well? As a straight man, I think you may have rather celebrated that spectacle, as did I. What gays do behind closed doors is not a palatable thought to me personally because I am not built that way, but it is their way of expressing of love and sexuality--are you opposed to sexual love making?--of course not, you just do it with the opposite gender.
Gays have to fight their civil rights battle against a heterosexual world that finds what they do sexually in the bedroom rather disgusting, but this is not about sex, it is about fairness and equality. If you can't see that because your mind can't get passed what they do behind closed doors then perhaps you are not as strong minded as I think you are. Not an insult mjm, I believe that you are simply not addressing the real issue at hand.
Now-- about discrimination: Isn't that already against the law? Can a construction company discriminate legally against hiring a LGBTQWERTYUIOP person? Can a law office refuse to hire? I understand certain religious groups DO refuse to hire such--- but there you're dealing with people who hold a whole different belief system, and last time I checked the First Amendment covers free exercise of religious belief.
Note: I half suspect that the real issue is that companies aren't compelled to hire LGBTwhatever people--- that they have to take their chances just like everybody else-- that's not fair!
"ENDA simply affords to all Americans basic employment protection from discrimination based on irrational prejudice. The bill explicitly prohibits preferential treatment and quotas and does not permit disparate impact suits. In addition, it exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military." (From here) (http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/employment-non-discrimination-act) Is this not fair enough for you?
I still insist: if you're gonna throw around words like "genocide" you'd better be able to prove it--- or realize that you're just throwing feces on the wall to see what sticks.
My bad for using the term at all with you--I had a vision of you wiping these people out of your mind and your concern altogether. I erroneously used the term for effect--you are correct. :knight: :cheers:
Now-- about discrimination: Isn't that already against the law? Can a construction company discriminate legally against hiring a LGBTQWERTYUIOP person? Can a law office refuse to hire? I understand certain religious groups DO refuse to hire such--- but there you're dealing with people who hold a whole different belief system, and last time I checked the First Amendment covers free exercise of religious belief.
I'm missing something. To do what?
There is unfortunately an awful lot of guff about queers and their rights. They make up a tiny part of the population but constantly rabbit on about "rights", etc. They have the same as everyone else and society has changed. If they get picked out for their stance they can do something about it like any other person, group or whatever. They way they go on you would think they were half the population and go over the top time after time. I wish them no harm as long as they keep away from me. There are political views I will have a stance against and argue the corner but that lot think they are something special and that the world has not moved on. It has even if I don't like some of the direction.
I wish them no harm as long as they keep away from me.
And just how are they supposed to do that? Do you have a restraining order from the court or perhaps you think they are contagious or want to drag you kicking and screaming into their bedrooms? You/we listen to their music and radio shows, watch their films…buy their clothes and jewelry, let them style our hair and design our homes and offices, but you wouldn't be caught dead having lunch with one would you? This only narrows your own understanding of our society and these people. If you don't like what they do behind closed doors then simply don't do what they do--ever thought of that Howie? You think that LGBTs make too much noise about themselves and yet there is a particular Scottish fellow I know who makes more noise than the whole lot of them put together (and about lesser stuff).
In the land of the free and home of the BRAVE, we have overcome our fear and repulsion of the LGBT community and they are now embraced by a two-thirds majority of the population (and the Supreme Court). Our distrust and repulsion of these people comes from what we learned in our youth. Looking at this issue in today's light and seeing their plight however, shouldn't be too difficult for any normal person--except of course, for the most obstinate and those with no control over their own minds to rise above learned experiences from the past. :knight: :cheers:
Careful about that imbraced, James. You'll scare Mr. Howie.
Indeed, I almost interjected an apology for using that word...lol. :knight: :cheers:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyfaze.tk%2Fslides%2Fbanana050.gif&hash=12c1d9abce27be601c68e8787c28fb50" rel="cached" data-hash="12c1d9abce27be601c68e8787c28fb50" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileyfaze.tk/slides/banana050.gif)
I'm missing something. To do what?
Hm. Someone never took a civics class… Associate freely, freely associate,
Jimbro. (It's in the Constitution, somewhere — isn't it? :) )
But — as a few denizens of the web have repeated, endlessly! — You will be made to care…
But — as a few denizens of the web have repeated, endlessly! — You will be made to care…
There is no need for you to recognize anyone or anything, it's just that so many of you make similar noise about them that you complain about them making. :knight: :cheers:
Oh jseaton2311, I am not afraid of them any more than anything else. I am fed up to the teeth with all the ballyhoo they make about rights and so on. On matters of law they have the same position as any minority but you would not think that being such a tiny minority they make so much noise. We have laws here too that have opened up these people to Civil Partnerships and same gender marriages but I am still not going to change my view of them. Neither do I go hunting for them however where they get more rights than others that is a different kettle of fish. If someone does not agree with them all hell is let loose and I am quite happy to take them on!
You are missing the point rj. This is a group of people--and yes, a small group indeed--who have had to hide, for all time, the truth about themselves. Being ridiculed, beaten and discriminated against is not anything you or I have ever experienced in the brutal and ruthless manner that they have. And don't you think that they have been the butt of your bigoted jokes for long enough?
As with all groups who have had to fight for rights and recognition there are always the wackos that come out and go overboard in their efforts. This is where people like you (and others on DnD), point the finger and say "see the way these people are!!". You cannot see (or simply refuse to see) that this is not representative of the way these people are--and this is owing to the fact that you are unwilling/unable to reason long and hard enough to understand them--much less get to know them.
Knowing the way that you are, naturally you are not going to change your view of LGBTs (or anything else for that matter), it is a pathological quirk embedded deep within your persona rj. I still rather like you though, as long as I don't take you too seriously. :knight: :cheers:
Well I do know actually they have historically a terrible time and I can tell you honestly that I can not go along with what occurred in previous times at all. When one has a strong view it is in fact tempered by every day matters rather than a blinker. We also had other sadnesses such as slavery for dozens of centuries and even long before our time or yours.
At the same time they are under the same laws as everyone else but to so-called liberal agenda is an odd one and is used or misused. The hard fact of today is they are under the same law as everyone else but act as if they should have some special status and that is not on. In liberal mildsets there is little discussion and instead the standard Homophobia gets raised within seconds and so much for liberalism! At the same time I have no time for Communism but have taken then on publicly so there is a wider picture than they want to pursue. This kind of narow thinking is used elswhere and again isms added.
As for me personally I have like certain political and religious stands have little truck with their small corner but don't campaign for banning or such nonsense. Neither do i have any within my pesonal world..thankfully! If we met we might surprise each other as being more routine than imagined! :lol:
As for me personally I have like certain political and religious stands have little truck with their small corner but don't campaign for banning or such nonsense. Neither do i have any within my pesonal world..thankfully! If we met we might surprise each other as being more routine than imagined! :lol:
Well I do know actually they have historically a terrible time and I can tell you honestly that I can not go along with what occurred in previous times at all. When one has a strong view it is in fact tempered by every day matters rather than a blinker.
Yes, it seems a small matter in the perspective of the rest of the world and much more serious problems facing us today. For a small minority to raise it's head in the midst of more pressing issues seems out of place and trivial to some. But let them have their day and try to relate somehow. If you don't like them or want to understand them then fine, but you have no rationale to impede them or put them down. :knight: :cheers:
Bruce/Caitlyn are back.
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/s320x320/e15/11372119_1612170059030235_259533237_n.jpg)
Now on, I'll always post at the last thread of the page.
Bump for the.... what the hell is this about?
The hell.
This is almost beyond idiotic to even discuss.
Indeed. Genocide is a fairly modern crime category. It came after WWII as a reaction to the Holocaust, and inspired by the Armenian genocide after WWI. The definitions have changed over the years but at no point in time has it meant the killing of fertile people.
No, genocide doesn't mean the killing of genes, but the killing of the tribe. Given the background the focus naturally was on the genocide of ethnic groups, as time passes and we get more cases of humans' inhumanity to humans the definition becomes more general towards the organised destruction of a group of civilians (attacking civilians in general is merely a war crime).
Thus the current
International Criminal Court definition has "…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…". The systematic eradication of all gay people, or all married people, or all people over 60 would thus not fall under the category of genocide. If robots were to indiscriminately kill all humans that wouldn't be a genocide either, however bad it would be for humans and the human gene pool. On the other hand, if they succeeded there wouldn't be an ICC either, so this would be a non-issue.
A wish for a group to go away isn't genocidal unless the wishing party organised death squads to implement that wish, so it would be better to holster that g-word.
That said, the 3.6% poster was fairly dumb as well. If there was a 3.6% cap to be able to express themselves, almost nobody could. There are less than 3.6% active Christians (there are probably more in the US), active atheists, Muslims of any level of activity, most any interest or belief. Even the loudest of all groups, football fans (or whatever US equivalent), would have problems getting heard.
If media really should reflect the world there would be a lot more gaiety around, and not just that. Media are dominated by people who are most or all of these: rich, powerful, from a rich and powerful family, white, male, 40-60 years old, articulate, opinionated, and media savvy.
Media are dominated by people who are most or all of these: rich, powerful, from a rich and powerful family, white, male, 40-60 years old, articulate, opinionated, and media savvy.
Maybe. But according you, only less than 3,6% of people who are most or all of these: rich, powerful, from a rich and powerful family, white, male, 40-60 years old, articulate, opinionated, and media savvy are able to express themselves...
Way less. It is a tiny semi-permeable group of people who dominate media, and a tiny semi-permeable group of people that wields influence in society.
Of course media-by-quota would be a horrible idea. But while some minorities are unremarked, others are not. It's a bit like the Bechtel test. Films that pass the Bechdel test plummet in 2014 (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/24/films-that-pass-the-bechdel-test-plummet-in-2014)
and a tiny semi-permeable group of people that wields influence in society.
There's economic influence and there's social influence. The first seems to adapt very well to whatever happens at the social sphere.
Maybe in the USA things are different, I don't know, but I'm very certain that at most European countries there's a group of around 200 families that rules each country for centuries always maintaining their status quo no matter what happens. It's not an entirely closed group, some fall out and some gets in but the number remains around the same.
I was young once, living in Norway. Then I realised that I could personally get to know everyone wielding power if that was my life's goal (obviously it wasn't), they were not that many. Norway is a small country, fairly transparent and egalitarian, and not living behind high walls and security guards (though a few live in tax havens like London).
That kind of project would not be possible in larger countries like the US, but the number isn't that much higher, a few thousand people, though less accessible. Yes, they tend to run in families, as a rough guesstimate 3 out of 4 have a family relation.
I was young once, living in Norway. Then I realised that I could personally get to know everyone wielding power if that was my life's goal (obviously it wasn't), they were not that many. Norway is a small country, fairly transparent and egalitarian, and not living behind high walls and security guards (though a few live in tax havens like London).
That kind of project would not be possible in larger countries like the US, but the number isn't that much higher, a few thousand people, though less accessible. Yes, they tend to run in families, as a rough guesstimate 3 out of 4 have a family relation.
That's odd. From what I've heard of the UK, London wouldn't be the first place I'd think of when I think of "tax haven".
Norway taxes must be really something else.
Why the super-rich love the UK (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/24/why-super-rich-love-uk)
If you are really rich the UK can be a good place for not paying taxes.
Well the rich in Gt Britain actually pay a very obvious and not insubstantial part of the government income tax collection.