Thread: Johny S. puts his fingers in ears saying La-la-la Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022833
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of your debating style. You don't seem teachable.
The latest example of Johnny putting his grubby little fingers in his ears and yelling "la-la-la" is on the Eat Fast Food for Jesus thread where not knowing what he's talking about doesn't seem to stop him from making all kinds of judgment calls about the Family Research Council (FRC) and dumping his garbage all over the thread.
Johnny S.: You're either incredibly stupid or disarmingly dishonest.
Over and over again you say you don't know what you're talking about:
quote:
Where does your friend get that information about FRC from? I'd never heard of them before...
quote:
...I know precious little about America. I'd never even heard of the FRC until this new story. And I would never make a judgment call on them based on what google could tell me
...yet that doesn't stop him from making unsourced assertions in 3 of the last 8 posts of the thread. (BTW, Johnny it's not what "google" tells you, it's what the links about them from other mainstream sources tell you, moron.)
If that wasn't bad enough, when people try to educate him on the issue he won't actually respond to what is being told to him.
When I post a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well-known non-profit, anti-hate group used by the FBI, that designated the FRC as a hate group, he dismisses the SPLC as a gay rights organization. Again, a simple trip to Wikipedia (or their mission statement, or the FBI's website) would show that they are not focused on gay rights at all, but (primarily) on anti-racist hate.
When I post a link of an interview with the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg who advocated that homosexuality be recriminalized he said: "Your last link is to a story 'playing hardball with Chris Matthews' that doesn't even mention the story." What story? I used the link to show that the FRC wants to criminalize homosexuality. There is no story. The actual quote from the show is:
quote:
MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I certainly...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So, we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Yes.
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Peter Sprigg. We know your position. It‘s a clear one.
Exactly as I said.
When I post a link to the FRC site itself which asserts that gay men post a particular threat to children and that gay culture "celebrates paedophilia" as an example of hate, he ignores it altogether. At least be honest enough to argue that this isn't hateful and why, or acknowledge that it is.
Why do you waste our time? If you can't have an honest discussion that is responsive to the actual points that others are making to you, shut the fuck up. If what you're trying to tell us is that your mind's made up, the FRC is just a innocent Christian group who doesn't believe in gay marriage, and that what anyone else has to say about them won't change your mind, fine. Say so and bow out.
You don't have to post if you don't know what you're talking about. Honest. You're not helping. You're just making yourself look stupid or dishonest - you choose. You're certainly wasting everyone else's time.
And what's more: you do this over and over again on the homosexuality threads on Dead Horses to the point where people get exhausted with trying to get you to listen and give up. At this point I'm starting to believe that wearing others out is your goal.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
It seems others have also tried to educate Johnny on the quote from Cathy, the FRC and other items and he laughs and goes on his way thinking he's made a valid point just because he's unaware on all counts and his made up on the spot opinions are valid. What he's doing is judging based on what he thinks people are saying, or what organizations they might cite and not on the facts themselves.
Please Johnny do some actual research on the subject before posting. Not doing so makes you look willfully ignorant and/or stupid. I haven't seen you this bad in any debate before.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
More assertions from someone who admits he knows nothing about the U.S.
quote:
He has made in comments on radio about being pro-traditional marriage but he has never gone on record saying that he is against SSM.
In the U.S. context being "for traditional marriage" means that he's against SSM. What do you think he's talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Johny S.: He didn't though.
He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's judgment. In the interview that quote allegedly comes from he doesn't mention SSM once.
Mousethief posted a direct quote. It's in the public record.
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about. Shut up already.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about.
Can you imagine the silence in the world if people shut up when they didn't know what they're talking about?
It would be deafening.
And not half as much fun.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Johny S.: He didn't though.
He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's judgment. In the interview that quote allegedly comes from he doesn't mention SSM once.
Mousethief posted a direct quote. It's in the public record.
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about. Shut up already.
I read MT's post, I know what it said. What I have repeatedly stated is that it is incorrect reporting on what he actually said.
Did you read my post on the other thread?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yes he did say that. It's a direct quote, FFS.
No, he didn't. It is not a direct quote.
Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.
Ken Coleman show
Listen to the actual radio show. (Like I did). He did not say what is attributed to him. The reporting is incorrect.
Listen to the show - it is right there in my link (you only have to listen to the interview with Cathy from about 20 minutes onwards).
Once you've actually listened to the original source, then I'm happy to discuss your frustrations raised on this thread about how I don't actually investigate issues and shoot my mouth off when I don't know what I'm talking about.
(Niteowl2 too.)
[ 04. August 2012, 11:59: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I did listen to the show and you're being dishonest when you're saying that in context, he's not referring to same sex marriage. When people in this country talking about the "redefinition" of marriage and somesuch, that is exactly what they are referring to.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Johny S.: He didn't though.
He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's
Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.
Ken Coleman show
Listen to the actual radio show. (Like I did). He did not say what is attributed to him. The reporting is incorrect.
Listen to the show - it is right there in my link (you only have to listen to the interview with Cathy from about 20 minutes onwards).
Once you've actually listened to the original source, then I'm happy to discuss your frustrations raised on this thread about how I don't actually investigate issues and shoot my mouth off when I don't know what I'm talking about.
(Niteowl2 too.)
There are several versions of that interview on YouTube. There were parts of the interview that were cut on some videos and complete in all it's anti-gay splendor on others. He said exactly what mousethief stated. I've just listened to two videos where he said we were headed for judgment for having the pride and arrogance to think we could change the definition of marriage: the definition of one man and one woman. One is just him talking, the other has news commentary with just that portion lifted out and played. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIOOZBhHdu4\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlzQFChlltk&feature=related
He also gave an interview to Baptist Press not long ago that pretty much said the very exact same thing. This isn't something he's hiding any more. He's always given money to anti gay organizations and to one organization that has been labled as a hate organization because they tell lies about LGBT, stating they are pedophiles and basically evil. The organization SPLC primarily deals with radism and other forms of hate, so they are not as labelled them a "pro gay" organization. If I'm not mistaken AFR is the only anti-gay organization to get that label.
I loved the way Dan Cathy was open about his organization and trying to serve and build up his customers. Now, it seems, he's going down a different path, though he's always donated to organizations that try to deny LGBT rights.
Everything that has been pointed out to you has been documented. I think it is you who has a lot of reading and listening to do.
To those so concerned about the state of the American family I suggest they focus on the heterosexual family unit as they've a great job of destroying themselves. It wouldn't hurt the heterosexual family one iota to allow the homosexual partners to have a marriage and children. We should support those families as well and ensure they have all they need to make it "til death do us part".
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
You're just wriggling now Dan.
You called me to hell when I said that it wasn't a direct quote. You repeated that it was a direct quote.
The substance of your hell call was that I don't check things out and post in ignorance and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I repeat, it wasn't a direct quote. That was not what he said. On the original thread I agreed that it was easy to deduce his views on SSM from his comments but simply stressed that the way he was quoted was inaccurate. Go back and check the other thread. That is what I said.
I'm happy to discuss my failings but if you are not even going to admit that on the very thing you called me to hell for you were mistaken then there doesn't seem much point.
This whole sad debacle proves exactly what I was posting on the other thread that got you so mad. Google is not your friend. Just because a website or news item reports from an interview something does not necessarily mean that's exactly what was said. Sometimes there is some heavy editing. (Like here.) I understand why you would read that and think it was a direct quote, but the simple truth is that it wasn't. Be careful with your sources.
Right. I'm off to bed. I wish you no ill, indeed I hope you have a good day.
[ETA - I've just noticed that Niteowl2 has posted something so will have to read that tomorrow. Night all.]
[ 04. August 2012, 13:49: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Your reading skills aren't improving.
I called you to hell because of all the things I laid out in my first post, none of which you have addressed. Perhaps you should try reading it again.
As several people, not just I, have pointed out, Candy's comments were that we were headed for judgment for having the pride and arrogance to think we could change the definition of marriage: the definition of one man and one woman. You seem to be arguing that because he doesn't utter the actual words 'SSM', he can't be talking about it. In fact you wrote: quote:
Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.
which is, frankly, bullshit, and at odds with you're saying now: quote:
On the original thread I agreed that it was easy to deduce his views on SSM from his comments but simply stressed that the way he was quoted was inaccurate.
The way he was quoted was accurate and anyone familiar with American politics and culture (which you acknowledge you aren't). He's talking about same sex marriage.
Again, the fact that you don't seem familiar with U.S. culture and politics doesn't seem to stop you from making assertions about it. That's the issue. Got it this time?
Meanwhile, you seem to be silent on the FRC. So perhaps I should take that to mean that you approve of their position of asserting that gay men are a particular danger to children, that we should not be protected from housing and job discrimination and that homosexuality should be criminalized. Perhaps in your mind you have reconciled that with professing Christian love for us but, please understand if some of us laugh in the face of any future professions of such love.
You say you wish us no ill will, but will do nothing to speak out against those who do, as if that's substantially different.
[ 04. August 2012, 14:08: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
I've listened to it again and after he talks about family breakdown, he says that we invite God's judgment on us if we "redefine" marriage. Obviously that that point he isn't talking about single parents or family breakdown. He's talking about redefining what marriage is - SSM. Single parents are no longer married at all so it doesn't logically follow.
You would have a stronger case if he said that we were redefining what a family is to include single parents, but he said "marriage" not "family".
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
Cathy does train his employees well in servicing customers. I just watched a video of a poor drive up window clerk getting a dressing down from a guy who ordered nothing but free water. You can make your point and still recognize the person in front of you is not responsible for how the corporation spends it's money, and the CEO is entitled to his beliefs as those on the other side are. The employee may or may not share the CEO's belief. Both sides need to make their case civilly. And there's far too many on both sides that aren't.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... Google is not your friend. ...
Quit blaming Google for your ignorance of US culture and your inability to tell shit from shinola. OliviaG
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Why do you waste our time? If you can't have an honest discussion that is responsive to the actual points that others are making to you, shut the fuck up. <snip>
You don't have to post if you don't know what you're talking about. Honest. You're not helping. You're just making yourself look stupid or dishonest - you choose.
<another post>
quote:
Mousethief posted a direct quote. It's in the public record.
Holy hell. I'm (generally speaking) on your side in this debate, and yet posting obvious lies - like that Mousethief posted a direct quote while linking to sources proving that he in fact did not post a direct quote - just makes you (and by extension 'our team') look either stupid or disingenuous or both.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Where is the lie? Notice what Mousethief put in his quotation marks. Notice what is not in his quotation marks.
Mousethief wrote:
quote:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
Is the phrase that Mousethief quoted correct or not?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
No.
"Invites" is not the same word as "inviting."
Which I get is a niggling grammar teacher thing, but sloppy shit like that - particularly when disingenuously attached to a statement about gay marriage that wasn't there - matters.
This Chick-Fil-A crap is starting to rival SlutWalk in its utter stupidity and ability to convince (former)liberals/feminists to switch teams.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
It is the same word conjugated differently.
Explain how it is substantially different in this context please. Changing the conjugation of a verb to fit a phrase into another is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as long as it doesn't change the phrase's meaning. But you seem to think this somehow changes its meaning, so I'm curious to find out how. How does "invites" make the statement different than "inviting"?
[ 04. August 2012, 19:04: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
And when if you're asserting that when he talks about changing the definition of marriage in a way that is "inviting God's judgment on our nation" he isn't referring to gay marriage, please explain what he is referring to. Johnny seems to think there is a movement afoot to redefine marriage, which by definition is a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance, to include single people - and that somehow this will bring judgment. Is this your assertion too?
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
Saysay, leave the grammar police gig to people whom actually understand grammar.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about.
Can you imagine the silence in the world if people shut up when they didn't know what they're talking about?
It would be deafening.
You should give it a try sometime.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It is the same word conjugated differently.
Explain how it is substantially different in this context please. Changing the conjugation of a verb to fit a phrase into another is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as long as it doesn't change the phrase's meaning.
Here's the article:
quote:
Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
quote:
But you seem to think this somehow changes its meaning, so I'm curious to find out how. How does "invites" make the statement different than "inviting"?
It used to be common practice to indicate that one had changed the words in a quote. By writing invit(es), for example.
I'll grant you that mousethief's change wasn't major, but Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, any number of other media outlets, and basically all liberal blogs do shit like that all the time - frequently in a more substantial way, sometimes to include wholesale making shit up because someone might have said that because that's what they obviously mean and doing so "doesn't change the phrase's meaning."
It makes them untrustworthy. Especially when said changes are coupled with the previous paragraph, which supposedly explains his 'real meaning' even though that's not obvious from his actual words.
People seem to think they're going to be able to get away with doing shit like this forever.
They won't.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And when if you're asserting that when he talks about changing the definition of marriage in a way that is "inviting God's judgment on our nation" he isn't referring to gay marriage, please explain what he is referring to.
I didn't watch the interview because I'm lazy, I don't care what the asshole thinks, and I don't have that much time on my hands at the moment, so I shouldn't speak for him, but maybe he's thinking about Britney Spears, any number of other celebrities, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, any number of other reality TV shows, movies, etc.
quote:
Johnny seems to think there is a movement afoot to redefine marriage, which by definition is a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance, to include single people - and that somehow this will bring judgment.
My italics.
Yes, that is your definition of marriage - a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance. Not a podvig, not a sacrament, not a complementarian fulfillment of ordained Biblical roles, not any number of things that others believe to be the definition of 'marriage'.
That is in itself a redefinition of marriage for a lot of people.
[ 04. August 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: saysay ]
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It is the same word conjugated differently.
Explain how it is substantially different in this context please. Changing the conjugation of a verb to fit a phrase into another is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as long as it doesn't change the phrase's meaning.
Here's the article:
quote:
Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
quote:
But you seem to think this somehow changes its meaning, so I'm curious to find out how. How does "invites" make the statement different than "inviting"?
It used to be common practice to indicate that one had changed the words in a quote. By writing invit(es), for example.
I'll grant you that mousethief's change wasn'r major, but Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, any number of other media outlets, and basically all liberal blogs do shit like that all the time - frequently in a more substantial way, sometimes to include wholesale making shit up because someone might have said that because that's what they obviously mean and doing so "doesn't change the phrase's meaning."
The fact that other (purely liberal) blogs (evidently) may do that in a substantial way doesn't matter. You haven't explained the any difference between "invites" and "is 'inviting'" in this context in a way that makes the saying that Mousethief quoted Candy a lie. He did quote him.
quote:
It makes them untrustworthy. Especially when said changes are coupled with the previous paragraph, which supposedly explains his 'real meaning' even though that's not obvious from his actual words.
It doesn't make anyone untrustworthy unless they alter the meaning from the phrase. Use some common sense. Oh wait...
quote:
People seem to think they're going to be able to get away with doing shit like this forever.
And people seem to think that substituting the present continuous tense of a verb for the present tense changes the meaning of a quote in a way that makes it untrustworthy. Bizarre.
quote:
They won't.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yes, God is going to send me to hell for the substituting a verb conjugation. Got it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And when if you're asserting that when he talks about changing the definition of marriage in a way that is "inviting God's judgment on our nation" he isn't referring to gay marriage, please explain what he is referring to.
I didn't watch the interview because I'm lazy, I don't care what the asshole thinks, and I don't have that much time on my hands at the moment, so I shouldn't speak for him, but maybe he's thinking about Britney Spears, any number of other celebrities, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, any number of other reality TV shows, movies, etc.
Really, you too are going to admit you don't know what you're talking about and then waste our time on this?
quote:
quote:
Johnny seems to think there is a movement afoot to redefine marriage, which by definition is a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance, to include single people - and that somehow this will bring judgment.
My italics.
Yes, that is your definition of marriage - a contract between two people to settle property and inheritance. Not a podvig, not a sacrament, not a complementarian fulfillment of ordained Biblical roles, not any number of things that others believe to be the definition of 'marriage'.
That is in itself a redefinition of marriage for a lot of people. [/QB]
In the context of Candy's talk, which you admit you haven't listened to, this makes no sense whatsoever.
[ 04. August 2012, 20:18: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'll grant you that mousethief's change wasn't major, but... liberal blogs do shit like that all the time - frequently in a more substantial way...
It makes them untrustworthy.... People seem to think they're going to be able to get away with doing shit like this forever.
They won't.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."
Thus mousethief incurs the wrath of the almighty for changing invites to inviting.
What are you smoking?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Thus mousethief incurs the wrath of the almighty for changing invites to inviting.
What are you smoking?
I'm not actually pissed off at mousethief in this context; I'm pissed off at toujoursdan for being a typical liberal asshole and misrepresenting others' opinions. I'm unbelievably angry at all the liberal assholes who do shit like that right now, and I'm pissed off at him in particular as I've been fighting for same sex marriage in the US for more than 25 years and he's making my job more difficult.
To quote Johnny S. from upthread:
quote:
I read MT's post, I know what it said. What I have repeatedly stated is that it is incorrect reporting on what he actually said.
[ 04. August 2012, 20:45: Message edited by: saysay ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
To get pissed off and unbelievably angry over invites vs inviting seems weird to me.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
How have I misrepresented anyone's opinion?
You just quoted Candy from an article in the Christian Post (a conservative evangelical* publication I might add) that is titled: "Chick-fil-A President Says 'God's Judgment' Coming Because of Same-Sex Marriage." (bold mine) for fuck's sake.
Beyond that you don't even know what his opinion is since you admit you haven't listened to the interview.
quote:
I read MT's post, I know what it said. What I have repeatedly stated is that it is incorrect reporting on what he actually said.
There is no incorrect reporting on what he said, just two people who are flailing about trying to offer different opinions on what the "redefinition of marriage" means, that they are pulling out of their arses. He hasn't gone on the record to contradict what people took from his comments from this interview and he has stated the same thing elsewhere.
A few braincells die in my head every time you post. If you are trying to help "our side", please, defect to the other side. It will help us more.
* Statement of faith and mission statement
[ 04. August 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
I'm not pissed off over invites vs inviting, though I'm starting to get annoyed at the fact that you apparently don't know how to read and are deciding what I'm really pissed off about.
It's this: quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I did listen to the show and you're being dishonest
Johnny S. may be wrong, his opinions may have a negative effect on the real lives of real people, he may be ignorant of certain issues, whatever, but does that make him dishonest?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Well you've posted so much other stuff on this thread which you seemed to be annoyed about that if that one point was the focus you can hardly blame me for getting the wrong end of the stick.
Certainly the stuff I quoted suggested you were annoyed about the invites/invited thing, and didn't at all mention what you now turn out to be really annoyed about.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Yes, it is fundamentally dishonest to continue to make assertions in the face of evidence that shows that these assertions are wrong - evidence that has not only been presented by me but by others.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well you've posted so much other stuff on this thread which you seemed to be annoyed about that if that one point was the focus you can hardly blame me for getting the wrong end of the stick.
Certainly the stuff I quoted suggested you were annoyed about the invites/invited thing, and didn't at all mention what you now turn out to be really annoyed about.
Fairy nuff.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yes, it is fundamentally dishonest to continue to make assertions in the face of evidence that shows that these assertions are wrong - evidence that has not only been presented by me but by others.
Listen to his concern on the original thread:
quote:
Now, I appreciate that the quote you gave is a fair deduction from that so I'm not disputing his views. My point is that there is something disturbing about this story in the way that commentators are doing the editing for us and then putting the words back into his mouth.
Still, as you said, this has nothing to do with his own views but everything to do with corporate lobbying - and that issue should be in the limelight. I agree.
You later responded by saying:
quote:
All of this certainly goes beyond your assertion that the FRC is just a innocent Christian group that happens to oppose gay marriage.
Even though he admitted that he knew nothing about FRC and never asserted that they were just an innocent Christian group that happens to oppose gay marriage. It's sort-of like you're trying to prove his point about people putting words in Cathy's mouth for him by putting words in his mouth.
The FRC may want homosexuality criminalized, but it doesn't follow that Dan Cathy does; am I responsible for everything moronic Planned Parenthood says or does just because I've donated to them because they provide low-cost women's health care to poor women?
OlivaG asserted that
quote:
Of course, the main reason children might not have a mother and a father in his society is because heterosexual couples split up, but that's not what he's talking about. (Or what God is busy judging, apparently.) He doesn't have to mention SSM because that "mother & father" crap is a dog-whistle, a code.
Which you also seem to believe and which goes back to Johnny S.'s original concern that people were putting words in Cathy's mouth. Of course he was speaking in 'code'. If everyone we dislike is actually saying something different from what it seems like they're saying because they're speaking in code all the time, then you can make it seem like people you hate said pretty much anything you want them to say...
And people wonder why a bunch of Christians might make a show out of going to Chick-Fil-A in support of Dan Cathy.
Anyway, I'll take a break from this until I have time to listen to the interview.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And people wonder why a bunch of Christians might make a show out of going to Chick-Fil-A in support of Dan Cathy.
Thank goodness there's nobody stupid enough to try to make cheap political capital out of it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The FRC may want homosexuality criminalized, but it doesn't follow that Dan Cathy does; am I responsible for everything moronic Planned Parenthood says or does just because I've donated to them because they provide low-cost women's health care to poor women?
You know full well the difference between a few bucks in the tin and a series of major donations from a rich businessman.
And in case you don't: yes, it makes him responsible because he has the clout to make them stop saying and doing moronic things. That's kind of the point of giving a lobbying group a lot of cash - so that they do and say what the donors think.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Again, you're not making any sense at all.
No one has put any words in Cathy's mouth. Both liberal and conservative sites have acknowledged that he was saying that enacting same sex marriage is "inviting God's judgment on this nation". He has never said otherwise.
There are many conservative Christian groups that are against gay marriage that don't publicly assert that gay men pose a particular threat to children, gay culture "celebrates paedophilia" or that homosexuality should be criminalized or have been classified as hate groups. He chose to fund this one. Of course it follows that he thinks these things are true.
You are flailing about. Here's some advice: when you're in a hole, the best thing to do is to shut up and stop digging.
If you are on "our side", you're certainly not showing it. We don't need people like you to "help" us. Please defect to the other side.
[ 04. August 2012, 23:39: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
And you are an idiot as well as a an ass.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If you are on "our side", you're certainly not showing it. We don't need people like you to "help" us. Please defect to the other side.
OK.
I will henceforth start telling the Christians I previously argued with on this issue that they are actually right, and that the liberal left is in fact trying to slippery slope them and eventually get Christianity made basically illegal by portraying basic statements of Christian belief (as well as the expression of other unpopular opinions) as "harassment".
Because if they did it to me, they'll do it to others.
Thanks! It's nice to have a game plan.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Great! Good luck with that. Bye.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
This thread is turning out well.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And you are an idiot as well as a an ass.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If you are on "our side", you're certainly not showing it. We don't need people like you to "help" us. Please defect to the other side.
OK.
I will henceforth start telling the Christians I previously argued with on this issue that they are actually right, and that the liberal left is in fact trying to slippery slope them and eventually get Christianity made basically illegal by portraying basic statements of Christian belief (as well as the expression of other unpopular opinions) as "harassment".
Because if they did it to me, they'll do it to others.
Thanks! It's nice to have a game plan.
From your posts it sounds like that has pretty much been your agenda all along. You refuse to see the facts of what Dan Cathy said and refuse to see that the fact he gives to organizations working to re-criminalize homosexuality means he's got agree with said, even if he doesn't say it publicly. And I've got no idea where you got from this thread that liberals have an agenda of slippery slope getting Christianity illegal because the conversation hasn't come anywhere near that. I think you came into this thread to wind people up as you certainly weren't interested in intelligent discussion.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... I don't care what the asshole thinks, and I don't have that much time on my hands at the moment, so I shouldn't speak for him, but maybe he's thinking about Britney Spears, any number of other celebrities, The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, any number of other reality TV shows, movies, etc. ...
This is either out-and-out lying or invincible stupidity. And for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, saysay, why must you work out your issues on every thread in Hell? There's professionals for that, you know. OliviaG
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Okay, now that I've got time to get back to this thread it seems to have turned into an even bigger train wreck.
I don't really have that much to add to what saysay said (although I didn't get the bit about the difference between inviting and invites either.)
Thanks to saysay for quoting me from the other thread so I don't need to bother.
I have never disagreed that Dan Cathy does hold these views about SSM only that he has been unfairly reported.
The Coleman show was a piece on fatherhood. The guest before Cathy was a woman talking about, in her opinion, the huge impact father's have as role models to their daughters. Then Coleman interviewed Cathy about his views on fatherhood. In that context, and in a show that never mentions the subject of SSM at all, he gave his quote about God's judgment on how we have abandoned our roles as parents and have tried to re-define marriage.
Is it is fair to deduce his opinion on SSM from the quote? - absolutely, yes.
Is it fair to quote him as saying that SSM invites God's judgment? - Absolutely not. As you say, many people listening would read the bit about redefining marriage as code for SSM, but the context of the whole show was much wider than that - about how (in the opinion of Coleman) society has abandoned the role of father. Yes that would include SSM but it would also include divorce, single parents ... all the other bugbears that rightwing chat shows love to bang on about. To make out that Cathy was specifically talking about SSM in this interview is simply not true.
It has sometimes been pointed out on the ship times when Republicans (and others) misquote people or research in order to bolster their right wing views. I am deeply saddened when that happens. I think it really comes back to bite the conservative position if it turns out, for example, that the research they are basing their claims on is flawed.
That is why I am genuinely surprised that you are digging your heels in on this one. The only thing that has been disingenuous has been the way Cathy's original comments have been reported. Everybody reading that article or listening to the news reports Niteowl2 linked to will automatically assume that he gave a direct answer to a question about SSM. Except he didn't. Yes, the report does accurately reflect his views. But no, that does not justify reporting it like this.
The fact that this kind of reporting doesn't bother you I find disturbing. The fact that you can't see that it causes harm to your cause, likewise. As I said, I am very cautious now. Whenever some conservative makes some quote or jumps into the SSM debate with both feet the first thing I do is check whether they have got their facts straight.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Saysay, leave the grammar police gig to people whom actually understand grammar.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Please do the world a favour and stop making assertions if you don't know what you're talking about.
Can you imagine the silence in the world if people shut up when they didn't know what they're talking about?
It would be deafening.
You should give it a try sometime.
Spiffy! Dear, kind, gentle, sweet Spiffy.
Was just thinking about you last night - noting your absence. Hope you're well. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
This thread is turning out well.
As in a great big hole is opening up that's going to reach the water table? Yep.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Yes that would include SSM but it would also include divorce, single parents ... all the other bugbears that rightwing chat shows love to bang on about. To make out that Cathy was specifically talking about SSM in this interview is simply not true.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Sorry, but this doesn't fly. Yes he was talking about fatherhood and family breakdown, but it's obvious from the interview (and I listened to your interview, not Niteowl's) that he shifted his conversation (as happens frequently in interviews.)
Logically divorce and single parenthood don't "redefine" marriage. Single parents and divorced people aren't married by definition, nor are they agitating to become so legally. Their existence won't alter the definition of marriage.
In U.S. culture and politics "redefining" marriage means gay marriage. That's what the term means here. It's very obvious what he's talking about.
You say you know little about the U.S. yet insist on defining terminology in a way that is foreign to us. That has been my chief complaint all along.
[ 05. August 2012, 13:05: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Frankly, here in Australia where Johnny and I both reside I would have thought it was fairly obvious that anything about defining/redefining marriage at the moment was about the same-sex marriage debate.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Because if they did it to me, they'll do it to others.
Who is the "they" that did something to you and how coterminous is this "they" with the liberal left? And are the liberal left really that monolithic a structure to oppose?
I'm having trouble joining the dots on this thread I must say.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
This is either out-and-out lying or invincible stupidity. And for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, saysay, why must you work out your issues on every thread in Hell? There's professionals for that, you know. OliviaG
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Thank you, OliviaG, for demonstrating my point for me. Your post was a thing of beauty, and I really couldn't have asked for a better example of what I'm talking about...
I'm currently a bit fed up with people who think their own shit doesn't stink. Unfortunately professionals don't stop other people from being jerks.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Who is the "they" that did something to you and how coterminous is this "they" with the liberal left? And are the liberal left really that monolithic a structure to oppose?
I'm having trouble joining the dots on this thread I must say.
"They" in this specific instance would be the people who arrested me and put certain "suspicious" statements I had made in the warrant, including that I thought G-d was trying to tell me something and I wanted to know what G-d wanted me to do (because that's just crazy).
No, "they" are not coterminous with the liberal left in the sense that there's a complete overlap. However, it's all a part of a trend... FIRE documents campus speech codes and free speech violations; there are any number of campuses where insulting or embarrassing someone is forbidden.
The problem, of course, is when the prohibitions against insulting someone are combined with the offenderati: you can't make statements about how adultery is bad (being against one of the ten commandments and all), or divorce is generally bad, or promiscuity is bad, or any number of other things without someone claiming that you called them a bad name and insulted them and/or hurt their feelings, which is of course prohibited.
Throw in security theater and the delusional belief that the world is (or can be) made perfectly safe and the increasing number of laws against any kind of bullying and harassment, not to mention actual laws about raising children and things you must (or cannot) do, and you wind up with huge numbers of people who feel like the people in power are waging an all-out class war against the working class in this country.
No, the 'liberal left' is not a monolithic structure to oppose, any more than 'conservatives' or whatever are a monolithic structure to oppose. I just get tired of trying to change people's minds on certain issues only to have others come along and demonstrate that they have absolutely no respect for them as human beings.
But whatever. ToujoursDan had his illogical rant, Johnny S.. said his piece, and back in the real world a bunch of people's opinions on same-sex marriage are probably even more entrenched because they're sick of being called homophobes and having their actual concerns ignored.
So it goes.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
saysay, that's some singularly confused shit. I think you lost me where you suggested that security theatre is a left-wing plot against the working class.
Er, no.
(edited to add, if you think that the people in charge are left wing, especially in the USA? Er, really no.)
[ 05. August 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Saysay, leave the grammar police gig to people whom actually understand grammar.
You're under arrest for grammar abuse aggravated by irony (it's people who, thicky.) Anything you say can and will be ignored as stupid. You have the right to remain silent. You probably should, all considered.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Sorry, but this doesn't fly. Yes he was talking about fatherhood and family breakdown, but it's obvious from the interview (and I listened to your interview, not Niteowl's) that he shifted his conversation (as happens frequently in interviews.)
Logically divorce and single parenthood don't "redefine" marriage. Single parents and divorced people aren't married by definition, nor are they agitating to become so legally. Their existence won't alter the definition of marriage.
In U.S. culture and politics "redefining" marriage means gay marriage. That's what the term means here. It's very obvious what he's talking about.
That still doesn't make sense.
If it is so obvious what he is talking about, why not report what he actually said rather than putting words into his mouth?
(It would have been very easy to report his headline quote of "inviting God's judgement" in such a way to make it clear that the reporter was deducing that he was talking about SSM instead of that it was a direct quote on SSM.)
What I'm picking up from you on this thread (particularly from your response to saysay) is that it is okay to misquote someone as long as it is for the cause. Is that fair?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
This is either out-and-out lying or invincible stupidity. And for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, saysay, why must you work out your issues on every thread in Hell? There's professionals for that, you know. OliviaG
Thank you, OliviaG, for demonstrating my point for me. Your post was a thing of beauty, and I really couldn't have asked for a better example of what I'm talking about...... .
My mistake. I should have offered you a third choice: you're batshit crazy.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... What I'm picking up from you on this thread (particularly from your response to saysay) is that it is okay to misquote someone as long as it is for the cause. Is that fair?
Look, you two, Dan Cathy is NOT complaining about being misquoted, so there's no actual reason for you and saysay to have your knickers all in a twist. If anything, Crap-fill-er is now exploiting the controversy to boost its business. Dan Cathy opposes CIVIL MARRIAGE for homosexuals. He donates significant amounts of money to organizations that spread lies and even campaign for the DEATH PENALTY in some countries. No amount of grammatical nit-picking or bullshit whining about paraphrasing is gong to change that. Those are his views. Defend them if you wish, but for fuck's sake, quit trying to pretend that he's being misrepresented by teh eevul gayz and their allies. 'Cause he ain't. OliviaG
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
saysay, that's some singularly confused shit. I think you lost me where you suggested that security theatre is a left-wing plot against the working class.
Sigh.
It's not that security theater is a left-wing plot against the working class.
It's that a lot of average people in the US see the world and country as spinning out of control. They want control, at least over their own lives. Many of the government initiatives that affect people's day-to-day lives do in fact come from the liberal left (nanny state).
Yes, I know the left wing in the US are basically right wing in most of Europe.
You can argue that people should support one party over the other because it would be in their best economic interests to do so, but that is not necessarily what they are basing their decision on.
A lot of people on the liberal left really and truly do hate working class culture and the people who participate in it. And they really do hate Christians, and they think that Christianity is a horrible religion that leads to bad things in this country and in the world.
No, there's not necessarily an organized plot, just individual people that your average person has run into, which is why the right gets so much play out of the war on Christianity/Christmas - because almost everyone has run into at least one of those people.
Last month a church I attend occasionally asked people to come in for special prayer days to pray for religious liberty (this was after Obama declared that health insurance had to cover contraception without a copay). Politicians in Boston, Philly and Chicago made official-sounding threats because the owner of Chick-Fil-A expressed an unpopular opinion. Yeah, sure, Cathy donated to FRC and has for years - but that's the thing - he'd been donating for years, but it's only now that people started to pay attention and start calling for a boycott.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
My mistake. I should have offered you a third choice: you're batshit crazy.
You try having a dozen arguments with people who are trying to convince you that your cousin is not actually your cousin because you are so obviously a racist (for talking about state's rights in reference to the drug war, for calling blacks black instead of African-American, for not supporting harsh punishments for students who make a potentially racially insensitive joke, for not supporting the removal of the word nigger from its historical context - all of which makes you completely racist) and your cousin is black and it's just not possible that he is in fact your cousin. It's all the same lefty troll logic. You are a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever because I know you are and there's nothing you can ever possibly do to prove me wrong.
quote:
Look, you two, Dan Cathy is NOT complaining about being misquoted, so there's no actual reason for you and saysay to have your knickers all in a twist.
And the reason I got involved with this thread was not because I was concerned about Dan Cathy being misquoted, but because it seemed like ToujoursDan was misrepresenting Johhny S.'s position. But whatever.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
Let's attempt to clear up one misconception in saysay's diatribe: this is NOT a new call for a boycott. Gay people have known about Cathy's donations for years and have boycotted his restaurants, with about the same success that the evangelicals have had boycotting Disney.
As for the rest, I'm just going to walk away quietly...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
"They" in this specific instance would be the people who arrested me and put certain "suspicious" statements I had made in the warrant, including that I thought G-d was trying to tell me something and I wanted to know what G-d wanted me to do (because that's just crazy).
What does this have to do with SOF?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Look, you two, Dan Cathy is NOT complaining about being misquoted, so there's no actual reason for you and saysay to have your knickers all in a twist. If anything, Crap-fill-er is now exploiting the controversy to boost its business. Dan Cathy opposes CIVIL MARRIAGE for homosexuals. He donates significant amounts of money to organizations that spread lies and even campaign for the DEATH PENALTY in some countries. No amount of grammatical nit-picking or bullshit whining about paraphrasing is gong to change that. Those are his views. Defend them if you wish, but for fuck's sake, quit trying to pretend that he's being misrepresented by teh eevul gayz and their allies. 'Cause he ain't. OliviaG
1. If you read my posts you will see that the issue (for me) has never been about Cathy's view on SSM. He is against it.
My concern is that it has come out into the open through disingenuous reporting. The way it was reported made it sound like he was asked a question about SSM and he replied that he thought it invited God's judgment.
The fact that Dan Cathy is against SSM was not news. However, it was spun as if he went on the front foot and took on this single issue directly. That is politicising the discussion massively.
Are you saying that it is okay to misquote someone as long as it is part of a strategy to flush out what they really think about something?
2. Likewise, if you read my posts, you will also see that I fully agree that the lobbying he does with his money should be out in the open and I fully agree that it is in the public interest to expose that. That is good reporting and I'm all in favour of that kind of exposing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
No, you claimed something he said was not about SSM when it most clearly was. Nice try though.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
On 30 August at 0344, Johnny S said:
this has nothing to do with Dan Cathy's personal views on SSM because he has not made them public.
quote:
On 06 August at 05:30 Johnny S said:
The fact that Dan Cathy is against SSM was not news.
Which is it, JS? Man up.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
As for the rest, I'm just going to walk away quietly...
And I think I'm also thinking about sticking my fingers in my ears and say La-la-la on that diatribe.
saysay, I'll encourage you to reflect in a quiet moment on this: that we started here with an argument spilling out from purgatory between JS and TJD on debating style. You seem to have imported a fair number of other issues into this argument, and no-one seems to have picked a coherent direction out of them. Is this all that helpful or achieving anything?
[ 06. August 2012, 08:18: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Johnny S., as it happens I'm more on your side on the DH concerned than most here on this thread, but I have to say that you're in the wrong on the specific OP issue. Why not just admit that - it ain't much skin off your nose as we say here - and then we can all go home as it were?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Last month a church I attend occasionally asked people to come in for special prayer days to pray for religious liberty (this was after Obama declared that health insurance had to cover contraception without a copay).
I genuinely think you have to be a resident of the USA to be able to parse this sentence and have it make any sense whatsoever.
In which case, OliviaG's "batshit crazy" accusation extends waaaay further than just saysay. I mean, seriously, you people can put an almost 1 tonne autonomous robot on the surface of fucking Mars, and yet you get your panties in a twist over whether what little social medicine you see fit to reluctantly accept includes the Pill?
Sheesh.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
...and I'd take 'em more seriously if they included in their prayers an exemption for Christian pacifists to not pay taxes for the military...
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Do the US let you smoke ganja if you area Rastafarian ?
Posted by 205 (# 206) on
:
This thread HAS turned out well... fascinating.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
You can argue that people should support one party over the other because it would be in their best economic interests to do so
I wish someone would argue that; so far all I've ever seen is people parroting the statement without any substantial support because some guy wrote a book ridiculing Kansas because, as is commonly known, people in Kansas are 'backward' and only 'forward' people have a clue about these things.
And Paul Krugman agrees so it MUST be so!
Plus here's a little petrol for the general illumination ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
: perhaps the reason the illiberal 'left' uses tactics like 'they' do is because well really what else can you when you're ultimately trying to demonstrate something as 'unnatural' as SSM isn't.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Do the US let you smoke ganja if you area Rastafarian ?
I think a certain new Rastafarian musician will find himself in a spot of legal trouble should he attempt to smoke his ganja in public.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It's all the same lefty troll logic. You are a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever because I know you are and there's nothing you can ever possibly do to prove me wrong.
Saysay, the irony of your constant accusations of people trying to put words in the mouths of others is breathtaking.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
On 30 August at 0344, Johnny S said:
this has nothing to do with Dan Cathy's personal views on SSM because he has not made them public.
quote:
On 06 August at 05:30 Johnny S said:
The fact that Dan Cathy is against SSM was not news.
Which is it, JS? Man up.
Yep, the first statement was wrong, I should have said because he had not made them public.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Johnny S., as it happens I'm more on your side on the DH concerned than most here on this thread, but I have to say that you're in the wrong on the specific OP issue.
Specifically, in what way?
(I was called to hell for being untruthful when I said that it wasn't a direct quote from Cathy. Apparently I don't listen and don't investigate my sources properly. However, since then the goalposts have changed.)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
That you failed to accept that you did get the quote wrong originally - inadvertently, I'm sure - as has now been demonstrated. It's not a big deal, so why are you still dragging your feet?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That you failed to accept that you did get the quote wrong originally.
Where?
Dan Cathy did not give a direct quote about SSM.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
See - I think - Niteowl's second post on page 1
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
See - I think - Niteowl's second post on page 1
Are you talking about the video clips Niteowl2 linked to?
If so they merely do the same kind of reporting - in fact I wonder if they are all based on the same secondary source.
Listen to the original radio interview. In the context of talking about fatherhood he says that when we attempt to redefine marriage we invite God's wrath. I'm sure that he would include the debate over SSM in those words (and, subsequently, we know he would include them). In a 40+ minute radio program SSM is not mentioned once. If it is alluded to at all, it would only be in this one comment mentioning redefining marriage.
But that is not the same as:
quote:
Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.
As I have always maintained I think it is fair to deduce Cathy's views from what he actually said. However, I can't see why it couldn't be reported the way it actually happened. The reporting definitely spices it up and makes it more aggressive.
No one. I repeat, no one, on this thread has explained why the news couldn't have reported what he actually said, rather than what they did report.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It's all the same lefty troll logic. You are a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever because I know you are and there's nothing you can ever possibly do to prove me wrong.
Saysay, the irony of your constant accusations of people trying to put words in the mouths of others is breathtaking.
That has to be the best circular argument ever. You are a … because I say you are. It does save the bother of gathering evidence and making an argument to support your statement though.
Johnny S wrote
quote:
Dan Cathy did not give a direct quote about SSM.
Aside from the ones in the interview linked to. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But even if he hasn’t issued a signed and witnessed press statement that categorically says that he doesn’t support SSM, the fact that he gives millions of dollars to organisations that actively oppose it should provide some kind of clue. Most people only hand over serious money to organisations that they’re in agreement with and have researched fairly thoroughly.
He’s got the right to his opinion. And everyone else has the right to decide whether or not they feel strongly enough about it to let it affect their purchasing choices.
Tubbs
[ 06. August 2012, 13:56: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
At best, though, that sounds like special pleading from you along the lines of the hair-splitting medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels one can fit on a pinhead.
[cp with Tubbs]
[ 06. August 2012, 13:25: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Dan Cathy did not give a direct quote about SSM.
I'm beginning to suspect you would be arguing that a Catholic priest was misrepresented if he said he was Pro-Life slightly after talking about the death penalty, and the reporter said he was anti-abortion.
I hope you can see how untenable that position would be.
Dan Cathy lives in the American South. Here, there is only one thing to which "redefinition of marriage" refers. It doesn't refer to single parents. It doesn't refer to divorce and remarriage. It doesn't even refer to what my mother rather quaintly called "living in sin". Every Baptist, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Independent whatever understood and understands this.
At first I thought it was just tin ear to cultural differences, but orfeo's remarks lead me to believe the term is indeed used in much the same way in Australia. If Matt Black and orfeo can understand what Mr. Cathy meant with no direct exposure to the American South (as far as I know...) there is absolutely no reason other than pig-headed stubbornness to maintain the position that Dan Cathy wasn't talking about SSM in those remarks.
That means most of your other arguments and complaints about this particular discussion are built on a foundation of sand.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At best, though, that sounds like special pleading from you along the lines of the hair-splitting medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels one can fit on a pinhead.
Maybe. And therefore if this was on the original DH thread I'd be more than happy to leave it there.
However, I was the one called to hell over this. If the hell call had been something like - "You're a pedant" - I would probably wear it. But on the grounds of which I was called to hell I don't see what I've got to answer for. It was misleading reporting in that it put words into his mouth that he didn't actually say.
If you're thinking, 'big deal', then fair enough. I didn't think it was a big enough deal to get hot under the collar about either, but then I didn't call anyone to hell over it.
Anyway, enough from me. Time for bed.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
X-posted with organ builder.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Dan Cathy lives in the American South. Here, there is only one thing to which "redefinition of marriage" refers.
If that is so obvious then why didn't they just leave the original quote as it is then? Why change it at all if it stands on its own?
I have made this comment before on this very thread and no one has answered it.
[ 06. August 2012, 13:42: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At best, though, that sounds like special pleading from you along the lines of the hair-splitting medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels one can fit on a pinhead.
[cp with Tubbs]
According to Neil Gaimen and Terry Pratchett, the answer is none. Angels don’t dance.
Tubbs
PS Johny S, Really ...? Really...?
[ 06. August 2012, 14:02: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Dear Religion, While you were debating what chicken sandwiches were okay to eat, I just landed on Mars. Sincerely, Your Pal Science
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'll grant you that mousethief's change wasn't major, but Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, any number of other media outlets, and basically all liberal blogs do shit like that all the time - frequently in a more substantial way, sometimes to include wholesale making shit up because someone might have said that because that's what they obviously mean and doing so "doesn't change the phrase's meaning."
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
People do that sort of thing all the time, not "liberals" (and from this thread it looks like you have a weird provate definition of what "liberal" might mean that doesn;t actually get any information over to whoiever hears you use it. Anyway, almost all writers do what you are moaning about. Whatever breed of politics they are growing at the moment. Yes, its sometimes irritating, But its also pretty near impossible to accurately write down exactly what someone says in normal speech anyway, so you pays your money and you takes your choice. If you rfeally wanted to talk about this topic (bleating about nassty lefties being cruel to rich bastards who sell crappy meat from force-fed factory-farmed birds chicken to poor people and then give some of the money to organisations dedicated to spreading hatred and violence throughout American society) then you could do worse than start by reading this thread on Language log and some of the links off it.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[I'm not actually pissed off at mousethief in this context; I'm pissed off at toujoursdan for being a typical liberal asshole and misrepresenting others' opinions. I
From what you write on this thread I soemtimes don't think you woudl recognise a liberal if you found one in your own arsehole. You don't seem to know what one is. You haven't got the slightest idea.
Forget mere liberals, maybe you should try to meet an actual left-wing socialist or two. If any are left alive in your neck of the wood after the likes of chicky-poly-filla have burned them out. Though maybe your brain would get a sudden attack of cognitive dissonance and not notice what was in fact happening.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Yes, I know the left wing in the US are basically right wing in most of Europe.
Then why not be honest and call them "right wing"? The way you are talking, "liberal" seems to mean anyone so soft-headed as to think that its a bad thing for the poor sto starve. You conservatives are always doing that, redefining words to make them mean what you like so you can tell lies more easily.
quote:
A lot of people on the liberal left really and truly do hate working class culture and the people who participate in it. And they really do hate Christians, and they think that Christianity is a horrible religion that leads to bad things in this country and in the world.
Heard it all before. You don't make your conservative lies true by yelling them in people's ears until they bleed.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It's all the same lefty troll logic. You are a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever because I know you are and there's nothing you can ever possibly do to prove me wrong.
You've obviously got worked up about something because some of you posts on this thread have come over like screaming paranoia, and seem to barely make sense, never mind relevant sense. Johnny S was doing quite well without you and you have pretty firmly done your best to associate his comparitively measured views with the drooling thug end of right-wing politics. I'm sure he doesn't need that kind of "help".
So are you a racist or a homophobe or a misogynist then?
I suppose we could do what you say "liberals" never do (though as I am not a liberal that won't change your mind) and look at the exact words you wrote on other threads:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I scored in the positives, and I loathe humanity (in the words of the immortal Erin: "I hate people - they suck festering mongoose balls.
Well if you hate humanity, then, as women and gays and black people are human presumably you hate them as well. So QED there. Unless of course you don;t think they are human, in which case... oh you still lose.
Oh wait, it was only a joke you say...
[ 06. August 2012, 14:12: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
People do that sort of thing all the time, not "liberals"
Right on.
But, wait a minute. What’s this…?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You conservatives are always doing that, redefining words to make them mean what you like so you can tell lies more easily.
Ah, shit, you done ruined it.
Double standards much?
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If that is so obvious then why didn't they just leave the original quote as it is then? Why change it at all if it stands on its own?
I have made this comment before on this very thread and no one has answered it.
You are quibbling about a matter of style. Even the most flawless of reporters won't just string quotes together. They work for something that will be readable, and something that will convey information to people who don't know the buzz words. You'll notice I didn't list "the average uninvolved secular humanist" in my list of people who know what "redefinition of marriage" means.
This story went farther, perhaps, than the Baptist Press initially expected and the longer this thread goes on the more it seems necessary that someone made it clear that this is what Cathy was talking about. The initial story from the thread in Purg/DH was from the Guardian, after all--not something I can pick up on my way home here in Atlanta.
Truthfully, if all Dan Cathy had done was talk to the Baptist Press I wouldn't have a problem eating at a CFA franchise. My problems with his food date from earlier--his donations to a hate organization, for example, which have never been a secret, but received a wider exposure when the latest brouhaha brought public knowledge to a new audience.
I really wish I could have read the same concern in your posts for the evil he helps to finance that I read in your defense of him because you feel some newspaper man has misquoted him even though you admit they did not misrepresent his views.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
X-posted with organ builder.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Dan Cathy lives in the American South. Here, there is only one thing to which "redefinition of marriage" refers.
If that is so obvious then why didn't they just leave the original quote as it is then? Why change it at all if it stands on its own?
I have made this comment before on this very thread and no one has answered it.
Except for the "invites"/"is 'inviting'" change, the phrase we called a direct quote hasn't been changed.
Your protests now seem to hinge on whether "SSM" versus the "redefinition of marriage" we have all referred to, but haven't quoted directly, is a distinction with a difference. Several people, Americans and not, have said that it doesn't make a difference.
Everyone admits that he didn't utter the term "SSM" in the discussion and no one has included that term that in his quote. Instead we have stated (as has both liberal and conservative evangelical reporting on the interview) that "SSM" and "redefinition of marriage" refer to the exactly same thing. If marriage is redefined, the country is inviting God's judgment. Outside of this thread, there seems to be no disagreement over what this means. He is asserting that same sex marriage is inviting God's judgment.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
I really wish I could have read the same concern in your posts for the evil he helps to finance that I read in your defense of him because you feel some newspaper man has misquoted him even though you admit they did not misrepresent his views.
And what raised my anger on this particular issue (which is one of several - still unaddressed, I might note), is that we all know that Johnny doesn't apply the same textual literalism elsewhere.
No one asserted that the phrase "SSM" is found in Cathy's actual quote, but that any reasonable reading of Cathy's quote would lead one to the conclusion that "redefinition of marriage" is a reference to SSM, since that term is used universally both within and outside of his political and religious culture. The quoted portion is that it is "inviting God's judgment" on this country.
Johnny - from your posting I know that you're an orthodox, trinitarian Christian. You know as well as I do that the word "Trinity" isn't found in scripture and at no time does Jesus directly say that he is God incarnate, fully God and human and the 2nd person of the Trinity. No where does it directly say that the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity. Will you now argue that the Creeds, Confessional Statements, Catechisms, Liturgical rites and endless preaching have done Christ a disservice by (as you say) "misquoting" him, and that we should all be concerned?
[ 06. August 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Will you now argue that the Creeds, Confessional Statements, Catechisms, Liturgical rites and endless preaching have done Christ a disservice by (as you say) "misquoting" him, and that we should all be concerned?
Don't be bloody stupid. None of those things even claim to be directly quoting Christ, they are making claims about Who He is.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Will you now argue that the Creeds, Confessional Statements, Catechisms, Liturgical rites and endless preaching have done Christ a disservice by (as you say) "misquoting" him, and that we should all be concerned?
Don't be bloody stupid. None of those things even claim to be directly quoting Christ, they are making claims about Who He is.
Ummmmm... What are those claims based on? Scriptural statements and actions, right? Nothing in the Bible directly says what the creeds claim, but what the creeds, etc. say is a reasonable interpretation of what is said in Scripture.
My point was that no one on this thread claimed that Cathy actually used the term SSM in his statements, but everyone familiar with the term "redefinition of marriage" knows that this is what was meant.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
You are quibbling about a matter of style. Even the most flawless of reporters won't just string quotes together. They work for something that will be readable, and something that will convey information to people who don't know the buzz words. You'll notice I didn't list "the average uninvolved secular humanist" in my list of people who know what "redefinition of marriage" means.
Of course journalists have to do this. I'm certainly not disputing that. That is not the case here though.
The subject which he was saying "invites God's judgment" was in the very same sentence quoted and immediately preceded the bit in quotes. There was no need to edit it out at all ... if, as it is claimed, all readers would immediately know that it is specifically and exclusively referring to SSM.
When people supply the subject of a quote I always assume that the journalist is doing that because the subject was introduced earlier or needs to be deduced from context. I think that is a fair enough assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Truthfully, if all Dan Cathy had done was talk to the Baptist Press I wouldn't have a problem eating at a CFA franchise. My problems with his food date from earlier--his donations to a hate organization, for example, which have never been a secret, but received a wider exposure when the latest brouhaha brought public knowledge to a new audience.
I really wish I could have read the same concern in your posts for the evil he helps to finance that I read in your defense of him because you feel some newspaper man has misquoted him even though you admit they did not misrepresent his views.
And this is pretty much the reason why I'm still on this thread.
The irony of your comment is that this all kicked off when I agreed with tclune and croesos that this was the key issue and Cathy's personal comments just a sideshow. All along I have maintained that this issue is really about his political lobbying and for that he should be held accountable.
Into that debate I had the temerity to ask people to double-check their secondary sources. That is all. From what has come out since I'm quite happy to accept that he is engaged in some nasty political activism. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for evidence of that though before casting stones.
I was called to hell for "putting my fingers in my ears saying La-la-la" and yet this thread itself gives plenty of evidence of those accusing me unable to read what I have posted.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Your protests now seem to hinge on whether "SSM" versus the "redefinition of marriage" we have all referred to, but haven't quoted directly, is a distinction with a difference. Several people, Americans and not, have said that it doesn't make a difference.
And as I keep saying, if it makes no difference then why didn't the reporter just report what he actually said?
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Everyone admits that he didn't utter the term "SSM" in the discussion and no one has included that term that in his quote. Instead we have stated (as has both liberal and conservative evangelical reporting on the interview) that "SSM" and "redefinition of marriage" refer to the exactly same thing. If marriage is redefined, the country is inviting God's judgment. Outside of this thread, there seems to be no disagreement over what this means. He is asserting that same sex marriage is inviting God's judgment.
And that is why you are so angry. Who is this 'we'?
The only person I've accused of doing this is the original reporter. What I accused you of doing, if anything, was not looking at your secondary sources carefully enough.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
If anything, send an email to that particular reporter and ask why (s)he didn't include the entire quote. That's between you and that reporter, but it doesn't change what Cathy was talking about. The entire quote just makes it seem more narrowly focused on same sex marriage, not less.
You seem to want reporters to act as nothing more than stenographers without putting stories into larger frameworks. That's not how news reporting works. The only time it causes controversy is if the reporting is at odds with the statement of the speaker. That isn't the case here. Everyone other than you seems to understand that Cathy thought redefining marriage (aka same-sex marriage) was going to bring about God's judgment. This is something several people, both on your side or not, have repeatedly stated on this thread. That's what the "redefinition of marriage" means in the U.S. and Australia.
quote:
What I accused you of doing, if anything, was not looking at your secondary sources carefully enough.
Which turned out to be a baseless accusation.
My secondary sources turned out to be entirely correct. The FRC is a hate group according to a resource used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to track hate groups in this country; they want to repeal job and housing protections to gay people as stated by the President of the FRC - Tony Perkins - on numerous TV news segments (and on their website); they want to criminalize homosexuality both here and abroad as stated by their Public Policy spokesperson on the Chris Matthews show; they state on their website that gay men pose a sexual threat to children and that gay culture celebrates paedophilia; they have received donations from Cathy who must agree with these positions as there are several other anti-same sex marriage political groups that don't demonize gay people or want to take our basic freedoms away he could have chosen instead.
The secondly sources confirm that Cathy is against same sex marriage and both the secondary and the primary source you posted confirm that he said the redefinition of marriage (to include gay marriage, because everyone knows that is what it means) "is inviting God's judgment" on this country.
I read my secondary sources quite carefully, more carefully than you seem to have, and have been correct all along.
When I said "Google is your friend" it should have been obvious that individuals, corporations, charities and political action committees often act in ways that are different than what they state on their website, Often, their activity can often give one more insight than a glossy website that is meant to attract support. On the DH thread you challenged where my friend got his information that the FRC was a hate group: you could only find that they are against gay marriage on their website. I went to Google and found where he got the information from (which is no secret.) Of course it takes a bit of discernment to figure out whether a resource is reliable but that doesn't mean one shouldn't look at secondary sources. I hope this serves as a lesson for you next time.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If anything, send an email to that particular reporter and ask why (s)he didn't include the entire quote.
That would be fair enough on the original DH thread but doesn't make sense here. You called me to hell for being disingenuous but still haven't provided any evidence that I was.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
That's between you and that reporter, but it doesn't change what Cathy was talking about. The entire quote just makes it seem more narrowly focused on same sex marriage, not less.
That statement is simply not true. I agree that it is fair to deduce his views on SSM from what he said but the way it was reported very definitely focusses it more narrowly and makes it more sensational.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
You seem to want reporters to act as nothing more than stenographers without putting stories into larger frameworks. That's not how news reporting works. The only time it causes controversy is if the reporting is at odds with the statement of the speaker. That isn't the case here. Everyone other than you seems to understand that Cathy thought redefining marriage (aka same-sex marriage) was going to bring about God's judgment. This is something several people, both on your side or not, have repeatedly stated on this thread. That's what the "redefinition of marriage" means in the U.S. and Australia.
But I keep insisting that the way it was reported was doing more than that. The way it was first reported may have represented his views on SSM but it deliberately did it in such a way as to stir the issue politically.
The reason why I raised this in the first place is that I first read the reporting and then listened to the interview and was shocked at the spin that was given to the comment. It is the politicising of the issue that annoys me. Not just on this issue, reporters seem to do this all the time. All they are interested in is quotes for or against an issue. Any nuance is lost. This just serves to heat up the debate.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
When I said "Google is your friend" it should have been obvious that individuals, corporations, charities and political action committees often act in ways that are different than what they state on their website, Often, their activity can often give one more insight than a glossy website that is meant to attract support. On the DH thread you challenged where my friend got his information that the FRC was a hate group: you could only find that they are against gay marriage on their website. I went to Google and found where he got the information from (which is no secret.) Of course it takes a bit of discernment to figure out whether a resource is reliable but that doesn't mean one shouldn't look at secondary sources. I hope this serves as a lesson for you next time.
Again, that does not make sense... unless you are saying that we should be discerning about how we use the internet only applies to right wing groups.
I don't live in America. I was asking you and other US shipmates to corroborate the evidence you were giving. If you had waited I would have agreed with your final assessment. But you didn't wait. You called me to hell even for asking questions about your sources.That came across to me as a very itchy trigger finger.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
On 30 August at 0344, Johnny S said:
this has nothing to do with Dan Cathy's personal views on SSM because he has not made them public.
quote:
On 06 August at 05:30 Johnny S said:
The fact that Dan Cathy is against SSM was not news.
Which is it, JS? Man up.
Yep, the first statement was wrong, I should have said because he had not made them public.
Then how was it "not news" when he did so? You still aren't making sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At best, though, that sounds like special pleading from you along the lines of the hair-splitting medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels one can fit on a pinhead.
[cp with Tubbs]
According to Neil Gaimen and Terry Pratchett, the answer is none. Angels don’t dance.
He didn't say "dance," he said "fit."
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't live in America. I was asking you and other US shipmates to corroborate the evidence you were giving. If you had waited I would have agreed with your final assessment. But you didn't wait. You called me to hell even for asking questions about your sources.That came across to me as a very itchy trigger finger.
And yet you still cavil about the exact wording. Sorry, I find it very hard to believe you'd have agreed with his final assessment BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY STILL DON'T.
Really, you're being as disingenuous as a disingenuous thing that's disingenuous. Which is your normal M.O. so it's not surprising or terribly disappointing. You're complaining he said Cathy believes SSM invites God's judgment on our nation when in fact he said the redefinition of marriage invites God's judgment on our nation WHEN YOU AGREE THE TWO TERMS, IN CONTEXT, MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING. What in the fuck is wrong with you?
[ 07. August 2012, 03:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I agree that it is fair to deduce his views on SSM from what he said but the way it was reported very definitely focusses it more narrowly and makes it more sensational. ... The way it was first reported may have represented his views on SSM but it deliberately did it in such a way as to stir the issue politically. ... It is the politicising of the issue that annoys me. ...
What's not pollitical about Candy's financing of efforts to deny certain people the same rights everyone else has? What's not pollitical about threatening a democratically-elected government with God's wrath? Do you think it's not political to campaign for the death penalty in other countries? He is making political statements, and they're sensational because they're so obnoxious, not because the media made it so. OliviaG
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're complaining he said Cathy believes SSM invites God's judgment on our nation when in fact he said the redefinition of marriage invites God's judgment on our nation WHEN YOU AGREE THE TWO TERMS, IN CONTEXT, MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING. What in the fuck is wrong with you?
I did not say that, in context, they mean exactly the same thing. You haven't read what I've written at all.
I said that I thought it was fair to deduce that he was against SSM from his quote, but I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not think that the terms mean exactly the same thing. That was the whole point in the first place. The way it was originally reported cranked up the heat.
Dan Cathy was asked a direct question about the "crisis of fatherhood" ... "what can we do about this growing problem?" Dan Cathy's answer is that (he thinks) that there is "emotional as well as physical DNA that we can only get from our mother and our father" and that "when you don't have one side or the other I've got to tell you that I think we are emotionally handicapped now that doesn't mean we can't survive and have a happy life but it does mean that we're going to have some odds stacked against us... But to have so many people growing up in homes that do not have a mum or a dad, I tell you as an employer it makes it difficult for us since we have to have a parenting role, as it relates to society as a whole I think it means we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fists at him and say 'we know better than you' as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful arrogant attitude that thinks we can redefine what marriage is all about."
{There we go folks. That is what all the fuss is about - make your own minds up.}
That is what actually happened. When I heard that, in context, I assumed that he was talking generally about the break up of traditional marriage. In fact until we get to the bit that was quoted I thought he only had single parents in his sights. The bit about 'what constitutes marriage' broadens it out to include SSM but I would never have thought he was only thinking about SSM and I'm the target audience for a program like Coleman.
It may eventually get you to the same end point but it has a very different impact to say, in the public arena, that you are against the break up of traditional marriage as to say "I am against SSM".
But this is simply getting more and more pointless. My frustration (and hence why I'm still on this train wreck of a thread) is that I've been called to hell for not actually listening to what others say and yet this thread repeatedly throws up posts from people who have not actually read what I have written. (The most common being that I shouldn't support Cathy's use of his money for political lobbying - something that I said I didn't support right from the beginning.)
If you are fed up with my posts then, fine, scroll passed them. But what is the point of commenting on what I'm saying if you can't be bothered to read it?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I'm not in the least bit interested in what this Chick-A-Fella has to say.
But I can picture you, Johnny S, eagerly queueing with the rest to 'show solidarity' with the anti- -gay sex blobs by eating a ton of fat and fructose.
The sight is saddening on so many fronts.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Dan Cathy was asked a direct question about the "crisis of fatherhood" ... "what can we do about this growing problem?" Dan Cathy's answer is that (he thinks) that there is "emotional as well as physical DNA that we can only get from our mother and our father" and that "when you don't have one side or the other I've got to tell you that I think we are emotionally handicapped now that doesn't mean we can't survive and have a happy life but it does mean that we're going to have some odds stacked against us... But to have so many people growing up in homes that do not have a mum or a dad, I tell you as an employer it makes it difficult for us since we have to have a parenting role, as it relates to society as a whole I think it means we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fists at him and say 'we know better than you' as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful arrogant attitude that thinks we can redefine what marriage is all about."
{There we go folks. That is what all the fuss is about - make your own minds up.}
Y'know, if that's a fair record of what he actually said then I'm going to agree that reporting it as if he's making a direct frontal attack on SSM is a misquote. At worst he's using the context of a "crisis of fatherhood" to make a sly dig at SSM.
That doesn't mean any of what's been posted about him and his views is false, of course.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Johny--
Americans who are against same-sex marriage often say, publicly, that "it's a threat to traditional marriage". Minnesota For Marriage's linked article is an example of this.
I grew up fundamentalist. Coming to believe that it's ok for people to be LGBT and for them to love accordingly has been a long journey. (Ongoing, TBH.) Basically, I think it's like being left-handed. I've voted twice for same-sex marriage, and was enormously proud of our mayor when he plunged ahead in allowing SSM.
But, even coming from a very conservative background, I don't understand people who say that "SSM makes a mockery of the institution of marriage"--or that fewer straight people will get married, and Society Will Crash (tm).
I suspect that a lot of people really mean that being LGBT is icky.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Marvin beat me to it. That italicised quote is an attack on the breakdown of the family unit, and I agree that this has led to a change in personal mores which I personally regard as a decline. The religious bollocks at the end of the quote cuts no ice with me, but the lack of a structured family unit does seem to have resulted in a generation of aimless feckless teenagers being let loose into society, with no real sense of direction. It seems that the welfare state has replaced the family in many cases, providing physical nurture at a basic level, but no moral standards other than "complain and whine and you shall receive, because you know your rights".
I read the quote and didn't even consider that it might refer to SSM.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Passer--
Perhaps you didn't read it that way because you don't have the current American cultural background to understand it?
I don't mean that as any sort of put-down. If I tried to understand an issue from where you are, I'd miss all sorts of things.
The kinds of comments we've been discussing are *frequently* in the news here.
FWIW.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Passer--
Perhaps you didn't read it that way because you don't have the current American cultural background to understand it?
I don't mean that as any sort of put-down. If I tried to understand an issue from where you are, I'd miss all sorts of things.
The kinds of comments we've been discussing are *frequently* in the news here.
FWIW.
I don't see that as a put-down - no sweat.
However, I suspect that my awareness of and familiarity with American culture are probably greater than you might think. And I'm not overlooking the fact that this spat is between a Canadian and an Australian.
I'd never heard of Dan Cathy before this thread, but the Chik fil a franchise and the perception of it had impinged upon my awareness. I've followed the discussion here with a degree of anguish, as it does seem to have DH written all over it. If someone wants to have a pop at Dan Cathy because of his locally acknowledged public persona, that's fine, but the italicised quote doesn't seem to reflect that. The suggestion that he must have been having a sly dig at teh gayz doesn't stand up on the basis of that quote. The possibility that he was doing so exists, and may even be accurate, but not on the strength of that quote. If the guy is that rabid a homophobe there must surely be better examples of his maunderings available through which to attack him.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
"Redefining marriage" is exactly the same kind of dog-whistle term in the UK as it is elsewhere. Perhaps particularly so since the Government wants to bring in SSM so it's a hot topic here at the moment and the usual arguments about how "this is what marriage is and it can't be redefined" are coming out of the woodwork.
ETA: I was also well aware of the CFA stand on gay marriage before this particular round of shit hit the fan. I was in San Diego on honeymoon a few weeks ago (before this all hit the press), and Mr Liopleurodon suggested he could eat there (he's a big consumer of fried chicken) and I said very firmly that we were not setting foot in the place. So it's not like this wasn't public knowledge before - it's just more widely known now.
[ 07. August 2012, 11:07: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
... the lack of a structured family unit does seem to have resulted in a generation of aimless feckless teenagers being let loose into society, with no real sense of direction. ... I read the quote and didn't even consider that it might refer to SSM.
So if that's the real problem, why wouldn't society want to allow more people to form "structured family units"? How doess jailing or killing homosexuals prevent divorce? Or is "structured family unit" simply yet another code for penis-in-vagina sex? OliviaG
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
... the lack of a structured family unit does seem to have resulted in a generation of aimless feckless teenagers being let loose into society, with no real sense of direction. ... I read the quote and didn't even consider that it might refer to SSM.
So if that's the real problem, why wouldn't society want to allow more people to form "structured family units"? How doess jailing or killing homosexuals prevent divorce? Or is "structured family unit" simply yet another code for penis-in-vagina sex? OliviaG
jeez Olivia - take a chill-pill!
You are taking my observational comment and implying a personal one. For what it's worth,
Question 1: I don't know. I have no objection to it whatsoever
Question 2: I don't understand how it might.
Question 3: Not when I say it.
I think you've rather positioned me on the wrong side of the fence in this discussion.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I did not say that, in context, they mean exactly the same thing. You haven't read what I've written at all.
No, alas, I've read it all. That I haven't gouged my eyes out is a testament to the grace of God.
quote:
I said that I thought it was fair to deduce that he was against SSM from his quote, but I have repeatedly made it clear that I do not think that the terms mean exactly the same thing.
Then you are butt-ignorant of American culture on this point and should STFU.
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
the lack of a structured family unit does seem to have resulted in a generation of aimless feckless teenagers being let loose into society, with no real sense of direction.
I assume you have some kind of evidence for this assertion? This would be a good time to trot it out.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
People do that sort of thing all the time, not "liberals"
Right on.
But, wait a minute. What’s this…?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You conservatives are always doing that, redefining words to make them mean what you like so you can tell lies more easily.
Ah, shit, you done ruined it.
Double standards much?
Just trying to give him a dose of his own.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You called me to hell even for asking questions about your sources.That came across to me as a very itchy trigger finger.
Your reading skills aren't improving. What did I say in the my OP?
quote:
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of your debating style. You don't seem teachable.
...which has been confirmed by your continued activity on this thread.
You also keep demanding that people answer your questions and address your issues, while ignoring any hard questions and inconvenient issues that are addressed to you.
Also from the OP:
quote:
The latest example of Johnny putting his grubby little fingers in his ears and yelling "la-la-la" is on the Eat Fast Food for Jesus thread where not knowing what he's talking about doesn't seem to stop him from making all kinds of judgment calls about the Family Research Council (FRC) and dumping his garbage all over the thread.
You continue to admit that you don't understand American culture and the terminology used here (and elsewhere evidently) but insist that everyone adopt your definitions which make no sense for reasons both I and others have adopted while admitting that we have his viewpoint correct. It's just pure stubbornness.
THAT is what I called you to hell over. Have you got it this time or will I have to repeat it again and again and again and again? Let me know so I can get the "copy and paste" macro all set up for you.
Once again, the breakdown of fatherhood doesn't redefine marriage. It may redefine a family, but not marriage. The "redefinition of marriage" has a particular, specific meaning in the U.S. context which you seem to remain deaf to.
[ 07. August 2012, 15:41: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
If someone wants to have a pop at Dan Cathy because of his locally acknowledged public persona, that's fine, but the italicised quote doesn't seem to reflect that. The suggestion that he must have been having a sly dig at teh gayz doesn't stand up on the basis of that quote. The possibility that he was doing so exists, and may even be accurate, but not on the strength of that quote. If the guy is that rabid a homophobe there must surely be better examples of his maunderings available through which to attack him.
It doesn't help that whoever transcribed the interview messed up the punctuation. There should clearly be a full stop after the reference to his company having a "parenting role" to separate out two different ideas.
But putting that pedantry aside if you think it is not obvious that SSM is meant by his references to what constitutes a marriage or redefinition thereof, then what on earth do you think they could refer to? Single parenthood or marriage breakdown are never described as marriage and there are no moves in that direction, so it can't be that. Polygamy perhaps? Reading it again it's quite possible was going on about children raised in same sex partnerships from the beginning.
And just to add my voice to those who have said that "redefinition of marriage" is clearly understood as a hostile reference to SSM in the UK as well.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I assume you have some kind of evidence for this assertion? This would be a good time to trot it out.
I'm afraid that's an assumption relating to an assertion which is your invention. It was in fact just an opinion. I'm not proselytising - it's for taking or leaving, as you wish.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I'll have to remember that line next time I'm called to back up a statement.
Another good one I've heard is "that was just a hypothetical".
Or "That was just illustrative of one of a range of outcomes"
[ 07. August 2012, 16:54: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It would seem passer believes things about empirical, factual matters -- matters which one could conceivably investigate and determine the truth of using suitable scientific means -- without any evidence, and admits to doing so. If I were to say it was my opinion that the children of single mothers are more likely to proceed to university than the children of two-parent families, I should hope passer would call me out on it and demand evidence.
It is frightening to think there may be people making decisions that affect real people's lives (perhaps this group doesn't include passer but at this point I do not know that), based on unsubstantiated opinion. And that doesn't bother them at all. I begin to wonder just how much of Christian opinion on things like homosexuality or science falls into this category of willful ignorance.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
mdijon - it comes from being a closet Sir Humphrey. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
That is not something I would be proud of.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
But putting that pedantry aside if you think it is not obvious that SSM is meant by his references to what constitutes a marriage or redefinition thereof, then what on earth do you think they could refer to?
Based on this quote
quote:
Dan Cathy was asked a direct question about the "crisis of fatherhood" ... "what can we do about this growing problem?" Dan Cathy's answer is that (he thinks) that there is "emotional as well as physical DNA that we can only get from our mother and our father" and that "when you don't have one side or the other I've got to tell you that I think we are emotionally handicapped now that doesn't mean we can't survive and have a happy life but it does mean that we're going to have some odds stacked against us... But to have so many people growing up in homes that do not have a mum or a dad, I tell you as an employer it makes it difficult for us since we have to have a parenting role, as it relates to society as a whole I think it means we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fists at him and say 'we know better than you' as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful arrogant attitude that thinks we can redefine what marriage is all about."
I took it to be a complaint against the breakdown of what I understand as family life. He goes on to say that as an employer he then has to devote some of his efforts to parenting, with the implication that he could reasonably be expected to assume that this shouldn't be necessary. He appears to me to be lamenting the decline of family, but not in relation to SSM - that didn't occur to me. I saw it rather as a criticism of a society in which mothers have "baby daddies" rather than husbands. The subject was "crisis of fatherhood". If he has history on this, I defer, as I can see that local knowledge would quickly make the link to SSM, but as a free-standing paragraph that's what I thought he was referring to. (The section at the end where he goes off on one about God I saw as appealing to a specific market, just reciting the mantra.)
In my experience (hire-and-fire, HR, work-related counselling) I have some sympathy with this view. Many young people lack the social skills they need to survive and thrive in a large company. They have hard skills but not soft. A larger than I might have expected number of them came from single-parent families. I can’t say whether this is the case across the board, just within my own experience.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
That is not something I would be proud of.
It's a cross I have had to bear. I've recently retired, so perhaps I'll mellow.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Many young people lack the social skills they need to survive and thrive in a large company. They have hard skills but not soft. A larger than I might have expected number of them came from single-parent families. I can’t say whether this is the case across the board, just within my own experience.
I put it to you that you are unlikely to systematically know the family histories of young people you are hiring. I doubt you have it on company files or have reason to enquire regularly (and I'd think you odd if that was a regular line of questioning).
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I put it to you that you are unlikely to systematically know the family histories of young people you are hiring. I doubt you have it on company files or have reason to enquire regularly (and I'd think you odd if that was a regular line of questioning).
No, of course not systematically. That sort of information wouldn't be recorded anywhere, and wouldn't be raised in the hiring process. It would emerge during counselling and HR management though, and as an advisor (reactive, not proactive) I was only approached by people with problems - happy people didn't come to see me. Which is the reason for the qualification in my final sentence.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
He appears to me to be lamenting the decline of family, but not in relation to SSM - that didn't occur to me. I saw it rather as a criticism of a society in which mothers have "baby daddies" rather than husbands. The subject was "crisis of fatherhood".
But none of this has anything to do with the "redefinition of marriage", as single parents and baby daddies aren't married, by any definition of the word.
As I've said before, if he had said that the breakdown or redefinition of family (to include single parents, etc.) was inviting God's judgment I could see the point, but he talked about marriage - a legal/civil/religious relationship - that is under some threat (in Cathy's mind) of being "redefined" (as opposed to falling apart altogether.)
I concede Marvin's point that it may not be a direct attack on SSM, rather an indirect one, but it does follow the well-worn right-wing tact of associating SSM with heterosexual family breakdown. But the term he used has a very definite meaning; it is still is a slam on SSM. And, just as importantly since this broke, he has never said otherwise.
[ 07. August 2012, 19:10: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
At best, though, that sounds like special pleading from you along the lines of the hair-splitting medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels one can fit on a pinhead.
Maybe. And therefore if this was on the original DH thread I'd be more than happy to leave it there.
However, I was the one called to hell over this. If the hell call had been something like - "You're a pedant" - I would probably wear it. But on the grounds of which I was called to hell I don't see what I've got to answer for. It was misleading reporting in that it put words into his mouth that he didn't actually say.
If you're thinking, 'big deal', then fair enough. I didn't think it was a big enough deal to get hot under the collar about either, but then I didn't call anyone to hell over it.
Anyway, enough from me. Time for bed.
Surprised to see your name down here old boy. A little
gift from me to your good self.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
...or even better
[ 07. August 2012, 19:14: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I put it to you that you are unlikely to systematically know the family histories of young people you are hiring. I doubt you have it on company files or have reason to enquire regularly (and I'd think you odd if that was a regular line of questioning).
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
No, of course not systematically... It would emerge during counselling and HR management though
It still surprises me that you might have had occasion to ask about the marital status of the parents of employees in any number. Humour me, how many employees have you counselled and had occasion to discuss their parents?
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
@Passer: That was the quote I was referring to. So my question still stands: what did you think Cathy's references to redefining or changing what constitutes a marriage were getting at if you didn't think it was SSM?
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It still surprises me that you might have had occasion to ask about the marital status of the parents of employees in any number. Humour me, how many employees have you counselled and had occasion to discuss their parents?
OK, I'll humour you as far as I can. Some context : In my advisor capacity I dealt with scores of employees. My role and accessibility were known, and the employee population was circa 2500. Many people were referred to me by their managers (though they didn't have to see me if they didn't want to) and many came of their own accord. All such meetings were confidential, and it wasn't my role to report back detail to management.
These were people who had issues which were having an effect on their ability to carry out their jobs. The issues ranged through the standard HR ones of competency, misconduct, and attendance, and also included social, medical, and personal. My role was to give impartial advice aimed at getting them to become effective at their jobs, or to move them, or even advise on how best to leave. I was a member of the management team and had the authority to get things done without being hindered by protocol.
Over the years, I had many deeply personal conversations with people at all levels which were not minuted. Trust and assurance of confidentiality enable people to open up, as I'm sure professional counsellors will tell you. I'm in no way a professional or trained counsellor, just an empathic person that people usually trust. It was an IT business and I have an IT background, and I had a hybrid role which enabled me to speak IT, HR, and managementese.
I have no idea precisely how many people I dealt with, but it was very common that by the time they got to me, they would completely unload, and I was surprised at the proportion who had "family baggage" (if you will). They were bright and intelligent and educated, but a lot of single-parent families, for one reason or another. There were other recurring themes, of course, but they aren't relevant to this discussion. Bear in mind that I was dealing with people who were often thirty or so years younger than me and I was in a paternalistic position.
I'm not sure there's any more I can add; I'm just relating what I experienced. I am now retired.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
@Passer: That was the quote I was referring to. So my question still stands: what did you think Cathy's references to redefining or changing what constitutes a marriage were getting at if you didn't think it was SSM?
At the risk of repeating myself, I regarded it as a jumble of religious-speak using trigger words to evoke a response from a targeted audience, consisting of the people he was railing against, who I interpreted as being single parent families and absent fathers.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
At the risk of repeating myself, I regarded it as a jumble of religious-speak using trigger words to evoke a response from a targeted audience, consisting of the people he was railing against, who I interpreted as being single parent families and absent fathers.
But that's not what "redefinition of marriage" means.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
And even more than that, I cannot see how redefinition of marriage could possibly mean single parent families or absent fathers. Unless someone can point to a situation or country where the term is actually used in the context of those circumstances.
But as I have said before, in the UK, which is where both I and passer are posting from, redefinition of marriage is used as a buzzword by conservative Christians to refer to SSM just as it is in the US.
So this all seems like disingenuous wriggling in a desperate attempt to get off the hook.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I'm not sure there's any more I can add; I'm just relating what I experienced. I am now retired.
To be blunt, you related an impression of what you experienced, which had a numerical flavour to the claim (higher proportion than expected) but humans are notoriously bad in matching numerical accuracy to impressions. It's very common in my field to hear people saying they've noticed a high percentage of a certain event, but when I drill into the actual numbers I find the impressions are misleading.
I put it to you that it is unlikely that you had occasion to discuss the parenting of more than a very few employees, and furthermore that the recollection of parenting in a few extreme situations is unreliable.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
But as I have said before, in the UK, which is where both I and passer are posting from, redefinition of marriage is used as a buzzword by conservative Christians to refer to SSM just as it is in the US.
So this all seems like disingenuous wriggling in a desperate attempt to get off the hook.
Well please excuse me for not being a conservative Christian and fully au fait with your buzzwords, or obsessed with SSM to the extent that I see it lurking in everything I read. My bad.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I'm not sure there's any more I can add; I'm just relating what I experienced. I am now retired.
To be blunt, you related an impression of what you experienced, which had a numerical flavour to the claim (higher proportion than expected) but humans are notoriously bad in matching numerical accuracy to impressions. It's very common in my field to hear people saying they've noticed a high percentage of a certain event, but when I drill into the actual numbers I find the impressions are misleading.
I put it to you that it is unlikely that you had occasion to discuss the parenting of more than a very few employees, and furthermore that the recollection of parenting in a few extreme situations is unreliable.
Consider it put.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Well please excuse me for not being a conservative Christian and fully au fait with your buzzwords, or obsessed with SSM to the extent that I see it lurking in everything I read. My bad.
But that's the thing, passer. People who are familiar with the buzzwords have explained them to you, over and over.
Here in the US, anyway, no reading SSM into everything is required. It's frequently in the news, with folks using those buzzwords to let the world know what they believe and to sound a battle cry. Did you see the link I posted, up thread, for Minnesotans For Marriage? That page will give you a dose of what I'm talking about.
Posted by Trin (# 12100) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's very common in my field to hear people saying they've noticed a high percentage of a certain event, but when I drill into the actual numbers I find the impressions are misleading.
Roughly what percentage of the time do you find that to be the case?
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
There is of course, a tendency among conservative Christians to lump SSM in with single parenthood in the category of "what's wrong with the world today." They might add other things such as premarital sex and abortion as symptoms of what happens when a society turns away from Christianity and a particular version of the family model. That's supposed to be the connecting factor, and therefore from that perspective it makes sense to jump from single parents to SSM and so on because they're all symptoms of the same malaise. (As is bestiality - which is why it's so often invoked in slippery slope arguments about SSM which often leaves ordinary gay people with no interest in goats in total bemusement.)
If you're not coming from that angle, it makes no sense whatsoever. Obviously allowing SSM is not remotely related to thoughtless, promiscuous sex and irresponsible parenting. SSM is on the side of committed monogamous relationships and stability. But for some people (and I'm pretty sure Cathy is one of these people) there are two categories of relationship/family: good, hetero marriage as God intended, and everything else. With that viewpoint it makes total sense to jump from one thing in the Everything Else category to another, because they're basically the same thing.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
But as I have said before, in the UK, which is where both I and passer are posting from, redefinition of marriage is used as a buzzword by conservative Christians to refer to SSM just as it is in the US.
So this all seems like disingenuous wriggling in a desperate attempt to get off the hook.
Well please excuse me for not being a conservative Christian and fully au fait with your buzzwords, or obsessed with SSM to the extent that I see it lurking in everything I read. My bad.
Oh, come on, it's hardly obscure.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Word. The term "redefining marriage" has been thrown around so much in the UK in the last few months, referring to SSM every single time, that I'm scratching my head as to how anyone who's living here and has any contact with TV, newspapers, radio or the internet could have failed to pick up on it - interest in conservative Christianity or none.
[damn typo]
[ 08. August 2012, 10:10: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
And even more than that, I cannot see how redefinition of marriage could possibly mean single parent families or absent fathers.
Obviously it doesn't. No-one could honestly claim it did. Those are not marriage redefined, they are marriage broken. Or perhaps marriage ignored, or marriage defied.
Saying that a relationship between two couples of the same sex is just the same as marriage btween a man and a woman really is a redefinition of marriage, because it is not what most people used to mean by "marriage". But all that other dodgy stuff is not.
And single-sex couples wanting to marry is surely the opposite of "single parent families or absent fathers" because its about people wanting to stay together, not people wanting to separate.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There is of course, a tendency among conservative Christians to lump SSM in with single parenthood in the category of "what's wrong with the world today." They might add other things such as premarital sex and abortion as [...] symptoms of the same malaise.
They might be "symptoms of the same malaise" but they are obviously not redefinitions of marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Word. The term "redefining marriage" has been thrown around so much in the UK in the last few months, referring to SSM every single time, that I'm scratching my head as to how anyone who's living here and has any contact with TV, newspapers, radio or the internet could have failed to pick up on it - interest in conservative Christianity or none.
That seems true enough to me.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They might be "symptoms of the same malaise" but they are obviously not redefinitions of marriage.
Oh I agree. He's definitely talking about SSM. I was trying to explain why he'd jump from a general "crisis of fatherhood" (or whatever the exact wording was) to SSM.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
You also keep demanding that people answer your questions and address your issues, while ignoring any hard questions and inconvenient issues that are addressed to you.
I don't think that is fair. Due to RL I struggle to keep up with more than 1 or 2 threads on the ship at a time. As it is I'm really struggling to keep up with this. I try to find time to read all the posts, but if you expect me to respond exhaustively then I'll have to bow out.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I concede Marvin's point that it may not be a direct attack on SSM, rather an indirect one, but it does follow the well-worn right-wing tact of associating SSM with heterosexual family breakdown. But the term he used has a very definite meaning; it is still is a slam on SSM. And, just as importantly since this broke, he has never said otherwise.
Ummh. Marvin's point was made from my post. The one when I finally lost patience and actually typed out the original quote. However, all I was doing was transcribing the original interview that everyone claimed they had listened to as well. You know, the thing that kicked this all off when I claimed that what was reported was not a direct quote because in his interview he did not directly attack SSM.
I'm frustrated with the 'outing' of people in the media. Unlike saysay I don't think it has anything to do with a PC conspiracy (actually republicans seem to be equally keen to sign up as many people in the public eye to their position as possible.)
Many shipmates have repeatedly expressed their desire for people with opposing views on SSM to shut up about them. If they must possess them then at least keep them to themselves.
However, the media seems keen to bring them out into the open. So Dan Cathy makes an indirect comment about SSM which the media then report as if it was a direct attack on SSM. He then gets called up to ask if it is true that he is against SSM and so he confirms it and voila "high profile public figure joins the political campaign against SSM".
This frustrates me because it is so black and white. I know many Christians who have different views on this issue. For example, they may be opposed to SSM but think that society should decide for itself. If you shove a mic in their face and say "Are you against SSM?" then you are cornering them to give a sound-byte answer - yes / no.
I'm not saying this is what happened with Cathy (as I keep saying I don't like his political lobbying at all) but just that this is theprocess that I observe happening in the media and it is not helping the debate.
So, do I think it was fair that Cathy's financial lobbying came out into the open? - absolutely, I'm glad he got caught. Do I think it was fair the way it happened? No.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm frustrated with the 'outing' of people in the media. Unlike saysay I don't think it has anything to do with a PC conspiracy (actually republicans seem to be equally keen to sign up as many people in the public eye to their position as possible.)
Many shipmates have repeatedly expressed their desire for people with opposing views on SSM to shut up about them. If they must possess them then at least keep them to themselves.
However, the media seems keen to bring them out into the open. So Dan Cathy makes an indirect comment about SSM which the media then report as if it was a direct attack on SSM. He then gets called up to ask if it is true that he is against SSM and so he confirms it and voila "high profile public figure joins the political campaign against SSM".
You're acting as though there was some kind of sting operation in which someone bugged his house and invaded his privacy to bring out his dirty secrets in a tabloid-style fashion. He gave a radio interview, during which he expressed some views - without being hassled into it, threatened, or deceived. Then he was asked for some clarification on his views, and he gave that clarification. How you can call this "outing" I have no idea. He volunteered up his opinions - nobody made him do it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, the media seems keen to bring them out into the open. So Dan Cathy makes an indirect comment about SSM which the media then report as if it was a direct attack on SSM. He then gets called up to ask if it is true that he is against SSM and so he confirms it and voila "high profile public figure joins the political campaign against SSM".
Well, duh.
Firstly, it's the media. That's kind of their reason for being (unless it's Pravda).
Secondly, it's the media. Multi-millionaire makes "indirect" (and we're still arguing about that, but I move in evo circles too, and 'traditional marriage' et al only ever has one meaning) criticism of SSM. Are we all supposed to nod sagely and consult the entrails, or is some tyro reporter going to pick up the phone and ask him what he meant?
Thirdly, he'd joined the campaign against SSM a while back, with those metric shit-loads of cash he shovelled at an hate organisation that wants to re-criminalise homosexual sex. If he didn't want that coming out (hah!), then may be he shouldn't have done it. Several times, apparently.
You're normally better than this: your objections here are as filmy as a soap bubble.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's very common in my field to hear people saying they've noticed a high percentage of a certain event, but when I drill into the actual numbers I find the impressions are misleading.
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
Roughly what percentage of the time do you find that to be the case?
Very good, got me.
In fact I can provide one example (after scratching around a bit). In the case of people recalling "outbreaks" of disease if I look back of records of the last 10 reports, in only 4 of them were the numbers of cases identified on a careful review of numbers accurately represented in the initial report.
In each case the number had been exaggerated. Which stands to reason, since the individuals reporting the outbreaks were doing so because they'd formed the impression that there was a serious problem that needed responding to.
Likely there are cases where the number is under-estimated, and those tend not to go forward for central reporting.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I'm frustrated with the 'outing' of people in the media. ...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
It is beyond offensive to use the word "outing" in this context. A person who is "outed" risks losing their job, their home, their friends, even their family. Candy is making money hand over fist from this. Again, he's not suffering, and he's not complaining. What the fuck is your problem? It's not the media's fault he's an rich jerkwad, and as others have pointed out, his offensive views and actions were public before.
Oh, and as for "different mindsets": that's a lie too. I don't see any "liberal" groups telling Christians who they should or shouldn't love. If Candy is seen an embarrassment to Christianity, he's responsible, not the media or "liberals". OliviaG
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I'm frustrated with the 'outing' of people in the media. ...
It is beyond offensive to use the word "outing" in this context. A person who is "outed" risks losing their job, their home, their friends, even their family. Candy is making money hand over fist from this. Again, he's not suffering, and he's not complaining. What the fuck is your problem? It's not the media's fault he's an rich jerkwad, and as others have pointed out, his offensive views and actions were public before.
Oh, and as for "different mindsets": that's a lie too. I don't see any "liberal" groups telling Christians who they should or shouldn't love. If Candy is seen an embarrassment to Christianity, he's responsible, not the media or "liberals". OliviaG
Different kind of 'outing', perhaps? If one of our Aussie shipmates could let us know what is means there, that would be enlightening.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Er … er …
quote:
… I'm frustrated with the 'outing' of people in the media. Unlike saysay I don't think it has anything to do with a PC conspiracy (actually republicans seem to be equally keen to sign up as many people in the public eye to their position as possible.)
…
However, the media seems keen to bring them out into the open. So Dan Cathy makes an indirect comment about SSM which the media then report as if it was a direct attack on SSM. He then gets called up to ask if it is true that he is against SSM and so he confirms it and voila "high profile public figure joins the political campaign against SSM".
This frustrates me because it is so black and white. I know many Christians who have different views on this issue. For example, they may be opposed to SSM but think that society should decide for itself. If you shove a mic in their face and say "Are you against SSM?" then you are cornering them to give a sound-byte answer - yes / no.
I'm not saying this is what happened with Cathy (as I keep saying I don't like his political lobbying at all) but just that this is theprocess that I observe happening in the media and it is not helping the debate.
So, do I think it was fair that Cathy's financial lobbying came out into the open? - absolutely, I'm glad he got caught. Do I think it was fair the way it happened? No.
Sometimes I think you’re more concerned about someone getting caught out than what they’re getting caught out for.
Someone giving a media interview isn’t being “outed”. It would be useful if you could stick to the accepted meanings of words rather than invent your own.
Besides, by agreeing to be interviewed in the first place, he’s agreed to being asked about things – including his charitable donations and stance on particular issues. His charitable donations give a clue to his stance on issues because – as has been pointed out before – no one gives vast amounts of money to organisations that they don’t agree with. Investigative journalism - bringing that sort of thing into the public eye - is part of the media’s role. Without that investigation there often wouldn’t be a debate to start with.
Oh and this statement is rubbish. Utter rubbish. I do not have polite words to tell you how rubbish this is.
quote:
Many shipmates have repeatedly expressed their desire for people with opposing views on SSM to shut up about them. If they must possess them then at least keep them to themselves.
Many shipmates have asked people with opposing views on SSM to discuss them and consider that the opposing view may also be equally valid. SSM is a matter of opinion, and the same texts can be used to support both view points. It’s also not a salvation issue, although the way some people blather on and on about it you’d think it was. Instead of Peter checking your name in the Book of Life, he’ll be asking you about your sexual preferences and using that to decide if you’re a sheep or a goat. Oh, and, in some cases, asking people consider the impact that these views may have on real people and their lives. This is not a theoretical discussion.
Tubbs
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Can I also reiterate: in general, people are not angry at Cathy because he has an opinion, or even because he expresses it. They are angry because he throws a lot of money at organisations which exist largely to make the lives of certain people more difficult. For some of us, those very people are us, or our friends and loved ones. It's not an issue of abstract moral views.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Indirect my ass. When you use one of two synonyms, you are not making an indirect reference to the other one. If I say "I loathe the way the GOP wraps itself in Old Glory" I'm not making an indirect reference to the U.S. Flag. In this context (and in any other context I can think of frankly) "Old Glory" and "The U.S. Flag" are coterminous. They are synonymous. THEY MEAN THE SAME THING. Using the one term is not indirectly referring to the referent of the second term, because they have the same referent.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Someone giving a media interview isn’t being “outed”. It would be useful if you could stick to the accepted meanings of words rather than invent your own.
I realise that outed is a sensitive expression but, since I have heard it used in other contexts, I thought that being outed by the media had generally become accepted as meaning other things as well.
I thought that it was general practice (particularly in the tabloid press) to try and get people in the public eye (usually politicians) to make a public statement on an issue that they have deliberately been trying to stay quiet on? I've certainly heard the expression used that way numerous times. Isn't that the bread and butter of jobs for people like Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys? We live in a world where the media sensationalises everything. As a result politicians are coached not to say what they really think, but to 'stay on message'; and as a result interviewers play a game where they try to trick them into revealing their true opinions. Call it what you like, that is what I was talking about. (Likewise I'm not saying that that is necessarily what happened here; just explaining the backstory as to why I picked up on the story. and why I think it is legitimate to question the way stories develop.)
If others are not familiar with that usage then apologies. My bad. I wasn't trying to use a provocative term.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Can I also reiterate: in general, people are not angry at Cathy because he has an opinion, or even because he expresses it. They are angry because he throws a lot of money at organisations which exist largely to make the lives of certain people more difficult. For some of us, those very people are us, or our friends and loved ones. It's not an issue of abstract moral views.
That post, among with quite a few others, really puzzles me as to the point of this thread. I thought I had been called to hell for being disingenuous and therefore was trying to defend myself on that charge. I gave up any interest in discussing Dan Cathy per se days ago - since, at no point have I ever try to defend Cathy for what he does with his money.
My very first post on the DH thread was to completely agree with your post Liopleurodon. At the time, certainly as far as I was aware, it was only the first interview that was being reported. Since then Cathy confirmed that he was against SSM publicly. That has all happened. We are now raking over past events as if they were in the present.
What I did (and was called to hell for) was to say that the reporting was unfair because he was initially reported as if he gave a quote directly attack SSM when he did not. (MT disagrees but the quote is on this thread for all to see and make their own judgment.) What I haven't seen is any evidence that I have been disingenuous in this discussion. Pedantic possibly, disingenuous no. I suppose this all illustrates why this is a DH issue on the ship - people, on both sides, are way too quick to assume the worst of those with whom they disagree.
Therefore I think I've had enough. The quote is there in all its glory. Let the reader decide.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Someone giving a media interview isn’t being “outed”. It would be useful if you could stick to the accepted meanings of words rather than invent your own.
I realise that outed is a sensitive expression but, since I have heard it used in other contexts, I thought that being outed by the media had generally become accepted as meaning other things as well.
It may do where you are, but not here in Pommyland.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I did (and was called to hell for) was to say that the reporting was unfair because he was initially reported as if he gave a quote directly attack SSM when he did not. (MT disagrees but the quote is on this thread for all to see and make their own judgment.)
This is you being disingenuous. Right here. No matter how many times people tell you what these words mean, you insist they do not, even though you admit you don't have any experience with the American use of them. This is you all over. Mr. Disingenuous. They might as well have your photograph beside the word in the dictionary.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Indirect my ass.
"Indirect" was the word TojoursDan used to agree with my post. The phrase I actually used was "a sly dig" - which is not quite the same thing, but I seldom find it productive to argue with people who are agreeing with me!
What I meant was the quote read to me as if he was bemoaning the state of parenting in the nation, and then decided to tag a swipe at SSM onto the end. The old "get 'em nodding their heads then quickly change the subject" trick. It's not a direct attack, in fact it's a shitty tactic because it's not a direct attack.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I thought that it was general practice (particularly in the tabloid press) to try and get people in the public eye (usually politicians) to make a public statement on an issue that they have deliberately been trying to stay quiet on? ...
Once more with feeling: the man gave a fucking interview. He has NOT tried to "stay quiet". How reporters deal with evasive interview subjects has nothing to do with this.
quote:
... What I did (and was called to hell for) was to say that the reporting was unfair because he was initially reported as if he gave a quote directly attack SSM when he did not. ...
OMG, someone known to oppose CIVIL MARRIAGEOliviaG
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
Sorry, last paragraph:
Someone known to oppose CIVIL MARRIAGE for homosexuals is reported as making a comment - directly or indirectly, who the fuck cares - opposing CIVIL MARRIAGE for homosexuals. Is that slibel or lander, Johnny? OliviaG
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Dan Cathy was asked a direct question about the "crisis of fatherhood" ... "what can we do about this growing problem?" Dan Cathy's answer is that (he thinks) that there is "emotional as well as physical DNA that we can only get from our mother and our father" and that "when you don't have one side or the other I've got to tell you that I think we are emotionally handicapped now that doesn't mean we can't survive and have a happy life but it does mean that we're going to have some odds stacked against us... But to have so many people growing up in homes that do not have a mum or a dad, I tell you as an employer it makes it difficult for us since we have to have a parenting role, as it relates to society as a whole I think it means we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fists at him and say 'we know better than you' as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful arrogant attitude that thinks we can redefine what marriage is all about."
{There we go folks. That is what all the fuss is about - make your own minds up.}
Y'know, if that's a fair record of what he actually said then I'm going to agree that reporting it as if he's making a direct frontal attack on SSM is a misquote. At worst he's using the context of a "crisis of fatherhood" to make a sly dig at SSM.
That doesn't mean any of what's been posted about him and his views is false, of course.
I read it that way as well. Anyone who’s read a tabloid or a friend with a one true cause will recognise the technique … Say something that you believe most people will agree on –before sneaking in your true agenda – and convert them to that as well! Given he’s none too keen on single mothers and gays, I’m wondering if he’s moonlighting as a Daily Mail writer in his spare time?! A
Despite Johny’s lengthy explanations I’m still don’t understand how it’s unfair that someone who gave a media interview, made remarks that everyone else apart from Johny understands to mean they believe a particular thing and then gets called upon that is somehow unfair. If you’re a public figure and you want to maintain an element of mystery, then might want to model yourself on Kate Moss. Regularly photographed at events, rarely gives interviews about anything or issues any public statements about anything other than her love of Rimmel.
Tubbs
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0