|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Johny S. puts his fingers in ears saying La-la-la
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No, you claimed something he said was not about SSM when it most clearly was. Nice try though.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
...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...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Do the US let you smoke ganja if you area Rastafarian ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
See - I think - Niteowl's second post on page 1
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
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...? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 06. August 2012, 14:02: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Dear Religion, While you were debating what chicken sandwiches were okay to eat, I just landed on Mars. Sincerely, Your Pal Science
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
"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 ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
