|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Johny S. puts his fingers in ears saying La-la-la
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
mdijon - it comes from being a closet Sir Humphrey. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That is not something I would be proud of.
--------------------
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
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
...or even better
[ 07. August 2012, 19:14: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
@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?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trin
Shipmate
# 12100
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 442 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"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
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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 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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
