homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » GLBT is a facade (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: GLBT is a facade
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively. We can refer to this "repugnance" as essentially biological: it cannot be unlearned (if it could, then the GLBTQ assertion that they cannot change something they were born with would be shot down): at best, a victim of this biologically mandated perspective can recognize it for the bigotry-producing feeling that it is, and not give it expression. The same holds true for the racist bigot: his/her "repugnance" for the other race is irrational because it is connected to a complex of mandated feelings: biological attraction/repugnance and socially inculcated mores. It may take a lifetime to overcome these feelings enough to not give them expression. And many (most?) never get over their bigotry (e.g. famously Mel Gibson and even more so his father)....

See, this is where you can only speak for yourself, Merlin (and it speaks volumes). My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.
Precisely. Some gay men I know are quite 'ewww' at the thought of sex with women. Some are merely disinterested.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Beyond the uselessness of the notion of using yourself as a norm by which to measure the rest of Homo Sapiens, Merlin, there's the idea, hinted at in your post just above, that whenever somebody disagrees with you, that person has simply misunderstood your words.

In a text-based medium, the issuer of the words bears responsibility for making him- or herself clear. This thread's on page 10, with the bulk of the posts coming from you, scrabbling over your own words in an effort to make unacceptable assertions more palatable to people who buy neither the assertions nor your efforts to make "unacceptable" look "presentable."

A person who's not racist doesn't write racist BS. If s/he does write racist BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's racist (possibly without realizing it).

A person who's not homophobic doesn't write homophobic BS. If s/he does write homophobic BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's homophobic (possibly without realizing it).

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I understand your words perfectly Merlin - what I don't understand is how you can begin to hold such racist and homophobic views.

I have noticed that there is not one person on this (long) thread who even begins to agree with you. Does this not say something to you?

<typo>

[ 14. November 2010, 13:59: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.
Where and when did I ever say "ALL"? If I am discussing a feature of bigotry, be it sexuality- or race-focused, that is the only portion of the demographic that I am focused on: that's why I said we seem to have lost focus in this discussion. Back there, several of "you" leaped on the words; made the assertion that I am talking about "ALL" homosexuals or heterosexuals, when clearly - if "you" are reading without bigotry yourselves - this erroneous leap of logic is a distortion of my position: and furthermore includes assertions that I am the kind of person that I am talking about!...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively.

All aren't. Some aren't repelled but just not turned on. Some may find it worth exploring. Human sexual preference is not binary. But "repelled" and "repugnance" are simply too strong, and don't apply at all (as has been demonstrated) in the realm of race. It's not that we're far afield, it's that you are just dead wrong.
Where and when did I ever say "ALL"? If I am discussing a feature of bigotry, be it sexuality- or race-focused, that is the only portion of the demographic that I am focused on: that's why I said we seem to have lost focus in this discussion.
Who is "we?" As I read this thread, the discussion seems to have become more and quite intensely focused. Do you perhaps mean to say "the discussion has headed in a direction I don't care for?"

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back there, several of "you" leaped on the words; made the assertion that I am talking about "ALL" homosexuals or heterosexuals, when clearly - if "you" are reading without bigotry yourselves - this erroneous leap of logic is a distortion of my position: and furthermore includes assertions that I am the kind of person that I am talking about!...

Then perhaps you need to use more care in phrasing your assertions. When you MEAN "some" of a group, you might consider WRITING "some members of group X . . . " instead of writing "Group X does Y" or "Group M feels Q."

In normal discourse, at least in my experience, writing and/or saying "Group X is like Z" generally implies that the writer or speaker intends the generalization to apply to all members of that group, which is precisely the mechanism which renders such statements racist or homophobic or sexist or whatever "-ist" applies to the situation. Hence, "White men can't jump" is a racist and/or sexist generalization most people understand to apply (according to the speaker or writer) to ALL white men, not merely to "some" of them. If someone means to say "Some white men can't jump," it's necessary to (A) think "some" and (B) say or write "some" to make that meaning clear.

In a text-based medium, it's necessary to make one's thought processes (as well as one's thoughts) explicit rather than expecting readers to intuit the writer's meaning. The assumption I suspect many readers make is that the writer, who is choosing the words after all, carefully selects those words which most precisely express his/her meaning. Omitting or including qualifiers like "some" or "many" or "most" in a generalization is one of the choices writers are faced with. The inclusion of qualifiers carries one meaning; the omission carries the opposite meaning, as we see in this thread.

It seems to me that you are trying to hold readers responsible for the results of your own word choices. We didn't choose your words, though; you did.

[ 14. November 2010, 15:54: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
... My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.

I have not discussed my sexuality at all in any degree. I pointed this out several/many posts back.

Several of "you" seem incapable of seeing this difference: as here: you claim that your "sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business"; and then provide intimate details about your own sexuality that I never solicited or encouraged.

Merlin and Jahlove have nothing to do with the topic(s) at hand. Jahlove does not show anything about society at large by talking about his/her personal sexuality. By comparison, I have not used myself to illustrate demographics of thought and feelings within the homosexual and heterosexual communities: I do not assert that ALL heterosexuals are as myself: but "you" do assert that this is what I do The discussion ought to remain general; about populations and demographics within populations. I speak to this: and "you" leap to the conclusion that I can only really, genuinely talk about myself, my attitudes and prejudices.

If this is a limitation imposed upon everyone, then shouldn't we be able to get a character study from every scholar who has written about controversial subjects, such as the Holocaust? Or partial-birth (late) abortions? Or about racial prejudice as an ill in our society? Or the hypothetical threat presented to the stability of society by encouraging more homosexuality?

If someone writes in an effort to understand "the other side" of an issue: using this logic, applied by "you" to myself here, demands that each person making said-effort at understanding is in fact incapable of it, because s/he must be the very type of bigot that they are trying to get into the heads of.

I hope that you can see, from this dichotomy in logic that I have pointed out, that your assertions are far afield about my prejudices on other races and homosexuality: simply because you lack knowledge of such - I have not talked about myself, ergo I have not provided any of "you" with information sufficient for "you" to judge me.

Notice, if you will be so kind, that, iirc, I have not once judged any of you good people individually: I certainly never intend to do so, and if I have slipped up, I apologize. If you are taking offense at words I have used, then perhaps this exposes some bigotry and prejudice on your part instead.

Back to the topic:

AGAIN: "racism" is in the mind of the beholder; homo sapiens is ONE species; there is no such thing as "race" at all.

The same cannot be said for sexual preferences: there are distinct differences; and the largest of these is the separation into hardwired homosexual and heterosexual.

When you share your lack of "repugnance" for any entertained sexual encounter, you are only indicating that likely as not you are biologically and socially a bisexual. If you paid attention: up there in this thread, I asserted that in my hypothesis, AT BIRTH, MOST people are biologically bisexual: and social mores are inculcated through upbringing, which tends to discourage homosexuality, making heterosexuality massively dominant....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sexuality and attraction are far more complicated than you seem to understand, Merlin.

For example, in my little corner of the fandom community, I know committed lesbians who enjoy and get off on reading/writing stories of male/male sexual encounters. Figure that one out.

That's ignoring the far more common phenomena of straight women who enjoy it. In fandom terms it's called "slash" and it's immensely popular.

There's also the category of femslash, depictions of female/female sex, not quite as popular among straight women, but not non-existent either.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Beyond the uselessness of the notion of using yourself as a norm by which to measure the rest of Homo Sapiens, Merlin, there's the idea, hinted at in your post just above, that whenever somebody disagrees with you, that person has simply misunderstood your words.

Seems so. And as my most recent posts repeat: I am not talking about ME. We are (or ought to be, I am) discussing demographic tendencies, not individuals.
quote:

In a text-based medium, the issuer of the words bears responsibility for making him- or herself clear. This thread's on page 10, with the bulk of the posts coming from you, scrabbling over your own words in an effort to make unacceptable assertions more palatable to people who buy neither the assertions nor your efforts to make "unacceptable" look "presentable."

The problem is that I remain interested in attempting to create understanding, where that quality seems to be lacking in the readers here.

Last I checked, "repugnant", "repelled", "visceral", were all perfectly sound words. It's like my daughter's friend: "Moist" is a word she hates, it makes her queasy. "You" have reacted to words I have employed to describe commonly held feelings and emotions among the more entrenched or possibly even bigoted segments of society.
quote:

A person who's not racist doesn't write racist BS. If s/he does write racist BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's racist (possibly without realizing it).

Or he is speaking to observed historical trends and currently held opinions of millions of people.
quote:

A person who's not homophobic doesn't write homophobic BS. If s/he does write homophobic BS, s/he's either very stupid about handling language, or s/he's homophobic (possibly without realizing it).

Look again: where have I said anything about my sexuality or opinion on race? Oh, I just repeated myself: look at the post just about this one. "Racism" is made up by racists. In reality, there is no such thing as race. But there is such a thing as homosexuality and heterosexuality: that's the difference.

Seeing the confusion that my illustrating with racism has caused, I would go back and never bring it up. You can't handle the topic, at, all, it seems.

I wonder if "you" can handle discussing the subject of heterosexual feelings versus GLBTQ agenda....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
...Then perhaps you need to use more care in phrasing your assertions. When you MEAN "some" of a group, you might consider WRITING "some members of group X . . . " instead of writing "Group X does Y" or "Group M feels Q."

Point taken. In my mind the context made such distinction redundant. Obviously, judging by the reactions up to this moment, I was mistaken.

quote:

...

In a text-based medium, it's necessary to make one's thought processes (as well as one's thoughts) explicit rather than expecting readers to intuit the writer's meaning. The assumption I suspect many readers make is that the writer, who is choosing the words after all, carefully selects those words which most precisely express his/her meaning. Omitting or including qualifiers like "some" or "many" or "most" in a generalization is one of the choices writers are faced with. The inclusion of qualifiers carries one meaning; the omission carries the opposite meaning, as we see in this thread.

Again, I had assumed from the discourse already, that my position was clear: I was talking about the prejudiced/bigoted parts of both groups; not ALL people who belong to those groups. And again, I was mistaken: my position was not clear: several/many here were reading my posts assuming that they were in the "presence" of a bigot: that of course colored everything that I said. The fault is not mine in this regard. I doubt that even using qualifier words would make much if any difference to many readers who are already defensive about the subject.
quote:

It seems to me that you are trying to hold readers responsible for the results of your own word choices. We didn't choose your words, though; you did.

Context. It is everything. Of course, you have to read dispassionately enough to see context in the first place.

I appreciate your comments on my writing style. Helpful observations are always welcome....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Sexuality and attraction are far more complicated than you seem to understand, Merlin.

For example, in my little corner of the fandom community, I know committed lesbians who enjoy and get off on reading/writing stories of male/male sexual encounters. Figure that one out. ...

Seems perfectly understandable to me: sex, ALL of it, is a fascinating subject. I am a pacifist, in fact, I might run for office as our king. [Razz] Yet I write about violence, war, death; and I find the study of weapons and armor fascinating.

Everything has a name in fandom. Lacking awareness of such does not make a non fan some kind of noob to a subject.

I do not find sexually explicit material rewarding because it is addicting. Why mess with the parts "God" gave you? Do you think that you can improve on the design or something? Addiction to crutches is always regrettable....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I understand your words perfectly Merlin - what I don't understand is how you can begin to hold such racist and homophobic views.

I have noticed that there is not one person on this (long) thread who even begins to agree with you. Does this not say something to you?

Your first sentence proves that you in fact do NOT understand my words, much less "perfectly".

As for the rest of "you", look at my responses above to other posts. I need not repeat here....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
... My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.

I have not discussed my sexuality at all in any degree. I pointed this out several/many posts back.

Several of "you" seem incapable of seeing this difference: as here: you claim that your "sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business"; and then provide intimate details about your own sexuality that I never solicited or encouraged.

*Sigh*

Perhaps language in general is the problem, here.

I won't claim to speak for Jahlove, but could you, Merlin, please list, from Jahlove's post, which you quoted above, what "intimate details" were revealed about Jahlove's sexuality? I can't even guess how you've construed the post. Here is the sum total of what I read there: Jahlove is not repelled by contemplation of other people's sexual activities, in part because Jahlove rarely engages in such contemplation. Frankly, on the basis of those two details (which do not strike me as especially intimate, but YMMV), I can tell almost nothing about Jahlove's sexuality.

Is it possible that you are reading details into Jahlove's post that are not in fact there?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Merlin and Jahlove have nothing to do with the topic(s) at hand. Jahlove does not show anything about society at large by talking about his/her personal sexuality.

Again, I can't see where Jahlove has written about his/her personal sexuality. However, I think it's safe to assume that Jahlove is a member of society, as are you, and in saying s/he doesn't give sexuality much weight in thinking about other people, s/he differs from those who do: that is, s/he demonstrates there are differences in society in how, and on what basis, different members of society react to one another.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
By comparison, I have not used myself to illustrate demographics of thought and feelings within the homosexual and heterosexual communities: I do not assert that ALL heterosexuals are . . . <<snip>> .

But in fact you do, each and every time you make a generalized statement such as "Heterosexuals do this" or "Heterosexuals feel thus-and-such." It's possible you do not INTEND to say "all," or MEAN "all," but in common parlance among users of standard English, that is what such a statement means to most users. If you mean only part of a group when referring to it, it's up to you to make that clear, e.g., "Many" or "some" heterosexuals react so-and-so . . . "


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . as myself: but "you" do assert that this is what I do The discussion ought to remain general; about populations and demographics within populations. I speak to this: and "you" leap to the conclusion that I can only really, genuinely talk about myself, my attitudes and prejudices.

It's possible that I've missed part of the discussion on the thread. However, I don't recall anyone claiming that you can only talk about yourself. Could you help us out a bit by pasting a quote from one or more specific individuals who've claimed you can only speak about your own experience?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If someone writes in an effort to understand "the other side" of an issue:

By "someone" in the sentence above, are you referring to yourself? I ask because I must say that the title of this thread -- "GLBT is a facade" doesn't come across, at least to this reader, as "an effort to understand 'the other side' of an issue." It comes across to me as a fairly hostile assertion about people who would self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered -- that in your view people in these categories are engaged in some kind of pretense.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . using this logic, applied by "you" to myself here, demands that each person making said-effort at understanding is in fact incapable of it, because s/he must be the very type of bigot that they are trying to get into the heads of.

If other posters on this thread were claiming you had written things you have not written, I'd agree. What people are taking issue with is what you HAVE written, e.g., "other races are repugnant." People are quoting what you wrote and arguing against what you wrote. You are claiming either that you didn't write such things, or that people aren't interpreting your posts correctly.

The only person on this thread capable of accurately articulating your ideas is you. If you are being consistently misinterpreted, then it might behoove you to read your own posts more carefully, and to be more specific and precise in how you word your thoughts.

If, on the other hand, you've accurately expressed yourself, then you might want to take Boogie's advice, offered above.

And that's all I have time for at the moment.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . Context. It is everything. Of course, you have to read dispassionately enough to see context in the first place.

I appreciate your comments on my writing style. Helpful observations are always welcome....

Then here's more:

I agree that context is important. In text-based media, writers create that context through the words they select. "The context" in your mind, or mine, or anyone else's, is irrelevant; in a text-based medium, the only context we can mutually observe, create, participate in, or respond to, is the one that appears, in writers' chosen words, on the screen. Thus there's an enormous difference between . . .

"GLBT is a facade" and

"It seems to me that many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are using the "marriage" fight to push society in a more sexually-permissive direction."

Language, being something of a blunt instrument, has to be used with thought and care. Blanket statements like "Group X is Z" do not come across as dispassionate; they come across as generalizations. In our individualistically-oriented society, many people dislike being lumped into a large group this way. Why? Because any given generalization, when applied to an indivivdual, may be false.

If I am male, and consider myself sensitive, I am not going to respond well to being told, "Men are emotional idiots."

If I am a law-abiding Italian-American, I won't react well to being told that "Italians are tied to the Mob."

Negative generalizations (like race producing repugnance) won't be read dispassionately because of the negativity they contain. "Repugnance," while a perfectly legitimate word, has negative vibes; it means something negative. Do you know anybody who'd like being described as "repugnant?" Is there any group ever brought up during this thread each and every one of whose members could fairly and accurately be described as "repugnant?" Of course not. But that's how your statements are being read, because of how they're worded. And they're worded that way by you.

Positive generalizations (though equally inaccurate) may slide by, simply because they're positive.

2. Generalizations -- because they are often inaccurate when applied to individuals -- tend to generate heat, not light; argument, not dispassion.

If you want people to listen instead of arguing, stop generalizing. For example, consider dropping the "you" business. We are not all saying the same thing; we are not all reacting to the same issues. Respond to us as the individuals we are.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
In normal discourse, at least in my experience, writing and/or saying "Group X is like Z" generally implies that the writer or speaker intends the generalization to apply to all members of that group

That is, indeed, how the English language works. If I say, "Women are bad drivers," that is equivalent to saying, "All women are bad drivers." The "all" is automatically implied. That's the way it works in English.

You** can't say "Women are idiots" and then come back later and claim you weren't speaking about ALL women, just SOME women. You were, in fact, speaking about ALL women. You might not have MEANT to speak about all women, but when you say "Women are X" you are, in fact, given the way the English language works in the year AD 2010, speaking about ALL women. Truly. Honest. Look it up.

quote:
...which is precisely the mechanism which renders such statements racist or homophobic or sexist or whatever "-ist" applies to the situation.
Yup.

FOOTNOTE
--------
**generic "you" -- not referring to Apocalpso, who clearly gets it

[ 15. November 2010, 06:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Repugnant! Repugnant!! REPUGNANT!!! Don't be silly. I was specifically referring to the factual observation that people who are racists do NOT find the object of their bigotry/prejudice sexually attractive because instead they find them repugnant sexually.

That might have been what you intended to say. But it's not what you said. What you actually said was that people are repugnant sexually. Which is a world of difference. It's the difference between saying that Mormons are lunatics obsessed with sacred underwear and that some people think that Mormons are lunatics obsessed with sacred underwear.

You didn't say what you meant. And are blowing up because people are responding to what you actually said rather than what you intended to say.

quote:
I never knew a racist who wanted to have sex with the race that they hate.
If this was actually the case then inter-racial porn wouldn't be a significant category in its own right rather than simply something that happens. (That you have never met one who admitted it is something I can believe).

quote:
I further elucidated, in the face of "your" failure to read what I said in context,
You did not put it in context in your comment. And have at no point had the courtesy to acknowledge that it was your end where the communication was fucked up. Instead you are just winging and saying that we didn't read a context that wasn't actually in the comment that is being objected to.

Saying you mis-spoke is nothing to be ashamed of. I've said things I didn't mean on a regular basis. And when I've realised this I've normally apologised and tried to correct the misunderstanding. Doubling down and calling us big poopy-heads because we didn't telepathically intuit a context you never actually put in your comment is a violation of the first rule of holes - if you're at the bottom of one, stop digging.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
... My sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business but I shall just say that I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all. For one thing, what we do with our squishy bits may be viewed as equally wonderful/icky/ludicrous no matter who is doing what with which to whom - I kinda find it more useful in life to consider people as rather more than Genitals on Legs.

I have not discussed my sexuality at all in any degree. I pointed this out several/many posts back.

Several of "you" seem incapable of seeing this difference: as here: you claim that your "sexuality and preferences are nobody else's business"; and then provide intimate details about your own sexuality that I never solicited or encouraged.

*Sigh*

Perhaps language in general is the problem, here.

I won't claim to speak for Jahlove, but could you, Merlin, please list, from Jahlove's post, which you quoted above, what "intimate details" were revealed about Jahlove's sexuality? I can't even guess how you've construed the post. Here is the sum total of what I read there: Jahlove is not repelled by contemplation of other people's sexual activities, in part because Jahlove rarely engages in such contemplation. Frankly, on the basis of those two details (which do not strike me as especially intimate, but YMMV), I can tell almost nothing about Jahlove's sexuality.

Is it possible that you are reading details into Jahlove's post that are not in fact there?

Nope. I personally consider, - "I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all" - to be an intimate detail of Jahlove's sexuality. I didn't say that it was more than "almost nothing": it is a singular detail addressing attitude toward sexual activity in others. Of course, "YMMV" applies here: I would not offer even that much about my "contemplation" of sexuality in others, without first considering carefully whether or not I ought to, or even why I would want to, in the first place.

quote:
...
there are differences in society in how, and on what basis, different members of society react to one another.

I never said there are not differences. The topic was on prejudice/bigotry being the problem; that's why I (foolishly) illustrated the reality of heterosexual prejudice with an appeal to racism: something I thought ALL could agree on as irredeemably entrenched in all societies. Turns out I was mistaken on several aspects about that one: not about the reality of racism, but the ability of some people to discuss it rationally. Seems also that discussing heterosexual AND homosexual prejudice is equally fraught with irrationality.

quote:
...
It's possible you do not INTEND to say "all," or MEAN "all," but in common parlance among users of standard English, that is what such a statement means to most users. If you mean only part of a group when referring to it, it's up to you to make that clear, e.g., "Many" or "some" heterosexuals react so-and-so . . . "

Yes, I've already agreed that my assumption that my meaning was clear was mistaken: I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance". As the context made this obvious, it didn't occur to me until too late that the context was only clear in my own mind.


quote:

It's possible that I've missed part of the discussion on the thread. However, I don't recall anyone claiming that you can only talk about yourself. Could you help us out a bit by pasting a quote from one or more specific individuals who've claimed you can only speak about your own experience?

I claim that the reaction to my contextual addressing of homosexuality and racism as inevitable elements in society is proof that I can't talk about (observe) these obvious factual demographics without my being labelled by some (in this case most) people as part and parcel the same thing of which I speak: in other words, the reaction shows that in their view, I am merely describing myself when I observe bigotry or prejudice or outraged feelings (of "repugnance" even).

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If someone writes in an effort to understand "the other side" of an issue:
quote:
By "someone" in the sentence above, are you referring to yourself? I ask because I must say that the title of this thread -- "GLBT is a facade" doesn't come across, at least to this reader, as "an effort to understand 'the other side' of an issue."


I admitted way back there, that the title was deliberately provacative. The question: "Is the GLBT(Q) advocacy actually pushing for special, protected minority status?" was put forward by me as part of the followup to the thread title. So of course, it is my effort to understand the thinking of others, especially "members" of the GLBTQ community.

I have further asserted that, just as a segment of the heterosexual demographic are prejudiced toward homosexuals, that the "hardwired" homosexuals must therefore contain a segment that is prejudiced toward the heterosexual majority: I consider that the blatant attack on the historic meaning of the word "marriage" is evidence of this entrenched prejudice: to the degree that said-segment of the GLBTQ advocacy will even fight for the power to overturn the majority feeling about retaining "marriage" to mean "man and woman".

That is the facade: "fairness under the law" actually means: "It is fair for US to dictate to the majority what marriage is going to mean in the legalese from now on".

quote:
It comes across to me as a fairly hostile assertion about people who would self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered -- that in your view people in these categories are engaged in some kind of pretense.

If they are in fact after special protected minority status; and in fact will not settle for less than "marriage" meaning homoseuxal unions in the legalese: then yes, their overt claims to fairness are a pretense.

quote:
...
What people are taking issue with is what you HAVE written, e.g., "other races are repugnant." People are quoting what you wrote and arguing against what you wrote. You are claiming either that you didn't write such things, or that people aren't interpreting your posts correctly.

I never calimed that I didn't write the words quoted: only that the context is missed or lost in the quoting.
quote:

The only person on this thread capable of accurately articulating your ideas is you. If you are being consistently misinterpreted, then it might behoove you to read your own posts more carefully, and to be more specific and precise in how you word your thoughts.

Too true! This latest exchange has been very instructive for me. Thanks for the time you've given to helping me understand the problem....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
...there's an enormous difference between . . .

"GLBT is a facade" and

"It seems to me that many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are using the "marriage" fight to push society in a more sexually-permissive direction."

Yes there is. If I had thought it through a tad longer, I would have given the title this way: Is GLBT a facade? A question instead of a blatant statement of fact.
quote:

Language, being something of a blunt instrument, has to be used with thought and care.

And what do I do all too often? Take the blunt instrument and make it blunter!

quote:
Blanket statements like "Group X is Z" do not come across as dispassionate; they come across as generalizations. In our individualistically-oriented society, many people dislike being lumped into a large group this way. Why? Because any given generalization, when applied to an indivivdual, may be false.

Inevitably WILL be false to the individual who sees him/herself as the exception. There are many of "us" on The Ship.

quote:
... Do you know anybody who'd like being described as "repugnant?" Is there any group ever brought up during this thread each and every one of whose members could fairly and accurately be described as "repugnant?" Of course not. But that's how your statements are being read, because of how they're worded. And they're worded that way by you.

I appeal to context again. But as you fairly point out: dispassionate reading of my verbiage was already NOT on offer when I used the words that have burned. So I ought to have been a ton more careful than I have been. Some of my posts were made when I was either tired or rushed: never effective ingredients in composing the written word!

quote:
If you want people to listen instead of arguing, stop generalizing. For example, consider dropping the "you" business. We are not all saying the same thing; we are not all reacting to the same issues. Respond to us as the individuals we are.

I vow to endeavor to persevere to remember all that you have said from this point on.

And thanks again....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...

You didn't say what you meant. And are blowing up because people are responding to what you actually said rather than what you intended to say.

I'm calm now. Lookee up there.

quote:
...
And [you] have at no point had the courtesy to acknowledge that it was your end where the communication was fucked up. Instead you are just winging and saying that we didn't read a context that wasn't actually in the comment that is being objected to.

I admit I fucked it up. Read my responses to Apocalypso for the full version.

quote:
...
Doubling down and calling us big poopy-heads because we didn't telepathically intuit a context you never actually put in your comment is a violation of the first rule of holes - if you're at the bottom of one, stop digging.

How selfish of me: I have enjoyed this part of the thread (the last and off-topic part) the most: you are talking about my "skills" as a writer. There are few things I take more serious interest in than how to do this better.

So thanks to you too, for your insights on how I fucked up: hopefully I won't nearly as often or as well in the future....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I personally consider, - "I am most certainly not repelled by the contemplation of either hetero- or homosexual activities. In fact, odd though it may seem, I rarely contemplate them at all" - to be an intimate detail of Jahlove's sexuality.

Then you have a radically different concept of what constitutes *intimate detail* from mine - and, dare I say, from that of most people.

But I guess that shouldn't be surprising since you also apparently believe that if someone doesn't find other folks' sexuality repugnant* (or even consider it much) then that person must be bisexual.


* And, since it the majority of respondents here are saying similar things, it doesn't seem unfair to suppose that this *repugnance* is, indeed, your own attitude; one which, in the western world at least, is becoming less and less that of a majority and is increasingly viewed as societally unacceptable and uncivilized.

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
First, I appreciate your owning up to miscommunicating, and celebrate any efforts you make toward expressing yourself clearly. In furthering clarity, I wonder if you could unpack the following:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes, I've already agreed that my assumption that my meaning was clear was mistaken: I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance". As the context made this obvious, it didn't occur to me until too late that the context was only clear in my own mind.

What confuses me here is that, in my own comments immediately preceding this post of yours, I reacted to differences between your posts and your claimed intentions in those posts. I didn’t mention specific content; I only discussed posting style.

As a result, I don’t understand your next sentence, which strikes me as a complete non sequitur: “I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance".”

First, I’m not aware of any evidence that anybody is born “hardwired” to find anybody or anything “icky.” Infants have to be taught not to handle their own feces because they don’t find feces “icky.” If we’re not “hardwired” for something as basic as that, how likely are we to be hardwired for other “icky”reactions? If such evidence exists, you’d help your case by producing it. If you can’t locate such evidence, you might want to reconsider your position.

Second, what has this sentence to do with your inability to match your intended meaning with your actual posts?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I claim that the reaction to my contextual addressing of homosexuality and racism as inevitable elements in society is proof that I can't talk about (observe) these obvious factual demographics without my being labelled by some (in this case most) people as part and parcel the same thing of which I speak: in other words, the reaction shows that in their view, I am merely describing myself when I observe bigotry or prejudice or outraged feelings (of "repugnance" even).

Say what?

1. What is “contextual addressing?”
2. How is others’ disagreeing with you about the “inevitability” of racism and homophobia “proof” that you can’t bring these up without being branded racist and homophobic? Are you now claiming that your wording of certain posts is NOT what prompted people to so label you?
3. I have no idea what “obvious factual demographics” are. What “facts” are you referring to? What evidence can you show that they ARE facts? We are, of course, entitled to form our own opinions. Nobody is entitled to transform opinions into their own facts. As for “observing” what goes on around us, that just doesn’t work as any sort of norm OR fact; what goes on in rural Manitoba may bear zero resemblance to what goes in Manhattan.

I’m sorry to subject you to these unpleasant scrutinies; after repeated encounters on various threads, I have unfortunately come to wonder about your sincerity. Ramblings about “obvious factual demographics” which are not obvious, may not be factual and probably aren’t demographics do little to bolster my confidence.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
hardwired homosexuals

There's that odd phrase again.

I am wondering if it refers to some electronic sex doll.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
First, I appreciate your owning up to miscommunicating, and celebrate any efforts you make toward expressing yourself clearly. In furthering clarity, I wonder if you could unpack the following:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes, I've already agreed that my assumption that my meaning was clear was mistaken: I was talking about a specific section of heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e. the "hardwired" section who view each other as "icky": the ones who are biologically incapable of contemplating such sexual union without "repugnance". As the context made this obvious, it didn't occur to me until too late that the context was only clear in my own mind.

What confuses me here is that, in my own comments immediately preceding this post of yours, I reacted to differences between your posts and your claimed intentions in those posts. I didn’t mention specific content; I only discussed posting style.
Yes, I see that, now. But when I wrote that I was still very much thinking of the content and context: right after that I was with you in discussing "my style" of writing. So I had both topics going on at the same time, and the writing critique took precedence later for me than it did for you.

quote:
...


First, I’m not aware of any evidence that anybody is born “hardwired” to find anybody or anything “icky.”

A poor turn of phrase on my part perhaps. "Hardwired" has to include attraction and its opposite; call it something besides "icky" or "repugnant", then, I don't care.

quote:
Infants have to be taught not to handle their own feces because they don’t find feces “icky.” If we’re not “hardwired” for something as basic as that, how likely are we to be hardwired for other “icky”reactions?

Now you've fallen for the very thing you accused me of doing: "Infants ... don't find feces 'icky'". ALL infants? Certainly not. I have nine children, and yes, MOST of them were not particularly bothered by the "ickyness" of poop as infants. But without any input on our part, by the time they were ready to toilet train, MOST of them really disliked that sensation and came to regard it as "icky": exceptions to that occurred also.

quote:
If such evidence exists, you’d help your case by producing it. If you can’t locate such evidence, you might want to reconsider your position.

Atavism exists. What else is it besides some form of "genetic memory"? It is therefore biological. Any powerful, instinctual reaction is "hardwired"; it cannot be denied, only embraced or resisted, as expediency seems to require.


quote:
...
1. What is “contextual addressing?”

Redundant, for one thing. Not a phrase I intend to use again! I meant that my verbiage on a subject does not de facto associate me with the subject being addressed: respondents who link me to the subject are avoiding or missing the context: I am not the context.
quote:

2. How is others’ disagreeing with you about the “inevitability” of racism and homophobia “proof” that you can’t bring these up without being branded racist and homophobic?

Did somebody argue that racism and homophobia are NOT inevitable in our midst? I didn't see that. The argument turned upon my failure to use proper qualifying words: thus I annoyed those who assumed that I must be making a tar brush assertion about ALL heterosexuals or ALL homosexuals or ALL racists.

quote:
...
3. I have no idea what “obvious factual demographics” are. What “facts” are you referring to?

First of all, the separation of homosexuals from heterosexuals: then within each we have those who are not repelled by the imagining or viewing of the opposite kinds of sexual acts: maybe even to the point of putting themselves into hypothetical participation: yet nobody would think by so doing that these individuals are somehow other than how they ID themselves sexuality-wise. Within both groups we have an unknown percentage who, if the truth could be exposed, are racists, and (or) homophobic or heterophobic: we also have the bisexuals who, again if the truth could be exposed, are a separate group: so we actually have THREE major demographics of sexuality: and all three share racism in common. There is nothing unfactual about what I have just said: but knowing the actual statistical size of these known demographics is the problematic part. In the original context of my pointing this out, I intend to show that a minority point of view (e.g. "gay marriage") ought not to ignore the existence of a prevailing point of view (e.g. "marriage is defined as man and woman"): because the prejudices and phobias of the majority are not to be ignored or flouted without very negative consequences: among which are the precedent set by allowing a minority to dictate to the majority vis-a-vis the meaning and defining of the legalese; and the disregard for their concern of a minority lifestyle being granted legal, protected "suspect class" status, even governmental approval and promotion in the face of popular disapproval.

quote:
...
I’m sorry to subject you to these unpleasant scrutinies; after repeated encounters on various threads, I have unfortunately come to wonder about your sincerity. Ramblings about “obvious factual demographics” which are not obvious, may not be factual and probably aren’t demographics do little to bolster my confidence.

Perhaps "demographics" is too specific a term? I don't think so: the term does not require hard lines and percentages to justify itself. We do know that sexuality is expressed by groups of like-minded people; who do not share other kinds of sexuality. And it is not even arguable, that heterosexuality is publicly expressed by 90%+ of the population....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Merlin, I'm bowing out, and it's only fair to explain why.

At work, my staff and I must report our activities every month with every client we serve (54 at last count) to the agencies who fund us. No report, no money; no money, no pay, so we churn out some 200+ pages of reports every month.

Four of my six staff have English as a second language; the remaining two, while native speakers, have trouble producing coherent English (poorly educated, learning differences, who knows).

As one result, many of my work hours each month get spent translating very murky prose into reports that are (A) true, (B) precise and detailed, and (C) easily understandable by some bureaucrat who has never set foot in our agency or met any of my clients (or staff, or me). It’s not my favorite activity. I like discussing ideas. I don’t much like trying to work out, line by tedious line, what somebody's idea IS.

Your latest post appears to acknowledge your own miscommunication, but also continues it. I don’t know if this means you’re unwilling to change or unable to, and at this point, I no longer care to find out. Here are a few examples of phrases from your latest post that obscure rather than communicate meaning:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
. . . and the writing critique took precedence later for me than it did for you.

Huh? Do you know what it means for something to “take precedence?” That’s a question for you to pose to yourself, BTW; there’s no need to write me an answer, because I won’t be returning here to read it.

Then this:

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Hardwired" has to include attraction and its opposite; call it something besides "icky" or "repugnant", then, I don't care.

Again, huh? What dictionary are you using? What meaningful connection exists between the term “hardwired” and ANY of the other words in that sentence? Do you actually know what “hardwired” means, either literally or metaphorically?

Then there’s this (and yes, I used a generalization):

quote:
Infants have to be taught not to handle their own feces because they don’t find feces “icky.” If we’re not “hardwired” for something as basic as that, how likely are we to be hardwired for other “icky”reactions?

Now you've fallen for the very thing you accused me of doing: "Infants ... don't find feces 'icky'". ALL infants? Certainly not. I have nine children, and yes, MOST of them were not particularly bothered by the "ickyness" of poop as infants. But without any input on our part, by the time they were ready to toilet train, MOST of them really disliked that sensation and came to regard it as "icky": exceptions to that occurred also.[/qb][/QUOTE]

The point of my post was that typical people seem to learn many of their reactions, rather than being born with built-in ones. I submit that your experience with your own children, briefly described above, supports this view: most were not bothered by poop as infants, but by potty-training time, they were. In other words, this was a learned reaction. You claim to have had no input into this; I claim that’s nonsense. Did you and other caretakers carefully control your vocal intonations and facial expressions at every diaper change, to avoid communicating your own reactions to poop? Rubbish; it’s from their carers that kids learn to consider poop icky.

And this:

quote:
If such evidence exists, you’d help your case by producing it. If you can’t locate such evidence, you might want to reconsider your position.

Atavism exists. What else is it besides some form of "genetic memory"? It is therefore biological. Any powerful, instinctual reaction is "hardwired"; it cannot be denied, only embraced or resisted, as expediency seems to require.[/qb][/QUOTE]

With respect, how does “atavism exists” respond to advice from me that you produce evidence for your claims? Do you know what an “atavism” is – a throwback to an earlier biological type or form?

Then you go on to claim that atavism is a form of genetic memory (whatever that means), and is therefore biological, and then leap to the conclusion that any powerful instinctual reaction is “hardwired.”

Well, I’ll go for instincts being metaphorically “hardwired.” But how much human behavior, atavistic or not, is actually instinctual?

Beyond that, I still can’t work out how those statements connect to my call for evidence. An assertion is not evidence.

Personally, I enjoy reading well-written and clearly-thought-out posts (of which there are many) on the Ship. If I have something to say in response, I try to address points raised by the other poster, and I try to make my own thoughts clear. I think most of us make similar efforts (and obviously, most occasionally miss the mark).

About your efforts, I’m not sure. I’m not sure you’re sincere, and I’m not sure you actually have ideas worth exploring, because it’s so difficult figuring out what your ideas actually are. I only know that the payoff, for me, of figuring out what the heck you’re trying to say is not worth the work and time I’m putting in, so I don't plan to continue.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sorry; I not only screwed up the coding, I failed to notice it in time to edit.

[ 17. November 2010, 23:43: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
You won't see this if you don't return: but I think this thread is done. Done IN as well. I take what you've said vis-a-vis my writing "style" seriously. I think there's a real communication gap here. And since you're "bowing out" I won't bother with more than an admission to this gap being partly caused by my use of some words. But it seems that also, you have too pedantic and demanding an understanding of the words that I use that cause you trouble. Perhaps you need to read with more intuition: people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it seems that also, you have too pedantic and demanding an understanding of the words that I use that cause you trouble. Perhaps you need to read with more intuition: people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....

I'd dispute this, since I've never seen a thread anywhere go on for nearly 500 posts with people still having problems understanding what the OP means.

I think it's a testament to how strongly people have tried to understand you that they didn't leave the thread a month or more ago.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You won't see this if you don't return: but I think this thread is done. Done IN as well. I take what you've said vis-a-vis my writing "style" seriously. I think there's a real communication gap here. And since you're "bowing out" I won't bother with more than an admission to this gap being partly caused by my use of some words. But it seems that also, you have too pedantic and demanding an understanding of the words that I use that cause you trouble. Perhaps you need to read with more intuition: people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....

Or maybe everyone's head is done in trying to communicate that every piece of backpedalling you try, Merlin, only digs the rut deeper.

You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* - you'd get more of a pass on this if the words that you write were not dealing with such highly-contentious material; since they are, it behooves you to to be extremely precise.

All I really wanted to say was to second Apocalypso's point about parental input to *poo=icky* - kids don't naturally feel that; some never grow out of it (I could put up links to support this assertion but they are not ARRRRRGH-safe [Biased] )

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* -

Could be none of the above, could just be that Merlin is using words in a way nobody understands to express the thoughts he later says he meant. If everybody understands you except one person, you can blame the audience. If nobody understands you, you have to blame the speaker.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
...

You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis.

This is what I am talking about. You just said it a different (better) way. I've noticed that the more educated the responder the less likely s/he is to be lenient when there is actually a perceived difference of opinion. If s/he agrees with the sentiment of the post in question then sure, common understanding is extended. If on the other hand s/he disagrees with the perspectives or assertions of said-post, then the author of it gets skewered over misuse of the language: this is called in scripture, "making an offense out of a word" (Isa 29:21). You can "win", if faulting the way a point is made deflects the debate away from the context and intent.

quote:
You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* - you'd get more of a pass on this if the words that you write were not dealing with such highly-contentious material; since they are, it behooves you to to be extremely precise.

Your advice is good. But am I to be faulted for suspecting that cheap, rhetorical gimmickry is being resorted to in order to disengage from the discussion and at the same time score in some one-upmanship game?
quote:

All I really wanted to say was to second Apocalypso's point about parental input to *poo=icky* - kids don't naturally feel that; some never grow out of it ...

I agree; except that you, too, have said "kids don't"; and the reality is some/most kids don't: otherwise, you'll have to tell me what some of my children are if they are not kids; because definitely, long before they can talk, they are sending communication that they hate being clasped by a messy diaper/nappie.

And the same atavistic revulsion could be said regarding sexual parallels. And the point is? MOST heterosexuals do not find homosexuality appealing, let alone a topic that they ruminate over casually throughout the day. The same is true for MOST homosexuals in reverse. In between we find individuals who find ALL sexual topics interesting and they imagine all sorts of sexual encounters and situations: rather like the kid who grew up and never did develop a distaste for poo....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* -

Could be none of the above, could just be that Merlin is using words in a way nobody understands to express the thoughts he later says he meant. If everybody understands you except one person, you can blame the audience. If nobody understands you, you have to blame the speaker.
As the problem with communicating only appeared near the end of this thread, I imagine that "nobody understands" is a disingenuous dismissal. Are you bowing out because you don't understand, or because you can claim that the fault is the way I write, ergo you do not have to address the points being made?

This week I was told, inside and outside of court, by the defense and members of the media who interviewed me, that I am articulate. Apparently the only trouble I have using the language is when I take advantage of the luxury of time that writing offers, and compose my sentences with even greater care! (that's said with sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell....)

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As the problem with communicating only appeared near the end of this thread

You only recognized it then. Most of the thread was us taking your words at face value, not realizing that was a silly thing to do here.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:


If s/he agrees with the sentiment of the post in question then sure, common understanding is extended. If on the other hand s/he disagrees with the perspectives or assertions of said-post, then the author of it gets skewered over misuse of the language: this is called in scripture, "making an offense out of a word" (Isa 29:21). You can "win", if faulting the way a point is made deflects the debate away from the context and intent.


Not quite what I meant - not that you'd be given a *pass* on sloppy construction if I agree with you and v.v. rather that, since the issue IS highly-contentious, arguments need to be well-crafted and unambiguous; that is to say, there is no need to apply close analysis to posts on say, a Heaven or All Saints-style thread - it IS appropriate wrt Purgatory and DH posts. You might note that plenty of people disagree with Ingo's arguments but he is a model of clarity.

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
You say the problem is caused by your use of *some words* - good - you're getting somewhere with them ole Qualifiers innit. However, I would guess the majority of your interlocutors on this (and other) threads, are, not so much *pedantic and demanding* as very practised at close textual analysis. You say also that *people don't often use English in so strict a manner (especially on the Net) as to cause words to fall into line one way only....* -

Could be none of the above, could just be that Merlin is using words in a way nobody understands to express the thoughts he later says he meant. If everybody understands you except one person, you can blame the audience. If nobody understands you, you have to blame the speaker.
As the problem with communicating only appeared near the end of this thread, I imagine that "nobody understands" is a disingenuous dismissal. Are you bowing out because you don't understand, or because you can claim that the fault is the way I write, ergo you do not have to address the points being made?

This week I was told, inside and outside of court, by the defense and members of the media who interviewed me, that I am articulate. Apparently the only trouble I have using the language is when I take advantage of the luxury of time that writing offers, and compose my sentences with even greater care! (that's said with sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell....)

Your ability to express your views is not disputed. The problems are rooted in the content of your posts, which is often offensive, changing your own position whenever you are countered and altering your target according to the arguments presented to you.

Cross-examination in court, making statements to the press, participation in discussion and debating are very different.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
The three of you who posted since yesterday don't even agree: I am getting my points across; and I never was making a point, because my words are not to be taken at face value; and this issue is contentious and clearly beyond my capacity to write clearly on it.

I declare this thread dead and nothing resolved; other than my determination to find some other way to discuss these contentious and clearly confusing issues other than on this forum. What a complete waste of time!

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Wrong. This thread is dead because because of posts like "Homosexuals like purple, heteros like green". Followed by the "clarifiation" that only SOME homo/heterosexuals like purple/green, but unsupported by any evidence other than assertion, even when asked repeatedly. That's not discussion, that's just listening to oneself type. 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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I declare this thread dead

Thanks be to God.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The three of you who posted since yesterday don't even agree: I am getting my points across; and I never was making a point, because my words are not to be taken at face value; and this issue is contentious and clearly beyond my capacity to write clearly on it.

Case in point: as written, this appears to mean that MtM believes he is getting his points across, not making a point, using words at other than face value and writing on an inssue beyond his capacity to write clearly. WHile some (many, I suspect) would agree, I think he is actualy trying to highlight the (contradictory) points of some of the others in this debate. There are ways of making this clear, but MtM has used none of them.

quote:

I declare this thread dead

Oh no you don't. Only a Hell Host can do that, and so far none of them has done so. You're free to ignore it, as are others, and when you and they do so, it will sink to the bottom of the page and (eventually) disappear.


quote:

[I declare] nothing resolved; other than my determination to find some other way to discuss these contentious and clearly confusing issues other than on this forum. What a complete waste of time!

Go indeed and discuss them elsewhere. But you'll find those discussions just as much a waste of time unless you find a forum where "words mean what I choose them to mean" (Alice in Wonderland), and not what everyone else means -- and it's the responsibility of the reader to intuit the "special" meaning of words and statements that, so far as anyone can tell from the text, have ordinary meanings and logical meanings.

John

[ 21. November 2010, 22:36: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
<snip> I declare this thread dead

Originally posted by John Holding:
Oh no you don't. Only a Hell Host can do that, and so far none of them has done so. You're free to ignore it, as are others, and when you and they do so, it will sink to the bottom of the page and (eventually) disappear.<snip>

Actually on this Board only a Dead Horses Host can do that .....

I had thought that this thread was dying some time ago - or at least was succumbing to terminal repetitude - but it has staggered on.

If it dies I shall offer up a heart-felt 'Thanks be to God', but it hasn't yet reached the stage where I feel euthanasia would be the better option.

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools