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   » I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ (Page 32)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
nearly all the early Church Fathers are dead.

OK, I need to know. Which ones aren't dead?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, I need to know. Which ones aren't dead?

Does Jesus count as an "early Church Father"?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Thirty-two pages in, and it turns out that the past three months of thwacking Russ with a clue bat is negligible compared to over a decade of infinitesimal progress. I'd make jokes about tectonic morality, but I realize that actual organized religions improve even slower.

Which is why they should be abandoned for the failures they are. Discard the twisted legacy of dogma and get on with actually loving your fellow humans - not because of any made-up rules or imaginary judgement, but because empathy and kindness really does make the world better for everybody.

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397

 - Posted      Profile for Patdys     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, I need to know. Which ones aren't dead?

Does Jesus count as an "early Church Father"?
I don't think he would align with the Church.

--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.

Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Thirty-two pages in, and it turns out that the past three months of thwacking Russ with a clue bat is negligible compared to over a decade of infinitesimal progress. I'd make jokes about tectonic morality, but I realize that actual organized religions improve even slower.

Which is why they should be abandoned for the failures they are. Discard the twisted legacy of dogma and get on with actually loving your fellow humans - not because of any made-up rules or imaginary judgement, but because empathy and kindness really does make the world better for everybody.

As accepting teh gayz signals the end of the world, anyway...

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
nearly all the early Church Fathers are dead.

OK, I need to know. Which ones aren't dead?
John Damascene is a Time Lord.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, I need to know. Which ones aren't dead?

Does Jesus count as an "early Church Father"?
I don't think he would align with the Church.
What Ambrose Bierce had to say on that (via Gutenberg.org, so public domain):

quote:
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din—
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"God keep you, stranger," I exclaimed. "You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too."
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied—his manner with disdain was spiced:
"What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ."

[Snigger]

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
nearly all the early Church Fathers are dead.

OK, I need to know. Which ones aren't dead?
Well, Arius seems to be alive and well. Or does he count?

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Was it James Kirkwood who said " The word 'love' is abused just as much as the word "God" is" ? Whover said it, I agree.

Sorry, but my life has panned out such that I have seen just as many declared atheists beat friends and family over the head with the word as I have seen ministers do the same. The one convenient thing about formalized religion is that at least you have some sort of agreed definition of what love looks like to point to when someone's behavior isn't matching up.

I agree we all as a species do do far too much talking about love than figuring out how to be loving, though.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
nearly all the early Church Fathers are dead.

OK, I need to know. Which ones aren't dead?
If they're dead shouldn't they be referred to as "the late early Church Fathers"? [Big Grin]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

I agree we all as a species do do far too much talking about love than figuring out how to be loving, though.

Word.

Oh damn

[ 11. November 2015, 17:39: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
here are some common group labels that don't actually apply to the majority of homosexuals. Do I really need to join the dots for you?
  • Homosexuals are "unnatural", also add in there words like "pervert", "defective", "malfunctioning" ...
  • Homosexuals are promiscuous (or, significantly more promiscuous than heterosexuals)
  • Homosexual acts are not mutually consensual - most often a claim made implicitly by statements suggesting similarity to sexual activity where one side didn't/is unable to consent - rape, paedophilia or bestiality, for example.
  • Homosexuals are intent on "converting" our sons and daughters into homosexuals
The list could go on. But, if we start by eliminating such prejudice the world would be a much better place for everyone.
  • "unnatural" - no, not a prejudice - this is a view about what homosexuality is
  • "Homosexuals are promiscuous" - yes, that's a prejudice
  • "not mutually consensual" - believing that a homosexual is thereby probably a rapist (or is otherwise likely to be indifferent to the consent of others) is a prejudice; using bestiality / paedophilia as a counter-example to argue against dubious statements about sexual desire or sexual orientation is not prejudice
  • "intent on "converting" our sons and daughters" - attributing that intention to homosexuals in general is a prejudice; many seek for no more than to get on with their own lives in peace and quiet. Arguing that such an intention is morally wrong is not a prejudice.

Yes, you do need to spell things out for me. Because I don't believe that the point that Golden Key is making here is logically sound.

Agree with you that saying that homosexuality is bad because homosexuals are promiscuous rapists bent on corrupting the young is prejudiced.

Being against promiscuity, rape and corrupting the young seems perfectly reasonable. It's just not an argument against homosexuality as such.

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm wondering if maybe, somewhere along the line, you've known people who were confused? Or maybe even experimented, and now regret it?

I know I can get pretty upset on the behalf of friends who've been through difficult times, of any sort.

I see the genuine kindness of your intention here, and thank you for it.

I think you're talking about the tension between the needs of the "born-gay-but-don't-know-it-yet", who need to be told that these things happen and it's nothing they've done wrong and it's not the worst thing in the world. And the needs of the "not-born-gay-but-tempted" who need to be told that this is not a good path to choose.

If you're going as far as acknowledging that some such tension exists (even if you wouldn't use quite the same words) and that there's a need for nuance, you're a long way ahead of the pack...

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... the needs of the "not-born-gay-but-tempted" who need to be told that this is not a good path to choose.

These would be bi-sexual people who happen to be attracted to a same sex person?

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

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Now I am going to ask a question. Russ, why am I defective? Why not just different?

Do you think colour-blind people are defective ? Do you think short-sighted people are defective ?
Do you think anorexic people are defective ?
Do you think autistic people are defective ?
Do you think kleptomaniacs, nymphomaniacs and every other kind of maniacs are defective ?

Many are the impairments that afflict human beings. I don't tend to use the term "defective people", especially not of those whose rationality is intact.

I am saying that such impairments do not cease to be impairments if the people involved happen to decide that they're quite happy as they are. That it is possible for reasonable people to talk objectively about healthy and fully-functioning human beings without either playing God or falling into the mire of subjective reality.

"That's just a different way of being human" is a cop-out, the sort of philosophical dead-end which is constructed to be immune to evidence against. That could be applied to any of the "harmless" impairments you can think of.

Having freckles and green eyes doesn't impair you in any way that I can see. But I could be wrong.

Lacking the biological desire to mate seems to me to count as an impairment. Not to be confused with a conscious choice to sacrifice something good for a higher good.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm just repeating the same words. Don't know how else to put it...

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...I think you're talking about the tension between the needs of the "born-gay-but-don't-know-it-yet", who need to be told that these things happen and it's nothing they've done wrong and it's not the worst thing in the world. And the needs of the "not-born-gay-but-tempted" who need to be told that this is not a good path to choose.

If you're going as far as acknowledging that some such tension exists (even if you wouldn't use quite the same words) and that there's a need for nuance, you're a long way ahead of the pack...

You still haven't presented any sound arguments as to why this tension, if it even exists, should be the business of other people or of the state. What goal is accomplished by having the state label people as straight, gay or questioning, and treat each group differently? Do you want your government to e.g. run commercials promoting heterosexuality* or force people into treatment** to get them back on the straight and narrow?

(Oh, and try to avoid mentioning the fucking circle of life, because The Lion King, much as my cats enjoy it, is not an argument.)

-----
*because, apparently, there's no such thing as too much heteronormativity
**which we know doesn't work

--------------------
"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
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Having freckles and green eyes doesn't impair you in any way that I can see. But I could be wrong.

Sure it does! It "impairs" people from having natural* eye color and skin tone.


--------------------
*If homosexuality can occur in nature without human artifice, there's no reason certain eye or skin colorations can't be defined as "unnatural" too.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
"That's just a different way of being human" is a cop-out, the sort of philosophical dead-end which is constructed to be immune to evidence against.

WHAT EVIDENCE? You have produced NO evidence. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nichts.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Lacking the biological desire to mate seems to me to count as an impairment. Not to be confused with a conscious choice to sacrifice something good for a higher good.

Gay people most emphatically do not lack the biological desire to mate. They DO lack the desire to mate with someone of the opposite sex. Many of them even adopt and raise children.

So once again, you can only justify this if having offspring is the single most important reason why you and your wife married. If you were to be widowed and remarry someone past child-bearing age, your argument for impairment would need some revision... If the creation of offspring from the loins of the couple is not the primary reason for marriage as an institution, then your entire line of reasoning is built on a false premise.

You’re going to find it hard to justify that premise biblically--the first marriage seems to have been formed simply because God saw it was not good for man to be alone. There isn’t anything about it being necessary because Adam wanted to have children.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
You’re going to find it hard to justify that premise biblically--the first marriage seems to have been formed simply because God saw it was not good for man to be alone. There isn’t anything about it being necessary because Adam wanted to have children.

On the other hand it may be going a bit further than can be justified to claim Adam and Eve were married.

quote:
My question here is far more basic: Where, exactly, does this story ever say that Adam and Eve were married?

I don’t see that it does.

They certainly did not get married in anything like the way that Tim and Anne Evans got married. Or in anything like the way the Slacktivixen and I got married. They had no clergy around to conduct such a ceremony (unless we want to have Melchizedek do the honors), and no one to serve as witnesses. They never seem to have exchanged vows. The strongest claim we can make for their marriage, based on the story itself, is that it was a kind of common-law arrangement.

In the story itself, Adam and Eve simply shacked up together. Although, of course, shacks — like clothing — had not yet been invented. Neither had marriage, for that matter. All of these things — shacks, clothing, clergy, marriage, common law — are anachronisms we reflexively project back into the story. But none of them can be found there, and the story itself works hard to prevent us from expecting to find them in it.



--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well, Adam and Eve would have had no problem with the "forsaking all others" bit.

--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf

Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Eve: I'm sorry, but I think we should see other people.

Adam: Good luck with that!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Soror Magna:
quote:
Oh, and try to avoid mentioning the fucking circle of life, because The Lion King, much as my cats enjoy it, is not an argument.
If "The Lion King" were true to nature, the King probably had killed or driven off his baby-mama's earlier mate and killed the litter she had at the time.

Not "impaired" behavior for lions at all. Just not good Disney™ cinema.

[ 11. November 2015, 22:55: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
"unnatural" - no, not a prejudice - this is a view about what homosexuality is

Though, the use of "natural" or "it's obvious" language is fraught with difficulties. It wasn't that long ago that the consensus in Europe, and those nations settled by large numbers of Europeans, was that the "natural" state of Africans was as slaves and that it was obvious that they didn't have the same rights as "civilised Europeans". They could even produce arguments from Scripture and science that supported their position, arguments that are nonsense but were accepted then because they didn't challenge the accepted views of what is natural. There's far too many people who still think that.

Do you really want to use arguments that build on the same sort of basis of what you see as natural? If so you'll find common ground with the KKK or Britain First.

quote:
"not mutually consensual" - believing that a homosexual is thereby probably a rapist (or is otherwise likely to be indifferent to the consent of others) is a prejudice; using bestiality / paedophilia as a counter-example to argue against dubious statements about sexual desire or sexual orientation is not prejudice

What sort of dubious statements would result in using paedophilia as a counter example acceptable? The only way in which mentioning paedophilia could be justified is to say "homosexuality is nothing like paedophilia, the two are totally unrelated". In any other context, because there is no common ground, even a mention of paedophilia is to admit that you don't actually have a valid argument. It's a version of Godwin. When you reach that depth, when every basis for your position has been destroyed, resort to mentioning something truly vile. At that point you've lost the argument.

quote:
many [homosexuals] seek for no more than to get on with their own lives in peace and quiet.
Isn't that what everyone wants? No one really wants the details of their private lives discussed by all and sundry. Do you want us to discuss your relationship with your wife? Perhaps we could find excuses to say that it's not natural - maybe your wife is too old for children, perhaps you've been firing blanks and all that sex has been unnatural because you can't reproduce. I don't know anything about you or your private life, to be honest like everyone else I don't want to know, but since you seem so intent on discussing the private lives of others we should be.

quote:

Being against promiscuity, rape and corrupting the young seems perfectly reasonable. It's just not an argument against homosexuality as such.

So, why are you making it an argument against homosexuality? Why are you talking about young people who are "not sure" about their sexuality and protecting them against exposure to homosexuals?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  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 Russ:
I am saying that such impairments do not cease to be impairments if the people involved happen to decide that they're quite happy as they are. That it is possible for reasonable people to talk objectively about healthy and fully-functioning human beings without either playing God or falling into the mire of subjective reality.

Which just shows that you have no idea what an "impairment" actually is.

You should read up on modern thinking about disability, and then you'd grasp that something isn't an "impairment" unless you describe what it is you're trying to do. Being unable to use stairs is not an "impairment" in a location with no stairs. Being colour-blind is not an "impairment" when watching a black and white film. Being colour-blind is in fact an advantage when trying to detect people in camouflage. Being allergic to bee stings is not an "impairment" when in Antarctica.

I am quite happy to concede that being homosexual is an "impairment" when it comes to my ability to ejaculate sperm within reach of an egg. But to extrapolate that to a general label of my entire person as "impaired" is mindbogglingly stupid. Being homosexual does nothing to my capacity to develop meaningful relationships, to express love through sex, or to raise a child. Being homosexual is, objectively, about as much of an impairment to life as being tone-deaf.

You need to think far more carefully about your criteria for a "healthy and fully-functioning human being" because if not being able to enjoy procreating at a moment's notice is enough to knock you out, there aren't going to be a hell of a lot of people who make the grade.

EVERYONE'S got SOMETHING that constitutes an "impairment". My mother can't roll her tongue. Is she out because that part of her body isn't fully functioning? Or is she okay because you figure that being able to roll your tongue isn't important? If the latter, then why did tongues develop the ability to roll?

[ 12. November 2015, 01:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Soror Magna:
quote:
Oh, and try to avoid mentioning the fucking circle of life, because The Lion King, much as my cats enjoy it, is not an argument.
If "The Lion King" were true to nature, the King probably had killed or driven off his baby-mama's earlier mate and killed the litter she had at the time.

Not "impaired" behavior for lions at all. Just not good Disney™ cinema.

Ah, but Scar killed his brother Mufasa, drove his nephew Simba away, and tried to have cubs with Nala. And you're right, we don't know how Mufasa became king ... hmmmm ... but I digress in Hell. It just cracks me up every time Russ blathers on about the circle of life. Slugs eat shit. That's part of the circle of life too.

--------------------
"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
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It just cracks me up every time Russ blathers on about the circle of life. Slugs eat shit. That's part of the circle of life too.

And dung beetles make it into roly poly balls and push them around, annnnndddd

"Dung Beetles Dance on Poo for Celestial Navigation" (LiveScience).

[Cool]

--------------------
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
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473

 - Posted      Profile for Huia   Email Huia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Golden Key - that dung beetle info is fascinating, far more so than the hatefilled stuff Russ posts every time he hits the Add reply button.

Russ, I think the judgement and lack of understanding and you show towards other people is a far greater impairment than anything that you have labelled as such.

Huia

--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.

Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Well, Adam and Eve would have had no problem with the "forsaking all others" bit.

And then there was Lilith... (About.com)
[Cool]

--------------------
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
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I am saying that such impairments do not cease to be impairments if the people involved happen to decide that they're quite happy as they are. That it is possible for reasonable people to talk objectively about healthy and fully-functioning human beings without either playing God or falling into the mire of subjective reality.

Which just shows that you have no idea what an "impairment" actually is.


Probably not, mostly because Russ seems to be as "impaired" as anyone, principally in not being able to recognise his own impairments. He really does live in a world of his own.

[ 12. November 2015, 11:36: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

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

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
On the other hand it may be going a bit further than can be justified to claim Adam and Eve were married.

Since I usually think of Adam and Eve as Mythical Archetypes, the state of their marriage doesn’t bother me as much as it seems to bother the people in your link. The third chapter of Genesis does refer to Eve as Adam’s wife, though, so I think it’s fair to assume that the recorder of the ancient stories thought of them as married.

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Alright so I've had my rant and calmed down. Now I am going to ask a question. Russ ... Why can't you just call it different?

[Overused]

cut to save pixels, but well put, every word

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I am saying that such impairments do not cease to be impairments if the people involved happen to decide that they're quite happy as they are. That it is possible for reasonable people to talk objectively about healthy and fully-functioning human beings without either playing God or falling into the mire of subjective reality.

Still less do traits become impairments if people who are not involved happen to decide that the people who have them ought not to be quite happy as they are.

It is objectively speaking evidence against a trait counting as impairment if the person concerned is perfectly happy as they are. The opinion of the person concerned is no more likely to be subjective than that of an outsider and possibly less. The person concerned has direct experience, and the outsider doesn't.

quote:
Lacking the biological desire to mate seems to me to count as an impairment.
How things seem to you is pretty much the definition of subjective reality.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In terms of "restricting the behaviour of gay people" I don't want to do that. Beyond the minimum necessary to:
- avoid misleading the vulnerable (which is the point you're addressing here)

Just what is it exactly that is being said on the affirming/accepting side that you think is misleading?

We've got the suggestion that homosexuality is not "as good" as heterosexuality, but when asked, the only thing that you've identified as less good about it is the fertility thing. You haven't disputed that homosexuality is just as good for loving and fulfilling relationships, for an enjoyable sex life, for supportive partnerships, or for forming good parenting teams. The only way in which it is inferior is that if you are gay, in a gay relationship, you won't have children with your partner who are the biological offspring of both of you.

There might be people to whom that matters. But I can't see that they are very likely to be "misled". Everyone agrees that gay sex is not as procreative as straight sex. No one is trying to conceal or gloss over that fact. Even the most "confused" and "vulnerable" bisexual has this much information at least. What precisely is the harm you are trying to avoid here?

quote:
- be discrete (with just an ordinary everyday politeness in respect of what others find disgusting)
Yes, you've said that - discreet to the extent of being expected or forced to lie about your most important and loving relationship if people find the mere fact that you have a same-sex partner "disgusting".

That is not a "minimal" restriction of rights. That is persecution.

quote:
- not obstruct research into possible causes and cure
The first of these is a red herring. No one here is opposing proper scientific research about sexuality being conducted in a spirit of genuine enquiry.

The second is ... concerning. Do you really want to associate yourself with the shameful history of attempted "cures" for homosexuality?

quote:
- not offend those with a "higher" view of sacraments than mine by taking in vain the name of one of the sacraments of the Christian religion.
That makes no sense. What is a "high" view of the sacraments in this case? That the sacraments, including marriage, are visible signs which, by God's certain promise to his Church, assuredly and effectively convey the grace which they symbolise? Someone could well believe that and also think that the sacrament of marriage is available to same-sex couples. Or that a sacramental marriage is possibly male/female only, but that the civil law should recognise same-sex marriages even if the Church does not. Or they could be a homophobe. There is no necessary connection between a sacramental view, and an anti-gay one. Indeed, the common perception in my church (CofE) is that some of the most gay-affirming Christians also strongly emphasise the sacraments, and some of the most vitriolic and judgmental anti-gay voices are from traditions which give them little attention.

Do you extend the same rule to those remarried after a divorce? One of the most sacramental churches considers such marriages to be invalid, not truly marriages at all. By your principles, shouldn't you be arguing a moral duty on these people not to "take in vain" the language of marriage, and a political duty on the state to forbid them the use of such language in the legal sphere? Or is it only the gays whose use of marriage terminology is so odious to you?

The narrow-mindedness in limiting your concern to sacramentalists on the one hand, and gays on the other, and is rather revealing. You are thinking about the sensibilities of people like yourself, and utterly disregarding the offence you are causing to people different from you. That is not a position I feel inclined to respect.

quote:
Yes, gay people exist, and are human beings worthy of equal moral and legal consideration with everyone else.

But on my understanding of the facts, their defect - their malfunctioning sex-drive - is not of equal worth with the normal healthy sex-drive of which it is a perversion, and so there is no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical.

Again, why is it not of equal worth? You've only shown one point of inequality, which is to do with fertility. And I don't think that you really see that as a morally relevant consideration when it comes to the social recognition of relationships. Or at least, I surmise from the lack of enthusiasm for forbidding the recognition of the marriages for people known to be infertile, or who have had vasectomies, or are getting on a bit in years, or who simply don't want children. There are religious traditions which see at least some of those situations as possible defects of intention, but adherents of those traditions seem quite comfortable with the secular law taking a different line, and not in the least offended by people in those categories using the language of marriage.

So I don't think that the infertility of gay partnerships suffices to justify different legal treatment. I don't think you do either. So what is it about them that makes them so unhealthy that they don't get to have the same rights and recognition that you or I do?

quote:
Maybe you're seeing homosexuals as a different sort of people ? Rather than as the normal sort of people but with a particular condition ?
It actually took me a long time to work out what you mean here. It seemed at first to be about the clumsiest and least effective ad hominem imaginable. But then I sussed it. You think that because I'm not thinking of gay people as a broken version of "the normal sort of people" (that is, as people who were meant to be straight) then I must therefore be seeing them as radically different in nature to me? That if they aren't perverts then they must be aliens?

No.

Look, I'm straight. It would be beyond stupid of me to claim any special insight into the nature of gay people. Particularly when we have some real live gay people on this very thread who happen to be highly articulate and self-aware. Listen to them, not to me, and for Christ's sake not to your own imaginings, on what it's like to be gay.

But I think the reason why it's worth listening to them, why I think there's a chance of them communicating something which will give at least an insight into their experience, is that we have humanity in common. We are drawing on the same mix of feelings. We aren't different species - we're the same in nature, but with different personal experiences. There really is no dichotomy between casting gays as defective "normal" people and seeing them as fundamentally abnormal. Both are rather stupid errors. Better to see them as people not unlike me, but who know better than I do what it's like to have certain feelings and to be treated in certain ways.

Therefore I think it is useful to ask "how would I feel about this if I were gay", but not as a substitute for hearing how (some) gay people actually do feel about it. I think that your viewpoint would be considerably improved if you could bring yourself to do either, but I can't claim to be optimistic.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

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


- be discrete (with just an ordinary everyday politeness in respect of what others find disgusting)...

... I'm not looking to oppress anyone...


So be honest: if a man in a casual conversation mentions that he lets his husband do most of the gardening, or that he was in the hospital, or worked for a particular company, what about that do you find disgusting?

Why?

How does that make any more of a statement about their sexual activity than if he had referred to his wife instead? It doesn't make any reference at all to sexual activity. In fact, as is not uncommon with heterosexual couples (especially older ones), they might not even engage in any sort of regular sexual activities. Why do you make any assumptions at all about what they do?

If you find the mere mention that someone is part of a same-sex couple to be disgusting because of the fantasies you have about their sex life, THE PROBLEM IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THEM, not because they failed to hide the gender of their spouse.


Expecting others to hide the gender of their spouse in ordinary conversation IS oppressing them - it is forcing them to jump through linguistic hoops and/or tell lies about important parts of their life because YOU can't handle reality.

The solution isn't to force others to speak differently, but for you to change your thought patterns.

If you get disgusted from thinking about the sexual activity of others as often as you have mentioned it on this thread, you must really enjoy those thoughts, however disgusting you claim they are to you. Because otherwise you wouldn't think about it nearly as much as you appear to.

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
You keep presenting ideas to Russ as if he is a reasonable, thinking being, driven by a desire for truth. This is erroneous, as clearly demonstrated by [checks] thirty two pages of clue-clubbing.

Admit it: the pulped logic exposed before us can only be the intentionally-ignorant justifications of a bigot. The adjacent tone might imply that he doesn't like being considered a bigot, but that should not give you hope. Because there appears to be a great deal of reality that Russ doesn't like accepting. And fourteen years has yielded painfully little progress.

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The adjacent tone might imply that he doesn't like being considered a bigot, but that should not give you hope.

Exactly.

This is what drove me to call him and his kind to hell. Open bigotry is what it is. Horrible, but as obvious and as easy to step around as dog shit.

But Russ wants to be seen as a kind, caring person. He hides his shit in the leaves [Mad]

At least he's stopped signing off his posts 'best wishes' - maybe that's a start? [Roll Eyes]

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

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I've just had a look at Russ's posting history. His last fifty posts have all been on this thread (and that only covers about half of this thread).

While he hasn't posted for a day or so, he definitely needs to broaden his diet, because this makes him appear to be obsessed by homosexuality.

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

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  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 RooK:
You keep presenting ideas to Russ as if he is a reasonable, thinking being, driven by a desire for truth. This is erroneous, as clearly demonstrated by [checks] thirty two pages of clue-clubbing.

Shh. The only reason to keep the thread going is because the quality of some of the ideas being presented is so excellent.

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

At least he's stopped signing off his posts 'best wishes' - maybe that's a start? [Roll Eyes]

Only if you haven't noticed his sig.

quote:
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Inspired trolling or massively ironic?

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

At least he's stopped signing off his posts 'best wishes' - maybe that's a start? [Roll Eyes]

Only if you haven't noticed his sig.

quote:
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Inspired trolling or massively ironic?

Are those mutually exclusive?

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Should've been massively and unintentionally ironic.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Boogie:

At least he's stopped signing off his posts 'best wishes' - maybe that's a start? [Roll Eyes]

Only if you haven't noticed his sig.

quote:
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas


No - I hadn't noticed his sig.

Words fail me!!

What part of "everyone" does he not understand?

Wrong ideas? For sure!

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

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478

 - Posted      Profile for Organ Builder   Email Organ Builder   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sometimes I wonder if he and Pam have a lot in common.

She doesn’t like sex, but it’s the only thing the song is about.

(Not really safe for some workplaces, but this IS Hell. Be discreet).

--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson

Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I agree with RooK that there is no point in engaging with Russ in rational dialogue, as he is clearly beyond it, as many bigots are. But I think it's useful as an anatomy of bigotry, and an illustration of the paucity of arguments that they have, well, 'paucity' is an exaggeration.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There's certainly no point in discussing anything with Russ, his head is too far up his ass.

Some points from one who has lived with attempts to implement Russ theories. Not that reality will change what he calls a mind.

He's gone from saying all gays are bad to only the indecisive are bad. At no point have we seen him apologize for abusing gay people who he know things are ok. Not even a whoops.

I know a number of people who lived through "encouraging them to be straight". It has almost always been a total disaster; ending up with men married to women but seeking gay sex in highway rest stops, or being abused by "cured gays" leading the groups. The psychologists will kick out anyone who tries to impose this sort of cure because it's proved to both ineffective and very harmful.

As for his theory that gas should be discreet, it's obvious why. Those questioning gays he wants to force to be heterosexual are going to see openly gay people being happy with their lives and knowing how unhappy they are with their lot. Coming out as openly gay has been hugely successful in proving that a gay life can be happy and successful. No wonder Russ doesn't want that seen by those he's trying to impose his lies on.

I do hope he dies soon. And if one or more of his kids are gay, I do hope they escape.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for his theory that gas should be discreet, it's obvious why.

The stink coming from Russ is anything but discreet.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Because he's stayed with this thread as long as he has, my hope is that Russ will eventually change his theology/thinking. Some of us started out with his warped theology and God mercifully showed us the error of our ways and His great love for all.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for his theory that gas should be discreet, it's obvious why.

The stink coming from Russ is anything but discreet.
[Big Grin]

--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf

Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Having freckles and green eyes doesn't impair you in any way that I can see. But I could be wrong. ...

Of course you're wrong. The vast majority of human beings have brown eyes, black hair, and darker skin, so green eyes and freckles are obviously abnormal, deviant, and defective. Being unable to produce the proper amount of melanin increases the risk of skin cancer, which is most definitely an impairment. It's cruel and immoral for gingers to have children who will also be crippled by gingerality, so gingers should not be allowed to marry each other. They should only be allowed to marry someone with the proper dominant genes, so that the defect of gingerality can be reduced and eventually eliminated.

--------------------
"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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38 
 
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