How Can George Bush Represent the People if.......

[Phi for All]

What? That's grandma talk.

 

Clearly the generalised lack of griping from people who lost legs has nothing to do with whether or not we should be able to complain about matters that are orders of magnitude less severe.

 

An annoyance is trivial - comparing it to a tragedy does not compute.

I'm sorry that stating my personal view on whining and complaining about the petty stuff annoys you so much. I'm sure many people find you annoying, but I don't look at it like that.

 

My statement was meant to indicate that when people are "taken somewhere and treated" for being merely annoying, then something trivial can easily turn into tragedy. I had hoped to give jordan's observations a different perspective.

[Sayonara]

I'm sorry that stating my personal view on whining and complaining about the petty stuff annoys you so much.

Good. God, you're so annoying*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* actual content of post may not be true.

[Phi for All]

That's wasn't what I[/i'] suggested (though I'm not saying it's a bad thing either). It's what society mandakes to remain stable and functioning.

Note that I used similar but different names for the suggestions that weren't yours. And society needs to constantly police itself to make sure they aren't making laws and taking people away for treatment just because they don't fit somebody's idea of what should be normal for everybody.

 

 

I was just checking because we have bold and italic[/i'] tags for emphasis. Caps are usualy reserved for screaming.

Old, bad habit I've fallen into. Bolded words never look as emphasized to me on paper as they do on the screen. You are right and I will start using caps to scream, bold to emphasize. I only use italics for titles and foreign words, though.

 

 

True, but again, I wasn't implying anything needed to be done.

It's that there are certain people you see walking down the street and you say they should be taken somwhere[/b'] to be treated by a professional.

See' date=' [b']this is where I got the impression you were implying that something needed to be done. If I took it the wrong way, I apologize.

[Phi for All]

Good. God, you're [i']so annoying[/i]

HEY! I said italics for titles and foreign words only! If you don't stop being so ennuyant*, you will be taken somewhere and treated by professionals!

 

 

 

 

 

*French for "annoying".

[jordan]

See, this[/b'] is where I got the impression you were implying that something needed to be done. If I took it the wrong way, I apologize.

I was hoping that was cleared up by my saying that this was only a quastion I couldn't answer myself, not an arguement. I thought that would imply I didn't feel this way. Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

 

So, we've learned recently:

 

1) Phi now has embraced the bold and italics tags, reserving caps for when he's angry which...

2) We learned doesn't happen because he can't get annoyed but...

3) Phi might possibly be considered annoying himself though...

4) Sayo might also be considered annoying while...

5) Jordan has problems maintaining consistency in the spelling of his name and asks far too many questions having made...

 

6) This thread get way off topic.

[Sayonara]

HEY! I said italics for titles and foreign words only! If you don't stop being so ennuyant*, you will be taken somewhere and treated by professionals[/u']!

And for variables that have a value assigned.

 

Unless you're writing something to be typeset, in which case underline anything to be italicised.

 

OH MY HEAD.

[DreamLord]

6) This thread get way off topic.

 

Yeah, I'll agree with that. This thread turned into the capitalization versus bold or italics argument thread or something.

[Phi for All]

So' date=' we've learned recently:

 

1) Phi now has embraced the bold and italics tags, reserving caps for when he's angry which...

2) We learned doesn't happen because he can't get annoyed but...[/quote']I save my strength for angry by not letting myself be merely annoyed.

3) Phi might possibly be considered annoying himself though...

Vraiment!

4) Sayo might also be considered annoying while...

Verus!

5) Jordan has problems maintaining consistency in the spelling of his name and asks far too many questions having made...

Yes and no. IMO you are asking just the right amount of questions. And you do it in such a way that everyone can see you are interested in feedback from others, showing that your mind is not closed. I'm not saying you're getting the right answers from me, but I appreciate the opportunity to spout off.

6) This thread get way off topic.

Not at all. I think this distinction between what constitutes someone who is merely annoying or different and who is a danger to society and deserves legislation is one that the Bush administration fails to see. How can George Bush represent the people if he can't understand that there is nothing that harms or diminishes heterosexuals in any way to recognize that homosexuals have the same rights and deserve the same respect that hets do?

[drz]

There are people who just have mild mental conditions and go seek help. They don't really have much choice over whether they'll grow up hearing voices just as gays appearently can't help being gay. Why is one locked away while the other is encouraged?

 

Alot of these people who hear voices and talk to themselves walk the street constantly. Alot of them wear a robe, and read to a mass of people on sundays and wednesday. Infact, a good portion of the worlds religions would not exist if we locked up crazy people. If we would have been locking up crazy people who hear voices say, oh, 2000 years ago, we'd not really be having the problem of discriminating against gays.

 

Anyhow, I think before you can compare being homosexual to a mental problem, you must first establish that homosexuality is a mental problem, and one that can be fixed via some treatment. I mean, how would you suggest treating homosexuality? Would you sit a gay man in a room full of playboys until he becomes aroused by on of the nude models?

 

No, I highly doubt that homosexuality can be reduced to a mere mental problem. Perhaps it is, maybe we can make a pill to fix it. But then again, maybe it is the way nature intended it. I once heard one person suggest homosexuality as natures way of population control.

 

Anyhow, I think you need to verify homosexuality as a mental problem. And, you still need to demonstrate how these people are taking away from your freedoms.

[atinymonkey]

Not at all. I think this distinction between what constitutes someone who is merely annoying or different and who is a danger to society and deserves legislation is one that the Bush administration fails to see. How can George Bush represent the people if he can't understand that there is nothing that harms or diminishes heterosexuals in any way to recognize that homosexuals have the same rights and deserve the same respect that hets do?

 

Happily, having created the thread, I can confirm you are off topic. The point isn't individual rights, but the right of one individual to dictate morals (Mr Bush Jnr).

 

Back. On. Topic.

[Phi for All]

Happily, having created the thread, I can confirm you are off topic.

The point isn't individual posts, but the right of one individual to dictate what can be posted in his thread. Even after 10 pages and 180 posts.

[drz]

The point isn't individual rights, but the right of one individual to dictate morals (Mr Bush Jnr).

 

I thought we covered that. Bush doesn't represent all the people, only the ones who agree with him, likely those who voted for him. I for one am of the opinion most people are idiots. However, I also do not think Gore would have been up for the past 4 years, I cannot say if we would be in better or worse condition, but I do not think Bush needs another. Hopefully the majority of people will agree.

 

However, the thread evolved, partly due to myself, which I apoligize, into a gay rights thing. However, the seeds of the previous discussions were planted in your OP.

[atinymonkey]

The point isn't individual posts, but the right of one individual to dictate what can be posted in his thread. Even after 10 pages and 180 posts.

 

You were asked if you were off topic. I confirmed that you were, when you decided to redefine the thread topic. It's common courtesy to respect the creator of the thread while posting in the thread they have created. There are 4 other threads that discuss the digression your currently following, there is not point repeating the debate here. I'm not asking you for much, I'm asking you to stay on topic.

 

However' date=' the thread evolved, partly due to myself, which I apoligize, into a gay rights thing. However, the seeds of the previous discussions were planted in your OP.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I know. But the digression has about run it's course now. Everyone's made the points they wanted to make, and the digression is degenerating into mudslinging. Cheers for the apology though

[Phi for All]

What a horrible way to wind down such a fantastic thread! No one asked you if we were off-topic atm; it was mentioned, which normally, with no other outside help, brings people back to the topic, or as close as we were after 10 pages. I noticed it was OK for the thread author to talk about individual rights a lot earlier on in the thread:

Perhaps if you knew what rights were afforded to a person through marriage, this discussion would be cut shorter. For instance, preferential mortgages/loans and tax breaks are available as well as the increased ability to adopt children.

Happily' date=' having created the thread, I can confirm you are off topic. The point isn't individual rights, but the right of one individual to dictate morals (Mr Bush Jnr).[/quote']You place a great deal of importance on threads that are yours. I can appreciate your diligence but I think you take ownership of a thread too far.

Did you read the rest of that post?

No' date=' I'm too stupid to read whole posts. Could you do me a favour and remind me to read all of a post everytime I quote somebody?[/quote']

I was just asking a reasonable and civil question' date=' so you can ditch the attitude.

[/quote']

It was not civil, it's fairly rude. Especially in my own thread.

All I was doing earlier was posting my opinions, appropriate to the line of the thread at that point. Posts in threads don't always adhere strictly to the exact questions first proposed. They'd stagnate pretty quickly if they did. They tend to germinate, they grow, they flower into discussions between people all over the world (and horrible botany metaphors--sorry). Your post about putting me Back. On. Topic. seemed like a personal attack, considering others in this thread have touched upon many subjects relevant but different from the original topic without you stepping in to correct them. You seem personally offended when someone explores a tangent to one of your ideas.

 

I was going to PM you about this, but I wanted these statements, as well as my apology, to be made before the community. I always enjoy reading what you've written, atm, and I really do think this is one of the best threads in the Politics section. If I have taken your thread too far from its intended topic, if I have trivialized it by mentioning things like when to use caps as opposed to bold lettering or posted opinions that seemed too much like responses to other people's threads, if I have not meaningfully contributed to it in my 15 posts, then I am wholeheartedly sorry, and offer my apologies to the creator.

 

And if you have a problem with me personally or with my style of posting, please PM me and we'll get it sorted out. I have often thought we share a love of humor which tempers and enhances our writing styles, but can come off rather sarcastic sometimes when posted. If that lies at the heart of this problem, if something I said in a different thread has you out of sorts with me, then I apologize for that as well. Life is too short to for you to spend your time annoyed at someone.

[Chem-Maniac]

He's not representing the people, he's representing the States.

I'm very gratefull for this statement!!Thank you very much!

[revprez]

What are you trying to say? That all recognised marriages are supposed to be for reproductive purposes?

 

I'm saying that civil marriage is a social instrument used to better sustain society. That involves reproduction and child rearing.

 

How can you classify those things in the same category? They are in no way similar.

 

In that case, homo and hetero behavior are in no way similar.

 

Bestiality and pedophilia should not be classified with same sex marriage.

 

Why not? Where's the principle?

[budullewraagh]

well, for one, we're not talking about male horses and male humans, nor are we talking about little boys and old men.

[Sayonara]

Why not? Where's the principle?

Same-sex marriages involve mutual adult consent.

 

As has been pointed out time and time again in all the threads on homosexuality.

[revprez]

Same-sex marriages involve mutual adult consent[/u'].

 

What's so important about mutual adult consent? You've just tossed out reproductive viability as a worthy test. Why is consent any different?

 

The point I'm getting at is that there are any number of standards by which we deem a relationship apppropriate, inappropriate, worth supporting through some civil instrument or not. If you ask me to defend reproductive viability you should defend mutual adult consent--either they are both givens or they both demand justification.

[Mokele]

Simple: Reproductive viability is not a useful definition of marriage, or all marriages would be annulled as soon as the female hits menopause. Plus, I don't think contributing the the overpopulation problem is a sufficient justification for an insitution. Why prevent people from being together because they don't want kids? Would you deny marriage to my girlfriend and me (I'm male), because we are childless by choice? What about an infertile couple? Should their marriage be annulled? There is no truly valid reason to make marriage between non-reproductive individuals forbidden, since it hurts noone.

 

On the other hand, mutal consent *is* a valid rule, because violation of that would involve violation of the non-consenting individual's rights.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

What's so important about mutual adult consent? You've just tossed out reproductive viability as a worthy test. Why is consent any different?

 

The point I'm getting at is that there are any number of standards by which we deem a relationship apppropriate' date=' inappropriate, worth supporting through some civil instrument or not. If you ask me to defend reproductive viability you should defend mutual adult consent--either they are both givens or they both demand justification.[/quote']

Don't strawman me please.

 

Mutual adult consent was raised as what separates homosexual relationships from bestiality and paedophilia. It was not raised as a per se defence for any particular relationship structure, so your comparative justification demand is ill-founded at best.

[revprez]

Simple: Reproductive viability is not a useful definition of marriage, or all marriages would be annulled as soon as the female hits menopause.

 

1) At most, you've asserted that reproductive viability by itself is not a reasonable standard for providing civil marriage.

 

2) Beyond that, I don't follow your reductio ad absurdum here.

 

Plus, I don't think contributing the the overpopulation problem is a sufficient justification for an insitution. Why prevent people from being together because they don't want kids?

 

Would you deny marriage to my girlfriend and me (I'm male), because we are childless by choice?

 

It would be a consideration.

 

What about an infertile couple?

 

Same as above.

 

Should their marriage be annulled?

 

Possibly.

 

There is no truly valid reason to make marriage between non-reproductive individuals forbidden, since it hurts noone.

 

One, civil marriage is a social institution afforded by the state to the people. There is no prohibition of a private state of affairs.

 

On the other hand, mutal consent *is* a valid rule, because violation of that would involve violation of the non-consenting individual's rights.

 

What rights? And what's the justification for providing those rights? Bear in mind there is a defense for consent, but I don't think you've touched on it yet.

[revprez]

Mutual adult consent was raised as what separates homosexual relationships from bestiality and paedophilia.

 

On its face it is an arbitrary distinction, as arbitrary as say the reproductive viability distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

 

It was not raised as a per se defence for any particular relationship structure, so your comparative justification demand is ill-founded at best.

 

In response to my request for a principle, you referred me to "mutual adult consent." I asked for a defense of it.

[Sayonara]

What rights?

Those afforded to the involved parties by the law. The specific ones in question will obviously depend on the situation.

 

 

And what's the justification for providing those rights?

Because the law requires it. Honestly, if you're just going to arbitrarily wave away inconvenient constraints on the discussion such as the social framework in which we are operating, you might as well be talking about carrots.

 

 

Bear in mind there is a defense for consent, but I don't think you've touched on it yet.

Everyone loves mind games, well done.

 

 

On its face it is an arbitrary distinction, as arbitrary as say the reproductive viability distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

Again, this thread isn't discussing something that only takes place in your head. We are discussing the issue within the framework of the law as it currently stands in the United States.

 

If you want to challenge such laws, this is not the place to do it.

 

 

In response to my request for a principle, you referred me to "mutual adult consent." I asked for a defense of it.

You asked for a reason why homosexuality should not be classified with bestiality and paedophilia. Whether or not you want the answer in the form of "a principle" is pretty much irrelevant. I shouldn't have to provide a defence along with my answer - if you have reason to believe that the answer is somehow not good enough, then you need to present your counterpoint before I can actually respond.

 

You might also want to consider that homosexuality is not simply a sexual act.

[revprez]

Because the law requires it.

 

That is no defense.

 

Honestly, if you're just going to arbitrarily wave away inconvenient constraints on the discussion such as the social framework in which we are operating, you might as well be talking about carrots.

 

Very well. What law affords any couple an inherent right to participate in any and all specific civil institutions?

 

Again, this thread isn't discussing something that only takes place in your head. We are discussing the issue within the framework of the law as it currently stands in the United States.

 

I don't think that's quite the case but I'll play ball.

 

You asked for a reason why homosexuality should not be classified with bestiality and paedophilia. Whether or not you want the answer in the form of "a principle" is pretty much irrelevant. I shouldn't have to provide a defence along with my answer - if you have reason to believe that the answer is somehow not good enough, then you need to present your counterpoint before I can actually respond.

 

I think the law presently provides a viable distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships in 49 states. Challenge it.

 

You might also want to consider that homosexuality is not simply a sexual act.

 

Huh?