DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> If it happened to them... it can happen to anyone.
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 351 - 375 of 599, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/06/2012 02:58:55 PM · #351
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hear stories like this but are they really true? Incipient evil? I do blanche a bit at the idea that someone could really believe that in the 20th century.


The story was from the late 30s in Lawrence MA, an Irish textile town in the Methuen Valley, and yes, it really used to happen.
 11/06/2012 03:49:28 PM · #352
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hear stories like this but are they really true? Incipient evil? I do blanche a bit at the idea that someone could really believe that in the 20th century.


The story was from the late 30s in Lawrence MA, an Irish textile town in the Methuen Valley, and yes, it really used to happen.


Ah, Massachusetts. We all know about those Northeast people... ;)
 11/06/2012 05:58:56 PM · #353
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't disagree Robert. I think Richard was saying that if we speculate a gay predisposition with a trigger then was is the correlary with heterosexuality? What is the trigger? But I think we don't need a mirror process. It's the default and needs no trigger. Evolution would for sure want this to be the state of affairs.


Didn't realize evolution has all of these needs and wants. Lets hope it finds a hetero mate soon. We wouldn't want to catch it with some asexual organism. That would be totally unnatural.

Message edited by author 2012-11-06 18:00:25.
 11/06/2012 06:27:16 PM · #354
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't disagree Robert. I think Richard was saying that if we speculate a gay predisposition with a trigger then was is the correlary with heterosexuality? What is the trigger? But I think we don't need a mirror process. It's the default and needs no trigger. Evolution would for sure want this to be the state of affairs.


Didn't realize evolution has all of these needs and wants. Lets hope it finds a hetero mate soon. We wouldn't want to catch it with some asexual organism. That would be totally unnatural.


I can see it now. "Dude. You're budding from the LEFT side of your body. That is totally unnatural and just wrong!"
 11/06/2012 06:49:25 PM · #355
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...the left hand was a sign of incipient evil...

Sinistral -> Sinister -> Left-handed
Dextral -> Dextrous -> Right-handed

Geologists name faults with a component of horizontal slip as either dextral or sinistral, depending on which hand one side of the fault moves toward.


Huh? I love Dexter! That guy is so sinister!
 11/06/2012 07:22:19 PM · #356
Originally posted by Jagar:

As a heterosexual I've had homosexual friends all my life, when I was a kid my best friend was an obvious homosexual, its just how it was and it was nothing special. I can honestly say that I've never once felt threatened by the sexuality of another human being. When listening to debates like this I have a real hard time understanding the anti gay attitude some people have, I just can't see a problem with being gay, different tastes can only be a good thing no ?


My own experience aligns with this experience and philosophy of John.

However, I have a question regarding the varying levels of tolerance.

Are levels of tolerance genetically or environmentally bred?
 11/06/2012 07:34:00 PM · #357
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Are levels of tolerance genetically or environmentally bred?


I'm unaware of any evidence to support or deny a genetic component. It's probably all opinion right now.

Here's a follow up question: Does tolerance mean anything if it doesn't come with a cost to the individual doing the tolerating? In other words, is tolerance toward something that someone agrees with or something that is irrelevant to their life meaningful?
 11/06/2012 08:28:26 PM · #358
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Are levels of tolerance genetically or environmentally bred?


I'm unaware of any evidence to support or deny a genetic component. It's probably all opinion right now.


Development of 'tolerance' is quite a different question to development of 'sexuality'.

If a person disapproves of something, then they have a framework established of what they believe to be right and wrong, which allows them to judge and categorise things they approve of, disapprove of, and disapprove of but tolerate (for the sake of outward appearances) That framework can only have been established through environmental triggers. I can't see how opinions of right and wrong could be instilled genetically.
11/06/2012 08:41:00 PM · #359
Originally posted by JH:
... I can't see how opinions of right and wrong could be instilled genetically.

My guess would be through evolution. We group together to survive and flourish. If you don't treat others as you'd like them to treat you, you get tossed out of the group and don't get to pass on your nasty genes.
 11/07/2012 12:35:58 AM · #360
Well, there should be a lot more work for photographers who do want to shoot gay weddings, since they're now legal in four more states.
 11/07/2012 12:45:29 AM · #361
But if you only want to shoot gay weddings, you will so be sued.
 11/07/2012 12:54:22 AM · #362
Not trying to detract from the celebration deserved by those in favor of gay marriage, but Minnesota only rejected a constitutional amendment. They still have a law banning gay marriage.
 11/07/2012 01:09:31 AM · #363
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Not trying to detract from the celebration deserved by those in favor of gay marriage, but Minnesota only rejected a constitutional amendment. They still have a law banning gay marriage.

I'd only heard second-hand ... I suppose none of these results are certified and final anyway.

Are you ready for the war between the State of Washington and the DEA?

New Hampshire now has an all-female Congressional delegation and Governor, though as far as I know none of them are married to each other ...
 11/07/2012 01:11:19 AM · #364
Still a win for gay marriage. The whole point of the amendment was to add one more barrier that might help prevent a discriminatory law from being overturned as unconstitutional, and it failed. Their current "Defense of Marriage" law likely faces the same doomed fate as the national version, which has now been declared unconstitutional by at least two federal courts.
 11/07/2012 01:18:14 AM · #365
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Are you ready for the war between the State of Washington and the DEA?


It will be interesting to watch. Oregon voted it down because the pot people got a bit too greedy and wrote a bad law. It wasn't even very close. We also, thankfully, overwhelmingly rejected two casino measures. Nice to see the state has a little sense in it. ;). Everybody in Oregon already has a medical marijuana card anyway...
 11/07/2012 01:45:33 AM · #366
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's a follow up question: Does tolerance mean anything if it doesn't come with a cost to the individual doing the tolerating? In other words, is tolerance toward something that someone agrees with or something that is irrelevant to their life meaningful?


I suppose if the price of anti-gay is more hatred, yet the price of pro-tolerance is more tolerance and respect towards our fellow human beings...well, we all decide the relevant price of our own opinion. Alternatively, agreeing to disagree may save on attorneys fees, but either way, the attorneys will most likely end up with all the pukas! ;-)

P.S. Slippy? Do I detect a bit of angel in that devil? I'm sure I do...;-)
 11/07/2012 01:48:38 AM · #367
As I understand it the Washington law was very carefully crafted, led by a former Federal Attorney (a Republican) ... no interstate commerce, everything regulated ... we'll see ...
 11/07/2012 06:32:36 AM · #368
Originally posted by JH:

If a person disapproves of something, then they have a framework established of what they believe to be right and wrong, which allows them to judge and categorise things they approve of, disapprove of, and disapprove of but tolerate (for the sake of outward appearances) That framework can only have been established through environmental triggers. I can't see how opinions of right and wrong could be instilled genetically.


opinions of right an wrong arent instilled genetically, however bias against what is different than yourself, i believe, is a genetic predisposition, put them together and you now have a reason to rationalize your dislikes.

you cant control that you have certian feelings, only if you choose to act on them.

11/07/2012 11:38:00 AM · #369
Originally posted by hihosilver:
... Slippy? Do I detect a bit of angel in that devil? I'm sure I do...;-)

Put down that wine, it's making you too happy. ;-)
 11/07/2012 07:24:20 PM · #370
whoa! You guys are still here?
 11/09/2012 11:09:02 AM · #371
Originally posted by smardaz:
whoa! You guys are still here?


You and jager could start a club you know... ;)
 11/30/2012 05:39:37 PM · #372
Nice to come back and see how off topic this got...

The main point is that a business should be able to refuse to photograph events that are contrary to their values and beliefs.

In the interim since I posted this I came to a couple of conclusions... 1. I live in a state that does not recognize marriages that don't meet the formula of one man and one woman. and 2. if they ever did recognize them and I was baited into this trap, I think I would be able to provide the services required professionally with stipulations that would make them not wish to hire me... but if they did anyway like they trapped this poor woman in the original post, they would be accepting the terms which might not be agreeable to their guests. :)
 11/30/2012 06:10:51 PM · #373
Originally posted by klkitchens:
... if they ever did recognize them and I was baited into this trap, I think I would be able to provide the services required professionally with stipulations that would make them not wish to hire me... but if they did anyway like they trapped this poor woman in the original post, they would be accepting the terms which might not be agreeable to their guests. :)

Just remember you cannot impose any "stipulations" on them other than those you impose on all your clients or you'd still be in violation. And intentionally making their event "diasgreeable to their guests" would open up a whole new line of liability, as well as the ability to destroy your professional reputation ... my suggestion if you never wish to shoot a same-sex wedding is simply do not hold yourself out to the public as a "wedding photographer" and you'll have no legal troubles. :-)
 12/01/2012 02:50:25 PM · #374
Paul's narrative is one interpretation, but not the only one. The ruling itself hinted that if the same case were to come up the very court that issued this ruling might issue another if a different argument were made. In other words, the ruling said that there very well may be a good argument to defend the freedom of conscience for small business owners like this couple, but since that argument was not made they couldn't speak to it.

My take home was that one should try to be honest and forthright because you will get tripped up in your lies.
 12/01/2012 02:56:02 PM · #375
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My take home was that one should try to be honest and forthright because you will get tripped up in your lies.

It's amazing how often this turns out to be the best advice, and somewhat sad that its worth seems so frequently revealed only in hindsight ...
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 06:30:20 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 06:30:20 AM EDT.