| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/25/2013 02:41:58 PM · #6076 |
You might find some of the works of Theodor Geisel (a.k.a. Dr. Seuss) deadly serious ... 
Originally posted by Photogapher's notes:
In addition (actually, prior) to writing children's books, Theodor Geisel (a.k.a. Dr. Seuss) was a political cartoonist, and worked with the likes of Frank Capra making propaganda films during World War II. In 1947, he helped make the Academy Award-winning documentary "Design For Death" about post-war Japan.
For more info:
//www.pbs.org/independentlens/politicaldrseuss/film.html
//www.pbs.org/independentlens/politicaldrseuss/dr.html |
You can probably find something worthwhile in the library dedicated to him and his work ...  |
|
|
|
03/25/2013 03:19:43 PM · #6077 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You're joking right? Dr. Seuss is a fake name (pen name). Dr Seuss doesn't actually exist. |
Psst... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't those authors' real names either. They were written anonymously. The attributed names did not appear until the middle of the second century (and despite the manuscripts being written decades after the deaths of the people whose names they bear).
Message edited by author 2013-03-25 15:32:04. |
|
|
|
03/25/2013 03:45:09 PM · #6078 |
Robert, you never cease to amaze with your history.
My daughter (8) just recently got a biography or Dr. Seuss from the library. she came asking all sorts of questions like what was the world war, what is prohibition, his original wife died early is it ok that he remarried, etc.
I should have just given her a bible to read ;-)
Message edited by author 2013-03-25 15:45:44. |
|
|
|
03/25/2013 05:14:50 PM · #6079 |
You know, I shouldn't have opened this thread up.
Gosh, wouldn't it be GREAT if some of the ultra-conservative REGULARS took Mr. Sin & Heretics to task for his post?
Or at least suggested it was a tad inflammatory and counterproductive, and perhaps insulting?
Or at least distanced themselves from it?
Kind of like I've advocated for so gosh darn strongly any number of times in the past, right here? Look who's speaking for you! Meet your representative. By their fruits ye shall know them or something bibley like that?
Also, I'd have hoped, at 122 pages in, Nullix could have avoided that embarrassingly tired goalpost shifting used to avoid acknowledging a tragic flaw in the common anti-gay argument, seen over and over and over:
- Homosexuality is not natural!
- Well, it's common in the animal world.
- What, are we supposed to rape? Animals rape too!
Funny how we never get back to invalidating his premise. Weak. Is homosexuality natural, Nullix? Straight up Y/N first, please.
I don't even think I'll need to follow up on this. I shouldn't.
Message edited by author 2013-03-25 17:17:22. |
|
|
|
03/25/2013 05:56:37 PM · #6080 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by JH:
The Dr. Seuss books are more credible than the bible. At least Dr. Seuss exists. |
You're joking right? Dr. Seuss is a fake name (pen name). Dr Seuss doesn't actually exist.
I'm sure you can also find the writings attributed to the said "Dr. Seuss" is ridiculous. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, if you think an alias or a pen name is the same as "not existing" you have a few problems :-) |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Psst... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't those authors' real names either. |
But! But!
Damn, I'm stumped.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2013 10:48:00 AM · #6081 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Also, I'd have hoped, at 122 pages in, Nullix could have avoided that embarrassingly tired goalpost shifting used to avoid acknowledging a tragic flaw in the common anti-gay argument, seen over and over and over:
- Homosexuality is not natural!
- Well, it's common in the animal world.
- What, are we supposed to rape? Animals rape too!
Funny how we never get back to invalidating his premise. Weak. Is homosexuality natural, Nullix? Straight up Y/N first, please. |
Sorry Mouse. This thread is 5 year old and I've been rude over those 5 years. Sorry.
I'm hoping I've grown over those 5 years.
Sorry again, I'm not going to answer that question for you. That's something you'll have to answer yourself.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2013 11:56:34 AM · #6082 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
This thread started 5 years ago, and I hope I'm a little less "self-righteous" about things. I'm also trying to be less of an a$$hole. |
Might I suggest something?
As you know by now, gays are smart, funny, pay their taxes, furnish their homes, go to their jobs, struggle with their finances, and generally live just like you and I.
Being gay is simply part of who they are......it doesn't define them as people, any more than your relations with your wife define you.
So, for the same reason that I'm reaching out to you, and that's due to my seeing that you're truly making an effort here, and in keeping with that effort on your part.....why don't you assume that what anyone who's gay has as much right to their private relations with their significant other as you and I.That way, you're doing a good and decent thing as a Christian man by respecting their right to live their own life, and in turn, they get to see that you will accept them for who they are as people, and let whatever is in store for them in the hereafter be what it is.
I would think that would be worthy of consideration, and perhaps it would relieve you of some confusion and concern as to the effect that a gay person would have on your life. After all, certainly at some point a gay person has held a door for you on their way in/out of a store, or smiled and wished you a nice day, perhaps helped you make a decision in a store, deposited a check for you at your bank.........and you didn't even know it. All you got from the exchange was a courteous friendly interaction with another PERSON.
Of course, you may have been cut off in traffic by a gay person some time, too, and you cursed them out like any other @$$hole......8~)
It's nice to see you with an olive branch, Tom.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2013 02:23:58 PM · #6083 |
| Links to transcript and audio of today's oral arguments in the SCOTUS regarding California Prop. 8 should be available here, however my (ancient) browsers will not display the text, so I'm not sure if it's my technical issue or if it's just not posted yet ... |
|
|
|
03/26/2013 03:35:27 PM · #6084 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... Being gay is simply part of who they are......it doesn't define them as people, any more than your relations with your wife define you... |
My wife's boss is gay. He's an asshole.
My boss is hetero. He's an asshole.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2013 04:16:36 PM · #6085 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... Being gay is simply part of who they are......it doesn't define them as people, any more than your relations with your wife define you... |
My wife's boss is gay. He's an asshole.
My boss is hetero. He's an asshole. |
Gee, I guess you shouldn't marry a boss then ... |
|
|
|
03/26/2013 04:28:16 PM · #6086 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
... Being gay is simply part of who they are......it doesn't define them as people, any more than your relations with your wife define you... |
My wife's boss is gay. He's an asshole.
My boss is hetero. He's an asshole. |
Gee, I guess you shouldn't marry a boss then ... |
It should probably be a law.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2013 08:25:15 PM · #6087 |
Back to  sfalice's original question....Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving? The FiveThirtyEight guy posted a blog post today on exactly this question. His conclusion? Since 2004, gay marriage has steadily gained about 2% support every year. Nationally, the pro votes passed the con votes in late 2010. About half of this change is attributable to generational turnover (younger people are more pro-gay), and about half is people actually changing their minds. His prediction for the future is that by 2020, the pro votes will outnumber the con votes in 44 states.
Message edited by author 2013-03-26 20:25:47. |
|
|
|
03/27/2013 04:57:24 PM · #6088 |
| I can't seem to find the stats now but I saw a comparison on the news yesterday when the question arose "Is America ready?" That showed support for interracial marriage was WAY lower when it was taken to the supreme court (I wanna say around 20% but don't quote me) than the support for gay marriage is now. I was really blown away. I mean, I dunno how much they controlled for polling errors and samples and such, I'm always a bit skeptical of stats, but anyway, it really made me think about just how far we have come. |
|
|
|
03/27/2013 05:11:19 PM · #6089 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I don't understand why it bothers you that some folks are nice becaude they learned it from the Bible |
Being nice, for whatever reason, never bothered anyone. It's NOT being nice to others of differing faith, gender, race or sexual orientation specifically because they learned it from the Bible that causes problems. |
I actually tend to disagree here. I really have a disdain for disingenuous niceness. I had a student that was always a little angel when I was watching, and then just the biggest bully to the other students when I wasn't and I would get SO frustrated at the manipulative fakery he always displayed. Some people low on the morality scale think they can do the same to God and others and it's really quite a thing to think you can cheat God. I'm not religious, but just seems if a person really believes God is omnipotent, he/she/it will not be fooled by fake niceness for brownie points or finding loopholes...Like the plot line in The Big C where the religious girl convinces her boyfriend they can do it in the rear and still be virgins. What's the point of that? I know that's hyperbole for entertainment but I don't think it's far off the mark of that sort of mentality.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2013 05:33:11 PM · #6090 |
|
|
|
03/27/2013 05:56:29 PM · #6091 |
That's pretty much all that's happened here too. There is no compelling argument against gay marriage besides that the bible says its wrong.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2013 06:09:43 PM · #6092 |
I was just about to post that one myself, but you beat me to it. I was dumbstruck when I saw that :-) |
|
|
|
03/27/2013 07:15:20 PM · #6093 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Being nice, for whatever reason, never bothered anyone. It's NOT being nice to others of differing faith, gender, race or sexual orientation specifically because they learned it from the Bible that causes problems. |
I actually tend to disagree here. I really have a disdain for disingenuous niceness. I had a student that was always a little angel when I was watching, and then just the biggest bully to the other students when I wasn't and I would get SO frustrated at the manipulative fakery he always displayed. |
Is disingenuous niceness "being nice" or faking it? |
|
|
|
03/27/2013 07:47:52 PM · #6094 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I was just about to post that one myself, but you beat me to it. I was dumbstruck when I saw that :-) |
you know your cause is lost when the chief puppeteers cant even defend it. |
|
|
|
03/27/2013 09:25:40 PM · #6095 |
Well, I thought that the "true conservative" (possibly libertarian) view was always that the governement (especially the Federal) had no business impinging itself upon or interfering with people's personal lives. It's the same reasoning why Rand Paul says decriminalize drugs ... |
|
|
|
03/27/2013 09:27:18 PM · #6096 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, I thought that the "true conservative" (possibly libertarian) view was always that the governement (especially the Federal) had no business impinging itself upon or interfering with people's personal lives. |
depends on if the bible is involved.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2013 12:35:50 AM · #6097 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Being nice, for whatever reason, never bothered anyone. It's NOT being nice to others of differing faith, gender, race or sexual orientation specifically because they learned it from the Bible that causes problems. |
I actually tend to disagree here. I really have a disdain for disingenuous niceness. I had a student that was always a little angel when I was watching, and then just the biggest bully to the other students when I wasn't and I would get SO frustrated at the manipulative fakery he always displayed. |
Is disingenuous niceness "being nice" or faking it? |
That is the question isn't it? ;) I guess I'm veering slightly off topic now but I think about that sort of thing a lot. Like on the border crossing to Haiti from the DR there was a very self-righteous man arguing with the officials and saying things like he'd helped more people than the Red Cross and "I'm trying to help YOU!" to the immigration guy, as if he is directly affected because he happens to be Haitian. So, should anyone be happy he's building useful things, even if he's a big prick about it and seems to not really have a genuine love of Haitians or should he just go the eff home? I dunno. It makes me feel pretty crummy to witness honestly.
Back around point, there are plenty of people who are still "nice" to gays and still vote against their rights and sing a little happy tune that there will be none in heaven. The folks at Westboro Baptist Church are actually very "nice" one on one, apparently.
Equality House painted rainbow colors across from Westboro |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 03:55:09 AM · #6098 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, I thought that the "true conservative" (possibly libertarian) view was always that the governement (especially the Federal) had no business impinging itself upon or interfering with people's personal lives. |
depends on if the bible is involved. |
Just a couple of comments on the Bible and its quotations...
The Bible says what the Bible says - period.
You may not like it, or agree with it or believe it to be true. You may even think it a fairytale and full of contradictions - but it still says what it says. And it doesn't matter if you quote a King James, a New Jeruselum, an NIV - it still says the same thing. Amazing really - that a book so reviled and so full of contradictions is nearly identical version to version to version regardless of the scholars who translated it.
Whether you believe it or not is another matter - as is interpretation. But take a line by line comparison of multiple versions translated by different scholars and you will find they all read the same. So when someone quotes the Bible, they are quoting a source that has been scrutinized painstakingly by some of the most knowledgeable and skilled people in their fields and put forth the same messages and verses. Make of the teaching what you will - but to marginalize the literary work itself as the basis for misuse is misguided in my view. People are the active ingredient - not a book.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2013 05:37:42 AM · #6099 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, I thought that the "true conservative" (possibly libertarian) view was always that the governement (especially the Federal) had no business impinging itself upon or interfering with people's personal lives. |
depends on if the bible is involved. |
Just a couple of comments on the Bible and its quotations...
The Bible says what the Bible says - period.
|
...and of course, adhering the the contents of the bible would give rise to drastic changes in people's lives.
Let's face facts... this manual is conveniently cited to support an argument. Strict adherence to it could quite possibly land one in jail.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 08:11:33 AM · #6100 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, I thought that the "true conservative" (possibly libertarian) view was always that the governement (especially the Federal) had no business impinging itself upon or interfering with people's personal lives. |
depends on if the bible is involved. |
Just a couple of comments on the Bible and its quotations...
The Bible says what the Bible says - period.
You may not like it, or agree with it or believe it to be true. You may even think it a fairytale and full of contradictions - but it still says what it says. And it doesn't matter if you quote a King James, a New Jeruselum, an NIV - it still says the same thing. Amazing really - that a book so reviled and so full of contradictions is nearly identical version to version to version regardless of the scholars who translated it.
Whether you believe it or not is another matter - as is interpretation. But take a line by line comparison of multiple versions translated by different scholars and you will find they all read the same. So when someone quotes the Bible, they are quoting a source that has been scrutinized painstakingly by some of the most knowledgeable and skilled people in their fields and put forth the same messages and verses. Make of the teaching what you will - but to marginalize the literary work itself as the basis for misuse is misguided in my view. People are the active ingredient - not a book. |
you can do the same thing with the constitution and bill of rights and he we still argue over how its interpreted.
this issue isn't the bible, its clearly stood the test of time, but you cant be forcing people to live by it because you do. period. and when the only argument against a policy change is that the bible says its wrong, its not a valid argument.
Look at it this way, you probably think in the middle east the way women are treated is very poor and unfair, but to them its acceptable, they are only doing what their religion tells them to. So whos right? Their religion? your religion? Or maybe, the religion is wrong, society steps in, change occurs and we realize later how foolish certain religious rules are. |
|
