Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

I am talking about the aftermath, Barbarossa, and no, I am not blowing it out of proportion. That's how horrible things really are.

I'm leaving for an unknown amount of time in about a week or so and, if all goes well, probably will not be coming back... for years, if I ever do return.  Please take care of yourselves.  I'm sure you can keep your heads, but as this is one of the few things I've felt I did well here, I hope it keeps on being useful.

I'm really sorry to year that, Vector, it was great knowing you, even if it was only an internet aquaintance. You've taught me a lot and been a great influence, both for me personally and for these forums. You even made me dare believe a little in the future sometimes. I'll miss you.

[Reelya]

I'm leaving for an unknown amount of time in about a week or so and, if all goes well, probably will not be coming back... for years, if I ever do return.  Please take care of yourselves.  I'm sure you can keep your heads, but as this is one of the few things I've felt I did well here, I hope it keeps on being useful.

;_; wishing you safe travels.

[G-Flex]

I'm leaving for an unknown amount of time in about a week or so and, if all goes well, probably will not be coming back... for years, if I ever do return.  Please take care of yourselves.  I'm sure you can keep your heads, but as this is one of the few things I've felt I did well here, I hope it keeps on being useful.

What? You can't leave us Vector, not in our hour of need! You were meant to save us Vector, not tear us apart, that is what a hero does!
Ok sorry, I'll be more serious about this. But really, do you have to go? We will all miss you.

She has to go train in the mountains or something. It happens.

[NinjaBoot]

I sleep in really late, goto work and I come back to find out I've been left behind!  Crap

Truean:  I honestly don't know what to say to that because to me it seems that you jumped the shark.  I addressed it to hopefully make it known, that yes I did read it, but I am not sure whether to make heads or tails out of it.  Why?  Well, you've pretty much covered your point in the preceding paragraph and that was just mere filler, or more or less the "Made for TV Movie" script.

Bauglir:  You seem to be missing my point.  Llama's with Hats doesn't have anything to do with it, its an entirely different subject.

[G-Flex]

Truean:  I honestly don't know what to say to that because to me it seems that you jumped the shark.  I addressed it to hopefully make it known, that yes I did read it, but I am not sure whether to make heads or tails out of it.  Why?  Well, you've pretty much covered your point in the preceding paragraph and that was just mere filler, or more or less the "Made for TV Movie" script.

Truean can definitely fly off the handle sometimes when certain buttons of his are pushed, but I just read his last big post (regarding prejudice against the less heterosexual/cisgender of us) and... he's making listen and you might want to listen.

[NinjaBoot]

Truean:  I honestly don't know what to say to that because to me it seems that you jumped the shark.  I addressed it to hopefully make it known, that yes I did read it, but I am not sure whether to make heads or tails out of it.  Why?  Well, you've pretty much covered your point in the preceding paragraph and that was just mere filler, or more or less the "Made for TV Movie" script.

Truean can definitely fly off the handle sometimes, but I just read his last big post (regarding prejudice against the less heterosexual/cisgender of us) and... he's making listen and you might want to listen.

It is not that I do not agree with him, I don't know 100% what he is going through, but I honestly feel for him because I have gone through something similar as a child.

The discussion for me has never been about LGBT rights, because it is a given that they should be granted full rights. 

At the same time, you cannot fully expect me to just wolf down the narrative that everybody has to accept LGBT or else (lets try not to godwin this thread).  I am naturally hesitant against such rhetoric, that is just me and there is no changing that.  Besides that, it is also inherently naive to expect people to accept you for what you do and not expect ANY people to not be ok with it.  I do not expect everybody to be OK with my chronic pot-smoking, and I do not certainly expect them to always give me the reaction I am looking for when talking to them. 

Truean, you sound like a honest and forthright kinda guy.  That is something special in times like these today.  Just keep enduring and work towards succeeding, and hopefully one day you will be able to look back on these days and be able to teach others who were in your situation to not give up, ever!  Its what I do

[NinjaBoot]

Anyways, for us Canadians on the forums!

Any thoughts on abolishing the Indian Act/Indian Affairs, as well as/or abolishing the reservation system in Canada? 

[G-Flex]

At the same time, you cannot fully expect me to just wolf down the narrative that everybody has to accept LGBT or else (lets try not to godwin this thread).  I am naturally hesitant against such rhetoric, that is just me and there is no changing that.  Besides that, it is also inherently naive to expect people to accept you for what you do and not expect ANY people to not be ok with it.  I do not expect everybody to be OK with my chronic pot-smoking, and I do not certainly expect them to always give me the reaction I am looking for when talking to them.

That's fair enough, but "or else" needs to be more properly defined here. I think, for example, that it's totally reasonable to push for LGBT rights, want those rights to go through and become guaranteed, and say that those who disagree will just have to put up with it; that's how rights work. However, I don't agree with how some progressive circles tend to be extremely alienating and intolerant to those who disagree with them, even other progressives/liberals. That is certainly a problem, because it creates yet another barrier to positive social change and makes your position look bad.

[NinjaBoot]

At the same time, you cannot fully expect me to just wolf down the narrative that everybody has to accept LGBT or else (lets try not to godwin this thread).  I am naturally hesitant against such rhetoric, that is just me and there is no changing that.  Besides that, it is also inherently naive to expect people to accept you for what you do and not expect ANY people to not be ok with it.  I do not expect everybody to be OK with my chronic pot-smoking, and I do not certainly expect them to always give me the reaction I am looking for when talking to them.

That's fair enough, but "or else" needs to be more properly defined here.

Touche! (have to sound witty here, Point Taken doesn't have enough pizzaz)

I think, for example, that it's totally reasonable to push for LGBT rights, want those rights to go through and become guaranteed, and say that those who disagree will just have to put up with it; that's how rights work.

True, but its all in how you frame it. 

However, I don't agree with how some progressive circles tend to be extremely alienating and intolerant to those who disagree with them, even other progressives/liberals. That is certainly a problem, because it creates yet another barrier to positive social change and makes your position look bad.

Indeed, but this is also why big business is so good at this.  Its all about how you bottle the message, its all in how you get it out and into the open where people can have a fair shot at making their own opinions of it. 

Taken another way, its about convincing the right people with a message that is targeted at them.  It is business marketing for social issues. 

[Montague]

I always wondered why legalizing same sex marriage, but labeling it a 'civil union' or something while reserving the term 'marriage' for hetero couples is such an unpalatable compromise for so many people.

Is the title that important? They need to have the government call it 'marriage' for it to be equal?

Really, I'd think calling it that for same-sex marriages might stigmatize heterosexuals of the same sex that want to have the same benefits as marriage, but would perhaps rather not refer to it as such.

Anyways, I don't see why people cannot get the sorts of arrangements and legal status a marriage provides, free of the emotional/cultural bagged associated with it. Consenting and properly informed adults should be able to freely make these sorts of binding contracts and prior arrangements as such, without the government attaching a specific label to it. People are plenty good at attaching such labels to themselves, I don't see why they insist on the government giving them labels.

[G-Flex]

I always wondered why legalizing same sex marriage, but labeling it a 'civil union' or something while reserving the term 'marriage' for hetero couples is such an unpalatable compromise for so many people.

Is the title that important? They need to have the government call it 'marriage' for it to be equal?

Er, yes, because if you're calling it different things based on that, it's not equal. There is no reason to call it "civil unions" instead of "marriage" except to vaguely stigmatize it. The fact that you even call it a "compromise" makes it clear that you think there is a difference. If there were no difference, it would not be a compromise.

[Nadaka]

Civil unions may not grant the same set of legal allowances as marriage does.

[Truean]

Truean:  I honestly don't know what to say to that because to me it seems that you jumped the shark.  I addressed it to hopefully make it known, that yes I did read it, but I am not sure whether to make heads or tails out of it.  Why?  Well, you've pretty much covered your point in the preceding paragraph and that was just mere filler, or more or less the "Made for TV Movie" script.

Truean can definitely fly off the handle sometimes, but I just read his last big post (regarding prejudice against the less heterosexual/cisgender of us) and... he's making listen and you might want to listen.

It is not that I do not agree with him, I don't know 100% what he is going through, but I honestly feel for him because I have gone through something similar as a child.

The discussion for me has never been about LGBT rights, because it is a given that they should be granted full rights. 

At the same time, you cannot fully expect me to just wolf down the narrative that everybody has to accept LGBT or else (lets try not to godwin this thread).  I am naturally hesitant against such rhetoric, that is just me and there is no changing that.  Besides that, it is also inherently naive to expect people to accept you for what you do and not expect ANY people to not be ok with it.  I do not expect everybody to be OK with my chronic pot-smoking, and I do not certainly expect them to always give me the reaction I am looking for when talking to them. 

Truean, you sound like a honest and forthright kinda guy.  That is something special in times like these today.  Just keep enduring and work towards succeeding, and hopefully one day you will be able to look back on these days and be able to teach others who were in your situation to not give up, ever!  Its what I do

Um, thanks...?

So you know, I didn't jump the shark, and nothing was filler. That was all technique and purposefully done, man. Maybe that technique is one of the things people are saying you might wanna listen to....

The technique I used is pretty simple, you point out how extreme the consequences of someone's views are and how, by holding those views, they're being unreasonable. There are limits on free speech and that means there are times it's perfectly ok to force people to shut up, call them on it, and not give a damn if they don't like it. Slander is certainly one of those limits. Voting someone out of their house and home for no reason against their will is another. <-- These are the two examples I used and this was no accident. These are well known, blatantly obvious exceptions to free speech and pretty much everyone is expected to know this. Nobody cares about "letting people freely discuss, or form their own opinions, when we're talking about slander....

I'm not jumping the shark; you've never seen me jump the shark, because if I really did that, then it would be legendary. That was nothing.... I was just being graphic. Slander lawsuits are a real thing and stuff like I talked about has been the subject of real cases (where do you think I get this crap from?). Sodomy convictions were a real thing and stuff like I talked about has been the subject of real cases....

Once you point out that there are exceptions to free speech by pointing out examples, then you just try to analogize and categorize the thing you're talking about as an exception.... Simple, categorical logic.

The really funny thing about all of this is that I've been called a lot of things, but "honest" isn't one of them given that I live a lie.

[Montague]

Civil unions may not grant the same set of legal allowances as marriage does.

I know this is generally how it works now, but I'm saying if all the legal allowances and status were equal, as they are covered under the same law, only what the arrangement was called was different depending on the who is getting married.

Er, yes, because if you're calling it different things based on that, it's not equal. There is no reason to call it "civil unions" instead of "marriage" except to vaguely stigmatize it. The fact that you even call it a "compromise" makes it clear that you think there is a difference. If there were no difference, it would not be a compromise.

Ok, I'd say it's a compromise because obviously people take their labels very seriously. If conservatives want to say "marriage is a man and a woman" then why not let them keep their legal label, while the exact same set of laws covering traditional marriage applies to all other nontraditional marriages, only nontraditional marriages have some other nomenclature to refer to them? This is basically the model

We are already making a distinction between traditional and nontraditional unions anyways, by calling it "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" or whatever else. It's just a label, all things equal I don't see why the label is non-negotiable. Is it really just because calling it something besides marriage somehow makes it a stigma or less equal then the same law using different names for different civil arrangements?

Or say, the government stops using the term 'marriage' altogether and all types of unions of the sort are referred to by a generic, neutral legalese term like 'civil union' then people can freely give themselves whatever label they like. This would be my preferred handling of it, as well as abolishing joint-filing and the rest of the tangible legal benefits of marriage currently enables and enabling any two consenting adults to have the same status as married couples.

[Nadaka]

The problem with that Montague is that the conservatives are actively preventing civil unions from being legally equivalent to marriage. See the "Defense of Marriage Act" that prevents the federal government from recognizing civil unions or gay marriages even in states where they exist and are otherwise equal to marriage.