Re: The Best Thing About America
- --- In email@example.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
> ====== "Conspiracy theory nonsense." Rainmandu points out that he gets hisinformation from tv, newspapers and radio, and bases his conclusions about people who
disagree with him from that. You're the one basing your opinions of everyone who
disagrees with you on the topic based on what you see on tv, why would I even remotely
be interested in whoever you saw on tv or what their reasoning is. I won't talk about the
right to bear arms while even considering what that guy asked Joe Biden at the Youtube
You're seriously arguing that the reasons people oppose gay marriage aren't well-known,
much discussed, and readily available? You're seriously arguing that the reasons people
oppose gay marriage are a secret?
> > > ----- And now you're dragging the internet intothe violence and intimidation coming from your own side? Yeah, these people are out
> > it as well? A place where even
> > someone who has nothing else to do 24 hours a day can never
> > run out of websites that
> > support their particular viewpoint? You're willing to
> > claim that's "the media"? How close-
> > minded do you have to be to think that way?
> > Rainmandu says:
> > I'm not only now "dragging" the Internet into
> > it. I've mentioned it several times already.
> > And, yes, the Internet is media, as well. Not everything on
> > the Internet is some lonely slob
> > in his basement running off at the mouth about the latest
> > thing that managed to get his
> > knickers in a twist. You keep trying to avoid the fact that
> > the reasons people oppose gay
> > marriage are out there. Why do you keep doing that?
> ====== Maybe just to show you what it's like when you avoid saying anything about
there, so what? I'm safe behind my keyboard.
You're avoiding saying something about the issue we're actually discussing here. I'm not
commenting on something that has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing, that
you're trying to use as a distraction.
> ===== Or maybe it's the tv, radio, newspaper media doing so much to disregard theinternet as being anything other than lonely slobs in their basement?
I never said anything about TV, radio, and newspaper media regarding or disregarding
anything about the Internet, so there's no reason for me to comment on this.
> ===== Or I could simply not share their reasons, so I don't have any reason to defendthem. I mean, I won't unilaterally decide they're all "hateful" and "ignorant" or "paranoid"
or "cruel" or anything. That's for "loving", "enlightened", "accepting" and "kindly" people
like yourself to negatively stereotype.
I'm judging them based on their beliefs / actions. You may not share their reasons (or you
may, who knows?), but you're certainly not presenting a single one of those super-secret
reasons that no one knows about. Much easier for you to move the focus over to the
media, etc., then to have to deal with the reasons upon which my opinions are based.
> > > ------ So people who believe in interracial marriageabsolutely no supporters by insisting it is. Or by villifying The Other either, but you're
> > oppose gay marriage, and you're
> > too obstinate to let that stop you from making the analogy,
> > and supporting any means of
> > imposing your beliefs on everyone else.
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Some people who believe in interracial marriage oppose gay
> > marriage, and some don't.
> > What's your point?
> ====== That race is not synonymous with sexual orientation, and you will win
obviously not going to be stopped. Good luck with that.
No, race and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Except that they're both things
that people use to discriminate against people and to deny them the same rights and
privileges as everyone else.
> > Simply reverse the terms, say I support gay marriage andany actual "need" to villify The Other, yet you keep adding adjectives which do nothing
> > you don't. I'm willing to accept
> > that people who think differently than me have their own
> > reasons for thinking so which
> > should be respected. You aren't, and you're the
> > one dehumanizing everybody who
> > disagrees, and making stupid analogies to interracial
> > marriage into the bargain, and
> > refusing to stop until your views are the law of the land.
> > That's not good for anybody, no
> > matter which side you're on. But at least you're
> > unwilling to credit people who disagree
> > with you for having even that much tolerance.
> > Rainmandu says:
> > You already oppose gay marriage. So reversing the terms
> > here is just a lot of self-serving
> > sleight-of-hand. "Ooh, look at me. If I were you, I
> > would blah, blah, blah." You continue to
> > argue that they have reasons, and that those reasons are
> > neither hateful, not ignorant, nor
> > fear-based and paranoid, all the while refusing to
> > acknowledge what those super-secret
> > reasons are. You'd like to paint a picture of me as
> > someone who doesn't know what the
> > reasons are, someone who doesn't care to know what the
> > reasons are, and since you can't
> > do that, you keep trying to focus the argument on the media
> > and my dehumanizing of
> > people who disagree with me. And, again, it's not the
> > fact of their disagreement with me
> > that makes me call them hateful and / ignorant and / or
> > paranoid and / or stupid.
> ======= Now you've added "stupid". You said several posts ago that you don't have
else. From your initial "hateful" and "ignorant", the whole reason I started asking you
about this, remember? Nothing to do with gay marriage, but how you're so eager to villify
people who think differently than you and so willing to overlook violence and intimidation.
God forbid you and others on your side take a second to ask "how could we make our
arguements better and sway other people to agree with us?" If violence and intimidation
doesn't work, impose your viewpoint on the majority. Because, y'know, you're all about
treating others the way you want to be treated an' shit.
It's not the first time I've used "stupid" in this discussion. And please note the "and / or"s.
They're not all stupid. Just the ones who think that allowing gays to marry will lead to the
collapse of civilization.
> ===== Marriage is between one man and one woman, both of consenting age. Youdisagree, fine, but you're not going to get anywhere with that attitude, and you're too
eager to impose your views on the majority to recognize that. You could argue
communism is better than capitalism or tyranny is better than freedom with the same
>approach. How's that eHarmony lawsuit working out for you?
> ===== So just continue with your 'we'll have our way and fuck anyone who disagrees'
I have no idea what that even means.
> > > ----- You equate gay marriage with interracialand "genius" approach, I will actually spell it out for you.
> > marriage, what's the difference? There's
> > a gender difference, but you clearly don't see that,
> > even though that's the heart of the
> > issue with gay marriage. So what does interracial marriage
> > have to do with anything, other
> > than proving Dave right? The President-elect is part of an
> > interracial marriage, and the
> > product of an interracial marriage, and he thinks marriage
> > is between a man and a woman.
> > Is he "hateful", "ignorant",
> > "cruel" and/or "paranoid"? At least
> > have the honesty to consider
> > him a hateful, ignorant, cruel and paranoid nigger, since
> > you obviously know so much
> > more about these things than he does, and you will
> > dehumanize anybody who disagrees
> > with you on these issues.
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Well, I would talk about Obama here, but you've just
> > equated my honesty about Obama's
> > position with regarding him as a "nigger," and
> > I'm not taking the bait. Nice try, though.
> ======= Ok, fine, out of respect for your "loving", "enlightened", "accepting", "kindly"
>"ignorant", "paranoid", "cruel" "stupid" Not Into Giving Gays Equal Rights. Say so, and
> ====== At least have the honesty to consider our Presdident-elect a "hateful",
attack him for it as vehemently as you go after everyone else who behaves like a dumb Not
Into Giving Gays Equal Rights. Since, no matter how many times I've asked you about it,
you obviously don't consider people who disagree with you on this as remotely your equal.
But not because they disagree with me. Because of their beliefs / actions. I couldn't
disagree with Christopher Hitchens more on the subject of the War in Iraq, but I don't
regard him as less than me, as hateful, or anything else. The same is true with any number
of people on any number of issues. Not on this one. You assume (or you pretend to
assume, for the sake of this debate / discussion) that I haven't given this issue a lot of
thought, that I haven't spent a lot of time listening to the reasons that people have for
opposing gay marriage. I have.
And violence and intimidation against Not Into Giving Gays Equal Rights can be ignored, as
you've done repeatedly, no matter how many times you were specifically asked about it.
Because this is just more of your "I'll throw something tangentially related / not related at
all" bit of stuff out there, and then use your non-response to that against you." I don't
think you have any doubt what I think / feel about those using violence and / or
intimidation, but I also don't think you have any doubt that I won't jump through these
hoops with you, and so you know when and where to bring it up, knowing that I won't do
it, and then you can use it the way you always do. And you never "merely ask." You pile on
the accusations, assumptions, and insinuations, and it's all just a dodge, anyway.
Vilify all Not Into Giving Gays Equal Rights as much as you want, and you obviously want to
because you can't seem to stop yourself. You can't even acknowledge it, even when I
repeatedly point it out to you and ask you about it. All you can do is point to what you see
on teevee and throw more dehumanizing adjectives on the Not Into Giving Gays
> Equal Rights. Since they're in the vast majority -- you're not remotely interested intrying to sway people who disagree with you, maybe you should think about reproducing.
Whooops, picked the wrong side for that one, didn't you? -- doesn't it seem odd to you
that you have so little respect for people who think differently, yet insist that your
viewpoint must be imposed, non-democratically if necessary?
Do you REALLY think that the reasons people oppose gay marriage aren't readily available?
REALLY? I think you know that they are, and I think you keep talking about the media so
that you don't have to deal with the actual reasons, and so that you can continue to
portray me as someone who doesn't actually KNOW, because (gasp!) the media never
allows any discussion of the real, super-secret reasons. Or because you know that the
reasons, themselves, don't make you "team" look good.
> > > > And impose your views on them? I have repeatedlyspoken, screw the popular will.
> > asked why
> > > > you are so incapable of
> > > > acknowledging the slightest validity to anyone
> > who
> > > > disagrees with you? And you refuse to
> > > > answer. You want your beliefs imposed on
> > everyone in
> > > > society, and you want to be
> > > > defended against anybody else who has the same
> > totalitarian
> > > > viewpoint as you.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > I have answered. You just don't like my
> > answer.
> > > > Probably because it doesn't conform to
> > > > your interpretation, or what you WANT me to be
> > saying. And,
> > > > once again, "imposition" is
> > > > REALLY fucking stretching it.
> ====== I ask again, how's that eHarmony lawsuit working out? The courts have
I say again, I have no idea what you're talking about.
You have absolutely not answered why it is not "imposing your will" force the large
majority of people to reshape their views on a large aspect of civilized society the way you
think those views need to be reshaped, and refused to accept anything they have to say
about as even remotely legitimate. And why you can't treat Not Into Giving Gays Equal
Rights with the same respect you want to be treated with. Would you let your sister marry
I'd let her marry anyone she wanted to marry. But I think you already knew that. And, since
gay marriage has nothing to do with forcing anything on any church, has nothing to do
with your heterosexual marriage, my heterosexual marriage, or anyone's heterosexual
marriage, how is anyone going to have to reshape their views on marriage? They won't
even have to give it a second thought. My driver's ed teacher in high school believe that a
driver's license was freedom. That's what it is, that's what it means. He's certainly free to
believe that, but, when you go down to the DMV, there's nothing about a driver's license
being "freedom" about it. Like my example of how different people think / feel about
seeing the new issue of "The Walking Dead" at the comic store. No matter what you think /
feel about it, it remains the exact same comic. What goes on down at the courthouse is
what you think / feel it is for YOU, but not for ME.
> > > ----- You did not answer. You said that even whenAnd you're not even capable of finding redeeming qualities in people who like that music.
> > you listen to people who disagree
> > with you, all you hear is "hatred" and
> > "ignorance", which is fine if you're actively
> > practicing
> > intolerance of people who disagree with you, but you're
> > claiming (for reasons I don't
> > remotely understand) to practice tolerance of people who
> > disagree with you.
> > Rainmandu says:
> > [heavy sigh] If the only music available was the power
> > ballad, if I said that when there is
> > music all I hear is the power ballad, it would be a true
> > statement on my part because (and
> > this is the important part - pay attention) the only music
> > available was the power ballad.
> > That's what I've been saying. Not that I'm
> > ignoring the reasons given and just assuming
> > that they're hateful / ignorant / etc., but that
> > ignorance / hatred / etc. are the only songs
> > being played by those on your side who are making the
> > music. Of course, all of this makes
> > it perfectly clear to me why you continue to refuse to
> > acknowledge those reasons.
> ===== "Yes dear. Whatever you say, dear. Right as always, dear."
> ===== It's not the only music out there, it's the only one you insist on listening to.
They're all, every one of 'em, "hateful", "ignorant", "cruel", "paranoid", "stupid". You are
unquestionably superior to those Not Into Giving Gays Equal Rights. If you weren't, you'd
have answered one of the many times I ask why you need to villify The Other.
Because I don't need to villify the Other. How could I answer a question about something I
don't need to do? My opinions are based on their beliefs / actions. If you paid attention to
some of those beliefs / actions, you would see some real villifying of the Other.
> > Rainmandu says:hold these views, and my views are better. Someday I'll show them all, the fools!!!
> > You've been trying to get me to express tolerance for
> > intolerance, and it's not going to
> > happen.
> ====== "There you go again". Villifying The Other. "They are intolerant because they
They hold the belief that THOSE people are not deserving of the same rights and privileges
as everyone else, that THOSE peope are and should be treated as second class citizens,
that THOSE people should have to lie and pretend to be someone they're not if they want
to avoid being discriminated against, and THAT very much IS intolerance.
> > Doesn't matter that the violence and intimidation comesRights as though they weren't equal to yourself. And I can't help but laugh at the way you
> > from gay marriage supporters,
> > doesn't matter that the people who support interracial
> > marriage comes from non-gay
> > marriage supporters, doesn't
> > > matter that I keep asking and you keep refusing to
> > treat people who oppose gay
> > marriage with the same respect and deceny you'd want to
> > be treated yourself, doesn't even
> > matter that you pull the "blacks=homosexuals"
> > bullshit that Dave himself wrote about
> > years ago. You want this. You're not going to be
> > stopped. You don't care how much the
> > popular viewpoint has to be overruled by the government,
> > you don't care what use your
> > racist stereotypes are put to, you don't care how many
> > bodies are piled up, this is the only
> > thing you care about.
> > Rainmandu says:
> > What racist stereotypes would those be?
> ===== Oh, maybe the way you insist on talking about the Not Into Giving Gays Equal
totally dodged how Proposition 8 passed. It wasn't the white vote that put it over, that's
for damned sure.
You're seriously equating judging someone for their beliefs / actions with judging
someone for their race? SERIOUSLY? And I didn't dodge how Prop. Hate passed. I talked
about it WAY back at the start, when I pointed out how stupid it was for those opposed to
Prop. Hate to totally ignore the black community. Whether they assumed the black
community was a lost cause, or assumed that the black community was a guaranteed vote
for their side, it was just stupid. And it looks like all of the new black voters who turned
out for this election meant that Prop. Hate passed by a narrower margin than it would have
without those new black voters.
> > > ----- Because you can't remotely see why anybodyGiving Gays Equal Rights. I'm asking why you seek to villify The Other and how doing so
> > would oppose you. I hope you
> > don't keep guns in your house. (oops, you live in
> > Seattle, never mind).
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Of course I can see why they oppose me. You're the one
> > who (for some reason) needs to
> > keep telling yourself, and trying to convince me, that
> > I'm basing my opinon on something
> > other than the reasons that those people give for their
> > opposition.
> ====== You see why they oppose you because you've got stereotypes of Not Into
makes your case? Also why you get your information from teevee, the radio and the
newspaper, but that's a whole 'nother thing.
It's a dodge, is what it is. But I guess that's all you've got when it comes to trying to deny /
ignore the reasons that people have for opposing gay marriage.
> > > > I mean, you can stereotype them all as"hateful", "ignorant", "cruel", "paranoid" and "stupid". Yeah, that's exactly the sort of
> > "hateful"
> > > > and "ignorant" and "cruel",
> > and how nice
> > > >
> > > > to see that you've added "paranoid"
> > -- since
> > > > I mentioned a few posts ago that you needed
> > > > to add adjectives that would dehumanize The Other
> > to make
> > > > your point -- but none of
> > > > this involves seeing people who disagree with you
> > as human
> > > > beings with their own valid
> > > > point-of-view. Why are you more interested in
> > adding
> > > > adjectives to people who disagree
> > > > with you than in thinking that maybe they have a
> > point
> > > > you're not capable of seeing, and
> > > > they're the majority viewpoint
> > > > > (those "hateful",
> > "ignorant"
> > > > niggers) so maybe you should take that into
> > account when
> > > > proscribing how a society should be run. Just a
> > thought.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > They don't have a point. If they do, they
> > haven't
> > > > made it. I'm not piling on adjectives just
> > > > because. The adjectives fit. Whether you know it
> > or not
> > > > (apparently you live in a cave with
> > > > no interest in accessing any evil media), more
> > than a few
> > > > people really do believe that
> > > > civilization will collapse if gays are allowed to
> > marry.
> > > > "Paranoid" fits.
> > >
> > > ------- Uh huh. Who, incidentally? Remember,
> > according to you, I'm in a "right wing
> > echo chamber". You never remotely asked for proof
> > that gay marriage supporters were
> > using violence and intimadation on those who disagreed with
> > them/you, but from the
> > "right-wing echo chamber" you claim I live in, I
> > have no idea what you're talking about.
> > Somehow everybody I look to for news neglected to mention
> > the collapse of civilization
> > you claim all of us beleive in. Or at least what
> > you've heard from the media.
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Why would I ask you for proof that a small minority of gay
> > marriage supporters were using
> > violence and intimidation? They are. They were. The proof
> > is out there and I've seen it, am
> > aware of it. You're now going to try to use my not
> > asking for proof from YOU to... I don't
> > know what. Your tactics sometimes confuse me. And I never
> > claimed that all of you believe
> > that civilization will collapse. Some of you do, though.
> > James Dobson. Jerry Falwell. Pat
> > Robertson.
> ====== And some of your team believe that those who disagree with them are
people who should be in charge. Ooops. Too late now.
>you're so confused by it and all, it would suggest my tactics/strategy work. I've done
> ====== By the way, how do you know this isn't "strategy", rather than "tactics"? Since
nothing to suggest people who support gay marriage didn't come to that position for
perfectly decent and respectable reasons. I've asked you why you're so eager to treat
people who oppose gay marriage in the exact opposite way, and I've asked why you see
that as a workable strategy for your side. You've consistently avoided my questions,
you've ignored violence and intimidation practiced by people who agree with you, and
you've continually justified yourself by how someone on teevee justified opposing gay
marriage because of something in Scripture,
No, that was ONE of the reasons. See, unlike you, I've actually addressed MANY of the
reasons people give for opposing gay marriage, and, unless I did it once and I happen to
forget, I haven't mentioned scripture once in this whole discussion.
therefore that's how you know what the many many millions of people who oppose gay
marriage think, i.e. "ignorance", "hate", "paranoia", "cruelty", and "stupidity". I've really
done everything I can to keep this from being *about*
> gay marriage, and more about why you have such a desperate need to talk aboutpeople who disagree with you on gay marriage like they're, um, what's the word, NIGGERS?
[I didn't write out the acronym this time, the word itself makes my point just fine.]
I'm not judging them on the color of their skin, but the content of their characters. Heh.
> > Rainmandu says:Rainmandu says:
> > You know, Margaret HAS addressed this. Oh, right. Sorry.
> > You don't think that she's said
> > anything that's worth responding to. I guess I'd
> > better not waste my time responding to it,
> > because you probably won't think it's worth
> > responding to.
> ====== Ok, let's pretend civil unions don't have all the perks of marriage.
We don't have to pretend. They don't.
> > Rainmandu says:more weight if you actually answered questions about what you do to oppose people on
> > I don't think of her as a "gay person,"
> > either. But she is. Gay.
> > I think of her as Margaret. I would treat her the same if
> > she were straight, or if she were a
> > man.
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Except for the part about not allowing her the same rights
> > and privileges. But what did you
> > say before? About people putting / not putting their
> > sexuality over their service to their
> > country? Straight or gay, no one should have to hide who
> > they are. You want to
> > discriminate, and it's their fault for not keeping it a
> > secret if you end up discriminating
> > against them.
> ===== You know, your comments about "not hiding who you are" would carry a bit
your side who commit violence and intimidation against those they disagree with. You're
obviously fine with the "don't tell" policy, it's the "don't ask" thing that gives you problems.
How old are you again?
I put on a red devil costume and go out and beat up purse snatchers in Hell's Kitchen. And
I don't have a problem with the "don't ask" part. I have a problem with the "ask like a dick"
Your side beats up an old woman carrying a cross and attacks a church, my side had some
guy on FOX claiming the Bible says gay marriage is wrong. For you, that's equivalent, and
the guy on FOX deserves much more condemnation. For me, gay marriage is the
> least important part of the issue, and the way you ignore violence and intimidation,while managing to vehemently dehumanize and degrade people who disagree with you as
"ignorant", "hateful", "cruel", "paranoid" and "stupid".
>consign them all to such status as inferior to yourself? God bless America, you're allowed
> You're in the vast minority, and you think so little of your fellow Americans that you
to walk around loose. You only preach hate, happy behind your keyboard, you don't
Wow. That's a lot of spin. Your side has some guy on Fox talking about the Bible and... I
never said anything about some guy on Fox. I'm talking about the reasons people have for
opposing gay marriage, and, in the middle of all of your refusal to discuss those reasons,
you think I'm only talking about some guy on Fox with a Bible? And look at the way you
framed your comparison: My side: beating up old ladies, attacking a church. Your side:
some guy with a Bible.
"From Off to On" - The Knife
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
>suggestion an algebraic nightmare worse than your informing the main
> > > ====== For the time being, I'm done complaining,
> > just because I do
> > support our troops, er, moderators/editors, even if I'm
> > not very
> > happy. But can you at least explain why it would be more
> > work to
> > submit the most frequent posters to a posting order?
> > They will overwhelm the thread unless they are segregated
> > to their
> > own thread. Or we have to re-calculate every thread though
> > some
> > algebraic nightmare. And more posts = more time moderators
> > spend
> > examining and approving posts.
> > No.
> > Better discussion. Not more discussion. The two are not
> > often
> > compatible.
> > You're done complaining? Awesome. Now you can start
> > listening.
> > -Jeff
> ===== I'm trying to listen, but I don't hear anything. How is my
group how many posts were made in a month, how we rank according to
the number of posts in that month, how we rank according to the
percentage of posts in that month, how we rank according to the
number of threads started each month, the percentage of threads we
each started each month, etc? You did that without any prompting for
a long time.
I did. And it had a negative effect. And I stopped.
And it was just for fun, not an attempt to re-adjust posting rules
based on participants habits. Margaret uses the same program now
simply as a tool to monitor and enforce posting rules that were put
into effect for other reasons.