WHERE MUSIC LISTENS TO YOU
deadmandeadman
deadmandeadman
Add To My Trusted Moggers

HAVE I OFFENDED EVERYBODY?

Posted over 2 years ago
"Humor":http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24148 can be funny. Something that makes me laugh and slap my leg, can make another want to slap me. I accept that, hell I embrace it. I have said it often; Humor is my sword and my shield.I shall not defend Ms Coulter, she doesn't need defending. I've heard her called some vile and vicious names, even here on the MOG, and I've never understood why. Or at least I wonder why folks don't speak of Jon Stewart in such ways. They are equaly "mean-spirited", so I guess it just depends on who's hog's gettin' slaughtered, huh?I laugh when I picture the mouths a-foamin' at the lady's mere picture.I have done this before and unleashed some real hostility! The liberal folks can run seminars on intolerance, preaching acceptance of all. (Except Christians & conservatives whom they attack and belittle at every turn).Back in the day, (a mere month or four ago, this post would have started a long thread of comments, most of them to bash Ms Coulter, ((and by extention, me)).Geeze I miss that.
0

Comments (47)

  1. debi
    debi says "was going to say the sodomy ruling got publicity up the wazoo, but this is, after all, Christmas week." - best line in the article ! I find Jon funnier than Ann but I'll defend anyone's right to laugh at either or none
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  2. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Hi Debi, I find both of them funny at times. I'm just amused that so many +hate+ the _lady_.
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  3. ROCKNROLLPIMP
    ROCKNROLLPIMP says WHO?
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  4. Marigold
    Marigold says I would be pressed to pick who I hate more. It would be a tough call between You and Ann that is for sure. lol Keep spreading the love Jeff. :P
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  5. Lester Jonze
    Lester Jonze says
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  6. disneyr
    disneyr says Nobody has a right not to be offended. I like comedy in many forms and many political stripes. The PC police are ruining comedy. If comedy is really funny it is going to offend someone. I think the most ridiculous thing is when members of a religion threaten to kill over a joke. If someone cannot take a joke in stride that person must not be very confident in an ideology.
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  7. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Lester, A perfect example of what I said. This man is twisting the conversation, creating controversy out of whole cloth. Ms Coulter is a Christian, however "unsensative" her remarks, she is stating one of the basic tenets of that faith, no? Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, Christians think of themselves as the new chosen, no? Where's the beef? As far as the rest, Hell yeah. I'm sick of the Kerrys and Pelosi's of the world blaming America First for every ill in the world! I'm sick of the tolerent crowd ripping to shreds any and all who do not accept the world as they think it should be. Being opposed to the favored issues of the left brands one as a bigot, homophobe (I love that one), whatever.
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  8. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Marigold, a big +manly+ hug. LOLOLOL
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  9. dharmachris
    dharmachris says Does she have a comedy show? Or does she want to be a political commentator? I'm just tired of the scorched earth lack of civility Coulter and folks like Michael Moore engender. I think we've proved here on Mog you can disagree without being disagreeable. Now I don't know if this was supposed to be funny or not, but this is what politics needs to get the vote: Obama Girls vs. Giuliani Girls:
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  10. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says dharmachris. Our system of government depends on having an informed electorate. So really, only about 1/4 of the people should vote, let the rest bleet about how terrible things are.
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  11. ROCKNROLLPIMP
    ROCKNROLLPIMP says i think i just turned into a REPUBLICAN
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  12. I am
    I am says For you Jeff, A big big football pat on the ass. I'll tall take Coulter over any of the offerings the Dem's have:
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  13. FastRMacR
    FastRMacR says Ignorance is bliss...
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  14. I am
    I am says For you Jeff, A big big football pat on the ass. I'll tall take Coulter over any of the offerings the Dem's have:
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  15. Dale
    Dale says Whoa, that's a lotta Albright!
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  16. thoughtyouweredead
    thoughtyouweredead says I'm confused here - I agree only the informed should vote but.......with US politics being decided on who has the most financial backing, there's no way people are informed (let alone 1/4 of the population). I suggest the rest of the world should vote on Americas behalf so we can be sure of (yet) another president we can all have a good laugh at. This way we get a far more interesting selection of music, movies, and literature which we can buy for our families for the holiday season (which is the real issue here) Eric Cartman for president 2008 turn up the heat turn up the heat
    Permalink posted 12/26/2007
  17. dermahrk
    dermahrk says Oh boy, I am is mentioning football and patting Jeff on the ass. The homoeroticism is killin' me... Ann is absolutely my favorite comedienne. I can't always take her seriously but am always fascinated by what she has to say. And I would much rather pat HER ass. "Miracle Touch", indeed.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  18. Bartleby
    Bartleby says It's the beauty of free speech, isn't it? And now something completely different:
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  19. ivylander
    ivylander says I'm with dharmachris on this. Moore is the proper counterpart for Coulter, not Stewart. Stewart is an entirely different animal. He is a satirist, not a polemicist. Unlike either Coulter or Moore, he's funny. Usually. And the reason he's funny is that he pays attention to the absurd and laughably wretched situation we've gotten ourselves into. He notices the details. He listens to the cretinous things people are actually saying, without his reaction to things predetermined by his politics. The other reason he can be funny is that you can never really be sure how he's going to respond - again, unlike either Moore or Coulter, both of whom I find drearily predictable in their reactions. I've seen him fillet people of both political wings, and I've generally found him justified. He can be mean, but I generally find him to be willing to lift his forearm from the other person's windpipe. You can't argue that this is how either Coulter or Moore have made their livings.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  20. brendanhalpin
    brendanhalpin says What I don't like about Ann Coulter is how people react to her. They take time responding to her patently ridiculous commentary (which she does present as serious commentary, and delivering it with a straight face as though it's meant to be taken seriously is her great achievement as a comedian) which distracts from the incompetence and criminality of our current administration. This whole thread has a straw man feel to me. Aren't those liberals and their thin skins terrible? It's true that nobody has a right to not get their feelings hurt. It's also true that no one has the right to trumpet their views without being challenged. And the left certainly doesn't have a monopoly on thin skins. Why, in the state where I live, a "traditional values" organization that was exposed as a systematic promoter of pedophilia led the charge against people marrying whoever they want because apparently that was offensive. Now that's comedy.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  21. River Lethe
    River Lethe says Well, deadman, I've been guilty of tearing into you before, so here's my take. I guess I'm unaware Coulter is trying to be funny. Seems to me people like her and O'Reily and the other right wingers are just being controversial for the sake of being controversial. It makes them money. And it's brilliant, really. I don't believe for a second that they actually believe their own words most of the time. Unfortunately, especially here in the Bible belt (sorry to bring up the religion again, but I live here and see it all the time), people DO believe the words coming out of their mouths. And act accordingly. I agree that a more appropriate counterpoint is Moore and orgs like MoveOn. Unfortunately, people believe them too, and most of them don't understand that there are different kinds of freedom. Freedom to X, and freedom from X. I think both parties ultimately want to control people's lives to a degree I'm not comfortable with. And we can, in fact, thank the Dems for the PC movement, which is just dishonest. Problem is, we tend to lump each other into these categories too, just like you said. I'm not a Democrat, but I get lumped with the left-wingers when I disagree with GOP policy. It just so happens that's who's in charge right now, and you'll hear me complain about plenty when the Dems take over again too. I find the whole system flawed, but that's how we make it better. If you're the kind of GOP that is full-on status quo, then we'll just never see eye to eye. And maybe you're not, and maybe I've been guilty of placing you in that category. I also hate that we use the words liberal and conservative like they're bad words. Most of us have both tendencies, depending on what you're talking about. As far as Stewart and Colbert? Well, they're just way smarter than the average joe, and I think what they do can be appreciated by both sides. It doesn't seem mean-spirited to me at all, unlike the other people we've been talking about. I don't read any of those trash books anyway, left-wing or right-wing, and don't intend to. They're meant to infuriate people, which makes it harder to think and talk rationally, and that's why there's so little bi-partisanship. Well, that and the fact that people are basically selfish creatures. P.S. I hate hippies too. I'd support a Cartman platform.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  22. TylerDurden
    TylerDurden says I enjoy watching Jon, I get uncofortable with Ann though......as a christian, I laugh at her, but I am also saddened, she is a self proclaimed spokesperson for 'christianity', and I will say, she doesn't speak for me.....I often wander why so many people despise christains, and those who go to church, but now I know that the people they let on TV and radio who speak for Christians are the self delusional types that give them a bad name......the sad thing is, she thinks she is speaking the truth of God, but her doctrine is a bit twisted... Thanks DMDM for letting me share my dislike of her views, but she is definetely comical to watch her make a bloody arse of herself on camera.....
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  23. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says I'll take your opinion of her as "comedy" on the level of Jon Stewart as that, opinion. I just don't find her funny. Am I offended by her? Not really, because I can only assume what she says is geared to agitate as much as anything anyone like Limbaugh or O'Reilly says. I just happen to find Stewart's commentaries wittier and more thought provoking. But look at me I'm sounding like a "knee jerk" liberal. "Jerk" maybe, but... Now this is funny stuff: And here's Stewart not wvwn trying to be funny, and he knocks it out of the park with what most thinking people feel:
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  24. River Lethe
    River Lethe says I have to say, I also love how the South Park guys and Penn & Teller go after EVERYBODY in order to try to help people think for themselves. If you've never seen Penn & Teller's show Bullsh!t, you should watch it If only our actual media had the balls to do what all these guys in comedy are doing, you might actually get closer to having an informed public. Sad that a portion of the entertainment world has such a leg up on the media.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  25. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says True, the old National Lampoon motto "No Sacred Cows" is a good way to view things when it comes to comedy and satire.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  26. River Lethe
    River Lethe says Here's the problem: Deadman said "I'm sick of the tolerent crowd ripping to shreds any and all who do not accept the world as they think it should be." Both sides do this in different ways. GOPs want to interfere with people's lives in regards to abortion, marriage, homosexuality, "family values" (whatever hypocricy that means), etc. The Left want to control how people speak and react to one another (like the whole let's-not-say-Christmas thing). They want us to be dishonest with one another for fear of offending or hurting feelings. But the difference is that noone's trying to make laws regarding how we greet each other at Christmas, but if a person is a homosexual trying to marry or adopt a foster child they face governmental opposition. One is definitely more dangerous than the other. None of those things are anyone's business, especially the government's. What's ironic about that, is that tradtionally, Republicans wanted less government involvement in people's everyday lives. This isn't true anymore, except when it comes to money. So you get caught in a paradox. I'll be the first to say that I'm intolerant of certain viewpoints, most of which stem from religion. But how can you be tolerant of a belief system that encourages people to directly interfere in other people's lives? Does my unwillingness to lay down quietly make me intolerant? If so, then feel free to call me so; call me a hypocrite or worse. I'm comfortable with it. But to claim, like Coulter does, that you are Christian and tolerant, and yet not see how your remarks are offensive is living with blinders on (which religion also encourages). So, where's the beef? The beef is the air of superiority and the language used. It's sitting in judgement, and quite honestly the only difference I see between this and the extreme Muslims is the lack of a bomb strapped to their chest. At least the Jews leave everyone alone (unless you believe in the Zionist conspiracy). The Right-wing is good at this kind of talk, and when they get called on it, they complain that the Liberals (insert venom into the word for full effect) are being babies. Deadman, you yourself used the word "Bleat" (which you spelled wrong), which implies "sheep" which obviously carries negative connotations. Language has power, and too many people wield it like a kid who just got his first rifle, blasting everything that moves, not because he's mean, but because he's unthinking and he can. So, no, noone has the right to not be offended (which includes the Christian and conservative), but you can't expect to engage people with provocative language and not expect a backlash of some sort. More often than not, the GOP is better at this game and the Dems end up being pussies about it, but I guarantee you there are lots of people out there (myself included) that don't fall for this. And as far as only the informed should vote? It's funny, because that sounds real similar to ideas in Plato's Republic about philosopher-kings, but when I made some other comments about making a better state in another post (which is also out of the Republic) I got branded a Socialist by you. And I don't know what population of the country actually votes, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that the number is closer to the 25% than 100%. And who gets to decide what constitutes being informed? I'm not sure I disagree, I'm just posing the question.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  27. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says _GOPs want to interfere with people's lives in regards to abortion, marriage, homosexuality, "family values" (whatever hypocricy that means), etc._ This is wrong. While not denying the strong influence of the extreme right wing of the party, most conservatives agree with you on abortion, its between a women & her doctor, the state has no place. They just don't want tax-payer dollars used to subsidize it. **Most People* (Going by the only "polls" that matter), would define marraige as a man/woman thing. Yes, words have power. If, as you assert, a person is offensive for answering questions concerning faith? Even if she's been badgered as in the interview? Prodded to say something outrageous, she counters with an offensive truth?
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  28. Spike
    Spike says I wish Ann Coulter's legs were a little bit less skinny. As a nattering nabob of negativism, she's fairly adept.
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  29. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says I think she's funny as hell. I believe that Samuel Clemens, her idealogical polar opposite, would have loved her style. (he should, its his).
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  30. chucky
    chucky says I don't know what to make of her. Funny that you posted this because my husband is on an Ann Coulter kick right now. He picked up some of her stuff from the library and is raving about her. She turns me off. Of course, I also refuse to watch Jon Stewart (or Michael Moore), so I am possibly too easily heated. ;)
    Permalink posted 12/27/2007
  31. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says chucky. How are you? Ms Coulter's razor wit and laser intensity are deployed to dismantle the absurdities of modern political life. Her biggest crime, as far as I can see, is being unapologeticaly conservative. You will note that you'll never see ANYONE described as a Liberal commentator. Not Stewart, Not Maher, not ANYBODY. But Ms Coulter, (and others) are ALWAYS labeled as Conservative. America is in the firm grip of three broadcast networks who are demonstrably left leaning in their outlook. And a lot of folks RESENT the ONE network (and THAT on cable) that is conservative. I've heard folks here in the MOG question the intelligence of anyone who would watch fox news. WTF!
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  32. River Lethe
    River Lethe says Deadman, what she said isn't offensive to me and obviously not to you, but do you really not understand how it's offensive to Jews (which the interviewer is)? It doesn't matter that he pressed the point. She can say whatever she wants, and if she believes it then that's fine. It's not really any different than when I talk negatively about religion. But I would never claim that the things I sometimes say aren't offensive to some people (I just don't care). It's the defense and justification of her that bothers me, not what she said. At least be honest about it, because I don't believe for a second that you're dumb enough to not understand that what she said pissed off Jews everywhere. And on the other point, yes the abortion issue is partly about federal funding (which I side with the conservatives on), but don't think for a second that if we got one more conservative federal judge and Roe v. Wade got overturned that a good portion of your party, especially here in the South, wouldn't then try to make abortions illegal altogether (they already try, but with the overturning of that ruling, it would worsen). And I don't care how you or "most" people, as you say, define marriage. The conservatives do, in fact, block homosexuals from having the same legal rights as straight people, in regards to spousal rights. For instance, if a significant other becomes ill and/or dies, the partner or spouse retains no legal say in the proceedings, but the family does. It's a civil rights issue, just like race and gender, regardless of whether you believe that or not. And don't get me started on blocking foster care and adoption. You don't "catch" gay, and it's not a learned behavior. The messed up adolescents in the DCFS system are not there because of homosexuality. They're there because their families, most of which are self-described as Christian, are physically and sexually abusive, neglectful and substance abusers. It's what I do for a living, and I can tell you there is not a SINGLE case I'm familiar with where this isn't true. I take exception to the Christian conservatives that try to claim moral high ground, but do not act according to the tenets of their belief system that they are all too willing to try and impose on the rest of the country. Be honest, and take care of your own family before pointing your finger at everyone else. And on a final note, there is no media outlet that is objective or trustworthy. They all piss me off, to be honest. But it's funny to me that conservatives cry out about the "liberal media", which are all owned by conservative big-business companies and gave the Bush administration a pass on everything they had done prior to the 2004 election. No one asked many tough questions or made them answer the ones that had been asked, but they jumped and ran with the Kerry accusations, which ultimately had a big hand in his defeat. Liberal media, indeed. Conservatives aren't victims, so quit talking like a victim. 51% of the country agreed with you in 2004, and if the numbers have shrunk in the past few years, it's because of the actions of the current administration. I'm starting to question whether you'd be one of the "informed electorate" you want to steer the country.
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  33. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says **And I don't care how you or "most" people, as you say, define marriage.** >And you don't see this as a problem. How many millenia have we as a species been developing our "social norms"? We have a societal structure that is the result of those millenia of social experimentation. As we speak, a relatively small percentage of the population want to change social mores in ways the rest of society views as radical. The small percentage believe one thing, unproven and unprovable, the rest think another way. The one would force their views on everyone while insisting that the opposite is true. (As you so brilliantly illustrate with your bile)You obviously believe that homosexuality is an inate thing. Nature, not turture. But science has not answered that question, and in fact within the fields of psychiatry and psychology there is much debate. Its cute that your opinion is so dearly held. I laud your defense of your opinion, but it is just an opinion. And don't get your panties in a bunch when someone disagrees with your opinion. I certainly do not know if the answer is nature or nurture, nor do I care. I do know that the vast majority of people +do+ have opinions on the matter, and yours is in the minority. If it is, as you jest, a civil rights issue than the answer is simple. Put it to a vote. You ** take exception to the Christian conservatives that try to claim moral high ground, but do not act according to the tenets of their belief system that they are all too willing to try and impose on the rest of the country. Be honest, and take care of your own family before pointing your finger at everyone else.** From your lofty perch I'm sure your sweeping condemnation sounds righteous, But to these ears your words reek of bile & bilge.
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  34. chucky
    chucky says Haha, yes I've noticed that. I spend alot of time reading the comment threads over at fark and they are all frothing at the mouth in that vein. It's like watching monkeys flinging poo at the zoo. Heh...;)
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  35. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says chucky, a very apt analogy. The extremes on this issue are mirror images of each other. Each convinced of their righteousness and demanding that all toe their line. But if you point this out to them, they claim their faith (either in a diety or in reason) to be the only true faith. It would be laughable if it wasn't so lame.
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  36. chucky
    chucky says It's both lame and laughable from where I'm sitting...haha.
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  37. FastRMacR
    FastRMacR says
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  38. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says chucky, yeah, but its a sad chuckle. FastRmacR, yes call in the ultimate iconoclast to weigh in.
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  39. FastRMacR
    FastRMacR says Just tryin to help feed whatever you're missing dmdm. ;) FwiW I like her hair better. I like a lot of what FZ had (still has) to say. A fair iconoclast speakin his mind like you or I would. From a musician's standpoint - FZ is absolutely brilliant - I'll take his weight over yours with this woman with her shitty arguments. BTW -that's the only thing that matters man - you either have a good argument or a shitty one - period. Words. River Lethe is giving you good argument. Thanks for the reading this last week - great spliff for my brain. Here's some for that (that and because I am made me an Albright sandwich with my brilliant comment). < much -snipped > Take short-attentions and listen to this 20 minutes of the same thing here. See how they froth as he says "get out more". Just like dogs - no socialization or no love equals poor dog. We have all gone to the dog pounds (read into that). Hipparchus, Joan of Arc, Galileo, Newton, Nietzsche, and Einstein were more ultimate iconoclasts in my books. (but this is a music site right?) I would bet Mr. Lofton doesn't play music around his house.
    Permalink posted 12/28/2007
  40. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says MacR. Thank you for that enjoyable clip. Its difficult to believe that it wasn't a comedy skit. (Oh I believe). Free speech is +definitely+ under assault from the left and from the right. You _know_ they each are tryin' to find a rationalization to exert control over the internet.
    Permalink posted 12/29/2007
  41. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Strange though, **that Lady** with her shitty arguments never gets challenged on _what_ she says. Only on how she says it.
    Permalink posted 12/29/2007
  42. ivylander
    ivylander says What does she say, though? That Jews should be "perfected"? That we should kill all the leaders in the Middle East and convert everyone to Christianity? That she wishes Timothy McVeigh would have bombed the New York Times Building instead? That Bill Clinton is gay? I have trouble understanding what she actually stands for. And those statements don't work for me either as serious comments or as humor, so what's left? The only answer I can come up with calculated outrage, and to respond to that in kind is to grab the tar baby with both hands. It reminds me of 1984, when my office in New York was in the same building as the Lyndon LaRouche headquarters. (Worth Googling for anyone who has never heard of him.) There were always a lot of weirdly political bumper stickers and flyers stuck to subway walls and street signs on our block as a result of the LaRouche people. One particularly memorable one said, "I know Walter Mondale is running for President, but who can heterosexuals vote for?" How are you supposed to respond logically to that?
    Permalink posted 12/29/2007
  43. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says Bill, you and I will never see eye to eye on the subject of Ms Coulter. That's OK though, its what makes the world go 'round. Her most "controversial" comments, while provocative on their own when they're removed from context, are usually made in obvious hyperbolic(?) style while she's riffing on her subject of the moment. If she didn't do this the mainstream press would never acknowledge her existance. And I really don't lump her in with the O'Reilys of the world. I believe she'd be a lively entertaining conversationalist. I know she's very conversant on a whole range of non-politic subjects. She has carved her niche, created a personna, and plays the part to perfection. That you find her not funny is right and proper. That you find her offensive at times is OK too. That means she's doin' her job. You are a very thoughtful person, and your views are decidedly more liberal than hers. That doesn't make either one evil or mean spirited. You have 'caused me to think outside my box on many an occasion. I value folks that do that. So, in summation.....I'm OK, You're OK, the clash of ideas create the most brilliant sparks.
    Permalink posted 12/29/2007
  44. ivylander
    ivylander says Agreed.
    Permalink posted 12/29/2007
  45. River Lethe
    River Lethe says "From your lofty perch I'm sure your sweeping condemnation sounds righteous, But to these ears your words reek of bile & bilge." Nope, I know I'm venomous. Sometimes I'm apologetic and sometimes I'm not, but you've never bothered to answer my points/questions in any post we've both been on. Instead, you do what the GOP is usually so good at, which is ignoring valid criticisms altogether. Meanwhile, opposition wastes their breath trying to defend their own positions to someone who isn't really listening. Your disdain can also come across as bile-filled, if only because you refuse to take anyone else seriously. I'm taking you seriously (even when you say, what are to me, absurd things) by entering into debate with you, but you don't reciprocate. I don't disagree with everything you say, but I do like to argue because I find it intellectually stimulating. But I'm not angry with you personally, or frothing at the mouth or losing sleep, I just think you're wrong about some things. We wouldn't get anywhere as a country if there wasn't dissent and discourse. "And you don't see this as a problem. How many millenia have we as a species been developing our "social norms"? We have a societal structure that is the result of those millenia of social experimentation." Is this not what we're doing now? Examining our social issues? Is nothing to ever change? How things are now is the end solution to all those millenia? We're done? "As we speak, a relatively small percentage of the population want to change social mores in ways the rest of society views as radical. The small percentage believe one thing, unproven and unprovable, the rest think another way. The one would force their views on everyone while insisting that the opposite is true." The point I was trying to make is how exactly does believing this force my views on you? What business is it of other people, how other people live their lives (ie. homosexuality and marriage)? Really, how does it affect you if gay people want to get married? Meanwhile, they're losing civil rights (ie. the example I gave that you ignored). So they are losing something, but you are not. Or is it that your ideology is more important than their civil rights (regardless of whether they're in the minority or not)? "You obviously believe that homosexuality is an inate thing. Nature, not turture. But science has not answered that question, and in fact within the fields of psychiatry and psychology there is much debate." It's not a belief, answered by the simple question: At what point in your life did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? It's true that science hasn't answered the question yet, but the evidence is stacked pretty high against yours. The next few years, as we unravel the human genome further, will be very interesting. And debate in psychology? No, not really. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM decades ago. You'd be hard-pressed to find a serious psychologist or psychiatrist that believes it is a psychological problem, that someone's just not thinking right, and/or that it is something that can be "cured". I suggest you get up to speed on this issue before you try to argue intelligently about it further. "If it is, as you jest, a civil rights issue than the answer is simple. Put it to a vote." Well, change is slow in our government (by design), but it'll happen eventually. People felt the same way at one time about women and non-white races (and many still do), so if you want to align yourself with the same kind of crowd, then be my guest. In the meantime, while it's still an issue, be as smug as you want. It's a potentially dangerous time, as well, because we're closer than we've ever been to having a female or black president, and if that happens I think we'll really see just how far (or not) we've come as a society. There's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. But fear has been pretty effective lately. "The extremes on this issue are mirror images of each other. Each convinced of their righteousness and demanding that all toe their line. But if you point this out to them, they claim their faith (either in a diety or in reason) to be the only true faith. It would be laughable if it wasn't so lame." How can you sum up some of the things I was saying like this, and yet not understand that it applies to you as well? Do you believe you're a moderate, Middle-American? The above quote pretty much contradicts all the other points you tried to make, here and elsewhere. Or maybe, you're just trying to stir people up and having fun. If so, well done, you succeeded! "the clash of ideas create the most brilliant sparks." At last we find something to really, fully agree on! And in closing, since you already think I'm a Socialist, allow me to irritate you with another Marxist idea: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Someone comes up with an idea. Everyone reacts to this idea. Some reactions are in opposition to the original idea. They come together to debate, until someone forms a synthesis of the two that more people can agree with. And so on, and so on. . .
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  46. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says **What business is it of other people, how other people live their lives (ie. homosexuality and marriage)? Really, how does it affect you if gay people want to get married? Meanwhile, they're losing civil rights (ie. the example I gave that you ignored). So they are losing something, but you are not. Or is it that your ideology is more important than their civil rights (regardless of whether they're in the minority or not)?** The examples you provided are excellent ones. A gay couple has the right to legally do all the things you require. There are mechanisms in place for them to have the rights they require. >But let's make one thing clear. You don't know **my** opinions on any of these issues. I'm trying to provide an overview. Yes societal norms change slowly, frustratingly. A very small percentage of the population wants to make radicle changes, the rest is resisting, you don't see that? There are FAR MORE folks who believe homosexuality is wrong, than the other way. What right have gay folks to force everyone to accept their views?
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008
  47. River Lethe
    River Lethe says Fair enough, deadman, fair enough. In the meantime, I've been thinking about the definitions of conservative and liberal. Mainly, that liberals want change and reform, and conservatives resist change (we're talking by definition, not necessarily the political labels Conservative and Liberal). I think you're right in that liberals don't often identify themselves as such, while conservatives seem proud to do so. And this is where the conservatives have so thouroughly beaten the liberals. They have been so successful at turning the word into a negative connotation; the one, obsolete meaning of the word has overshadowed all it's other meanings. True, I don't know your real feelings about all of this, but you tend to write from a clearly conservative viewpoint. Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate. I said in my first comment on this post that we are guilty of putting each other into these categories sometimes. As Vonnegut would call it, a granfalloon. And that is why I don't identify myself with liberals, despite that I obviously lean more to the left than the right. Because I don't really want to be associated with most of them. They don't really have too many proponents that don't seem weak or conniving. And they don't have too many charismatics either. Obama's about all they've got. They desperately need someone provocative enough to stir up the other side (Hillary doesn't count, she doesn't even really have to do or say anything and the other side despises her so much). I really got off topic anyway, and some of the things we were talking about are merely the differences between conservatives and liberals (of which there are many types, but we tend to generalize). I've even got some libertarian (the true definition, not the political party; ie. personal freedom, free will and personal responsibility) and a touch of nihilism to add to the mix. And wrath is my sin. My real point, which I think stands throughout, is that when I say some of the things that I do, it is really no different than what Ms. Coulter does. Only the content is different. The other difference is that I don't pretend to be surprised if someone takes offense. You wanted to defend her linguistic style and methods, but were perfectly willing to dismiss me because I seemed angry and made potentially radical claims. So where is the difference? Or have we both fooled each other during these conversations about where we really stand? Part of the problem of internet discussions is the loss of tone of voice and body language. Sarcasm is hard to pull off without just sounding like a jerk. Hyperbole sounds serious. At the very least, you've made me think the past few days about how we use the terms liberal and conservative, and how we apply them to ourselves and others, so though we may not agree on some things (and with me risking wearing out my welcome with a few of you), we can at least make each other think. And I'm happy with that, despite differing conclusions.
    Permalink posted 01/04/2008

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

Top Artist Radio

Top Albums

Top Songs

Top Artists From A to Z

Our Daily Picks

RSS

Featured Playlists

All Featured Playlists

© 2006-2010 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved