Politics and Motivations

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2/15/2004 8:02:24 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> writes:
> See here is where I wonder about your perspective.
> My main experience with 
> conservative political thought is from the talking
> heads on TV and conservative 
> politicians. They seem pretty damn sure of
> themselves.They talk about the 
> little guy and the common american folk but they
> sure don't seem to want to help 
> them very much. Some of the things that the current
> administration has said and 
> done show in my opinion contempt for the
> intelligence of the american 
> electorate. Using WMD as the reason for the war
> because they didn't think americans 
> would be willing to fight just to change the
> political culture in the middle 
> east is showing contempt or at least a lack of trust
> in the judgement of 
> americans. 
> Disclaimer: Many liberals also have contempt for the
> people. Unfortunately 
> this seems to be a trait of politicians in general.
> But I think you are just not 
> seeing things clearly here. 
> 
> How about this as a general rule. We all accept that
> there are people of bad 
> faith at all points in the political spectrum. That
> way we all know that 
> everyone is an ahole and all americans are idiots
> and we can get on with the debate 
> at hand. 

I think there _are_ people who act in bad faith on all
sides of the political spectrum, yes.  I actually
think there are relatively few.  Most people in
politics are, I think, good people doing the best they
can in a difficult environment.  I thought that about
(most) Clinton Administration policies, I think that
about (most) Bush Administration policies, and I will
probably think that about most people in the
Administration of whoever wins the next Presidency.

I'd disagree with you on several points.  You say
conservatives don't want to help common folk very
much.  I think you're exactly wrong - they want to
help "common folk" in an entirely different way than
you do.  I happen to think their way is better.

Suppose I was arguing about motives from results in
the same way?  Let's look at welfare.  In my opinion
the major product of the welfare system as created in
the 1960s was to create a permanent underclass of
people dependent on the government, with negative
incentives that could not have been better designed to
destroy the values that had the best shot at getting
people _out_ of poverty in the first place.  It was
conservatives who fought to reform that system,
against strong liberal opposition.  They won, and the
poor are much better off for it.  So, I could, judging
by the same standards, say that what liberals _really_
wanted was to create that permanent underclass, a
captive voting block continually supporting liberal
causes, and one served by an ever-expanding government
bureaucracy made up of people who _also_ all voted for
liberal causes.  It just happened to do a lot of harm
to the poor.  Maybe that wasn't important to liberals?

No.  I reject that argument entirely.  It is, I think,
an explanation for the facts as parsimonious as what I
think actually happened - that the left was committed
(for ideological reasons) to a fundamentally flawed
view of the causes of poverty and, for simple but
powerful institutional dynamics reasons, was captured
by interest groups that had a primary focus on
preserving and increasing government funding.  None of
that means that people didn't care about helping the
poor.  They were just doing it in a way that was
actually _hurting_ the poor.  Which is why
conservatives had to stop them.  I didn't - and every
conservative I know didn't - support welfare reform
because we _didn't_ care about the poor.  It was
because we _did_, and we had to save them from the
people who claimed they were helping them.

Where I disagree with you can pretty much be
encapsulated in the above argument.  Just because
someone disagrees with the means that you prefer to do
certain things, a lot of people on this list seem to
believe that means that we're hostile to your ends.  I
want to change welfare, so that must mean I'm hostile
to the poor.  Assuming arguendo I want to cut taxes,
so I must be trying to help my rich friends.  And so
on.

Similarly with the WMD thing.  I don't think the Bush
Administration relied upon WMDs because they were
contemptuous of the American public.  They did because
they provided a clear and unmistakeable justification
_in front of the UN_.  And they were forced to go to
the UN by people who opposed invading Iraq.  Do I
think they made a mistake?  Yes, I think they did. 
Going to the UN was a mistake, and everything that has
followed since then is a product of that mistake.  The
mistake came from accomodating, not contempt.  Maybe
that's wrong.  But it's an equally - or more -
plausible explanation for their actions that _doesn't_
involve bad motives on their part.

The _difference_ in views, and the reason this whole
discussion got started, 

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Doug Pensinger]

Bryon wrote:


I've seen an article saying that hundreds of gay couples lined up to be 
married.  I had assumed they would be automatically invalidated, though 
- I hadn't realized, that it would require a court decision to nullify 
them.
Well, that's what I've read anyway. Some good insight here:
http://tinyurl.com/35zoq
That being the case, I'm surprised some SF mayor hadn't already done 
this.
Yea, keep your eyes on Gavin Newsom, he's a firecracker.  Funny thing is, 
he's a moderate as SF pols go - his opposition in the recent mayoral 
election tried to paint him as a Republican, and prior to this he was best 
known for his Care not Cash program to combat SF's epidemic homlessness.
see: http://tinyurl.com/ywbt3

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bryon Daly]

From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:32:36PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Yawn. You try it, I've got better things to do.
>
> Than getting along with the people you love?  What could be more 
important
> than a good intimate relationship?

N/A. Yawn.
Pardon me if I'm prying here, but are you rejecting intimate relationships 
in general, or just dismissing his argument?  It seems the former, but 
outside the clergy, I don't know any voluntarily celibate people (for the 
long term, anyway), so your response surprises me.

-bryon

_
Keep up with high-tech trends here at "Hook'd on Technology." 
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/hookedontech.armx

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Done with it?  I certainly didn't _start_ it.  But
> > more characteristic?  Certainly.  That sort of
> > arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less
> > common among conservatives.  We don't know The One
> > Truth.  That's not our job, after all, so a
> > conservative who pretends he does is behaving in a
> > fundamentally aconservative manner.
> 
> Are you arguing that the religeous right contains
> people who are not true
> conservatives?
> 
> Dan M.

In some ways, yes, actually.  They aren't conservative
in many of the ways that I think of "conservative" -
particularly in terms of political philosophy.  They
agree with conservatives on a lot of things, so they
are often very useful allies.  But they _disagree_
with conservatives on quite a few things as well, I
think.  They just have a lower level of political
salience right now, so they don't come up in political
discussion much.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bryon Daly]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to
basically agree about "Gay Marriage".
This focus on microscopic points of difference is amazingly like a
Monty Python sketch.
Maybe the listname should be changed to "The Argument Clinic".
Well, everyone got sidetracked by the debate over the meta-issue of the 
response to the first person who dissented.  I'm still hoping that maybe JDG 
and Gautam might offer their (possibly dissenting) opinions.   I'm betting 
odds that John's reply will target judicial activism.  :-)

-bryon
"No, no sir, it's not dead. It's resting." Maru
_
Choose now from 4 levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage - no more account 
overload! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bryon Daly]

From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jim Sharkey wrote:
> Gay divorce is sure to follow Maru

Hm.  I wonder what the gay divorce rate will be compared to the straight
divorce rate in 30 years.  I imagine it'll be lower for awhile if gay
marriages are permitted.  Not sure when it would catch up.
I'm not sure it ever would catch up.  I think some healthy percentage of 
divorces are the result of marriages done for assorted social pressure 
reasons that really wouldn't apply to gays, because gays have been getting 
by without marriage forever.  (Ie: "we need to be married before we have sex 
or live together because my family won't approve", "I need to be married to 
have personal fulfillment/I don't want to be a spinster at age 32", etc).

With less social pressure to marry, I'd imagine that most gays that wanted 
to bother to get married would have stronger reasons for commitment.

_
Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here. 
http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bryon Daly]

From: Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Or out here in S.F. where I believe it will require a court decision to 
nullify the recent same sex marriages taking place over the last few days.  
The gay side will use the state constitution's equal protection clause to 
try to make their case.
I've seen an article saying that hundreds of gay couples lined up to be 
married.  I had assumed they would be automatically invalidated, though - I 
hadn't realized, that it would require a court decision to nullify them.  
That being the case, I'm surprised some SF mayor hadn't already done this.

-bryon

_
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and 
beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bryon Daly]

From: "Mike Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bryon Daly said:
> That said, while the MA SJC ruling is an amazing
> breakthrough, I wonder if it will in some ways harm the gay
> marriage cause almost as much as help it.
I've thought about this too, and I've come down on the side of "So what?"

Would Rosa Parks have sat tight if she'd thought, I wonder if this might 
set
the cause back as much as it helps it? Sometimes, you just have to say, 
What
the Eff...
Yes, it's easy for me to say "it would have been better if only this waited 
a little longer and was better timed...", when it's not affecting me 
personally.  But it doesn't really matter, because everyone has to play out 
the hand that's been dealt, whether the timing is good or not.  I brought it 
up because I thought it was an interesting thought.

> My other timing concern is that this is happening right in
> the middle of the presidential election cycle.  The current
I thought gay marriage was going to be a huge issue, but the Democrats are
cutting and running too. I could be wrong, though that's never happened
before, but I think this is going to fizzle as an issue and a 
constitutional
amendment is DOA. Nobody wants to go near this. Denial will buy time and
serve gays well. I think there's a tipping point coming soon.
I kind of perceived that the Dems were cutting and running as well.  My 
concern was that it would lead to a weak fight against proposed 
laws/amendments.  I agree that a US constitutional amendment is likely DOA, 
but am not so sure about what may be possible at the state level.  As an 
election issue, though, I suspect it might have some effect.  Perhaps you 
are right that denial will buy time, though.

It's also possible that once the nation starts seeing the state-sanctioned 
gay marriages in MA start to happen, with lots of positive media spin, and 
the failure of Armageddon to immediately occur and destroy the world, that 
okayness with it might greatly broaden.

-Bryon

_
Optimize your Internet experience to the max with the new MSN Premium 
Internet Software. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: In one error and out the otter

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 2/15/2004 9:38:35 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Same kinda thing with the Mongolian BBQ on North Lamar -- if the owner
> is there, it can't be *all* bad.
> 
> There are a few people who can't fail to cheer me up.  Of course, I'm
> not in contact with them all *that* often, so whatever magic it is
> hasn't had the chance to wear out yet.  :)
> 
>   Julia
> 
> William Taylor's posts are the ones most likely to have that effect on
> me here
> 

So, here's another...


Next time you're at the Mongolian BBQ, bring a big sign with you:

KUBLA

And stick it on one of the bathroom stall doors.

Then if you have to leave your table to make use of the facilities, you 
announce,

"Just call me Xanna."

The smart people at the table will understand.

For in Kubla can did Xanna do.


William Taylor
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 2/15/2004 9:10:33 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Frisco?  Frisco?  Where is this Frisco?
> 

With Pancho?

However, being 1950s TV, no one could ask why the two were always seen 
together.



Tomorrow, if they are there for half price day, I'll pick up three or four 
Cisco Kid tapes for $1.50 each.

Kitsch as catch can.

William Taylor 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:55 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 06:40:28PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> And keep in mind that just because someone does not agree with you
> on a topic does not mean that s/he has not thought about the topic,
> perhaps at least as much as you have.  I believe it was Dan who
> mentioned that issues in politics are frequently so complex that
> reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the same
> issue.
And I almost never listen to you because usually your posts are so inane


The world can be an inane (not to mention insane) place.  Ya gotta go with 
the flow . . .



or else totally miss the point, such as this comment.


Was not your point that you wanted to know whether a loud response or a 
soft response would get someone who did not agree with your take on an 
issue to start thinking, and then presumably would change his or her mind 
and come to agree with you?  If not, what was it?



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
> 
> At 10:33 PM 2/15/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> >I know of a couple of people in Austin who were trying to fly out there
> >on Friday for that purpose.  What with the weather and all, though, they
> >didn't make it.
> 
> Maybe they should have considered using an airplane . . .

They were trying.  Some of the airplanes were having problems around
here, though.  Or maybe the problem was just getting to the airport. 
(Someone on a mostly-local mailing list was griping about the SUVs they
managed *not* to have collisions with around 7AM.)

I haven't driven anywhere since Thursday night, so I don't know
first-hand how bad road conditions were.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 10:33 PM 2/15/04, Julia Thompson wrote:

I know of a couple of people in Austin who were trying to fly out there
on Friday for that purpose.  What with the weather and all, though, they
didn't make it.


Maybe they should have considered using an airplane . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> Robert wrote:
> 
> 
> > On a tangent, it seems Frisco is undergoing an *orgy* of marriage ATM
> > and its making the city officials a bit ogreish.
> 
> Frisco?  Frisco?  Where is this Frisco?

I think it a southern suburb of Kentfield. 

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: In one error and out the otter

[Julia Thompson]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:22 PM
> Subject: Re: In one error and out the otter
> 
> > No, but if you'd included a coupon, I might have been able to use it at
> > Quizno's, so it would have some redeemed value.  And I get out so
> > rarely, going to Quizno's would be something of a social occasion.  So
> > that would make it redeemed social value, yes?
> 
> Except if you were in a bitchy mood, then it would have anti-social value.
> :-)

Oh, I can't stay in a bitchy mood in the Quizno's on Louis Henna if the
owner is there -- he's like a sunbeam.

Same kinda thing with the Mongolian BBQ on North Lamar -- if the owner
is there, it can't be *all* bad.

There are a few people who can't fail to cheer me up.  Of course, I'm
not in contact with them all *that* often, so whatever magic it is
hasn't had the chance to wear out yet.  :)

Julia

William Taylor's posts are the ones most likely to have that effect on
me here
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> 
> > Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> > >
> > > > At 06:47 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems
> to
> > > > >basically agree about "Gay Marriage".
> > > >
> > > > That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for
> me
> > > to
> > > > collect my thoughts on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-)
> > > >
> > > Now there is a debate.
> > > Ogre Marriage?
> >
> > Ogre marriage is fine between two ogres.
> >
> > I think we can *all* agree on that, anyway.  :)
> >
> 
> On a tangent, it seems Frisco is undergoing an *orgy* of marriage ATM
> and its making the city officials a bit ogreish.
> 
> xponent
> Puntastic Maru
> rob

I know of a couple of people in Austin who were trying to fly out there
on Friday for that purpose.  What with the weather and all, though, they
didn't make it.  (It was sleeting when I got up on Friday.  There was an
inch of snow on the ground when I got up Saturday.  And Dan did the
grocery shopping on Friday because I was concerned about getting
stranded between here and the store, which would be bad for the babies.)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Doug Pensinger]

Robert wrote:


On a tangent, it seems Frisco is undergoing an *orgy* of marriage ATM
and its making the city officials a bit ogreish.
Frisco?  Frisco?  Where is this Frisco?

8^)

--
Doug
Vegetable Oil?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: In one error and out the otter

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: In one error and out the otter

> No, but if you'd included a coupon, I might have been able to use it at
> Quizno's, so it would have some redeemed value.  And I get out so
> rarely, going to Quizno's would be something of a social occasion.  So
> that would make it redeemed social value, yes?

Except if you were in a bitchy mood, then it would have anti-social value.
:-)

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> >
> > > At 06:47 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > > >
> > > >What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems
to
> > > >basically agree about "Gay Marriage".
> > >
> > > That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for
me
> > to
> > > collect my thoughts on the subject.
> > >
> > > That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-)
> > >
> > Now there is a debate.
> > Ogre Marriage?
>
> Ogre marriage is fine between two ogres.
>
> I think we can *all* agree on that, anyway.  :)
>

On a tangent, it seems Frisco is undergoing an *orgy* of marriage ATM
and its making the city officials a bit ogreish.


xponent
Puntastic Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: (no subject)

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 2/15/2004 8:02:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
But more characteristic?  Certainly.  That sort of
arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less
common among conservatives.  We don't know The One
Truth.  That's not our job, after all, so a
conservative who pretends he does is behaving in a
fundamentally aconservative manner.  Saying that most
Americans are, I forget the charming turn of phrase,
but arrogant fools was the sense, I think, isn't
something you're going to catch John, Kevin, or me
doing.  Ever

See here is where I wonder about your perspective. My main experience with 
conservative political thought is from the talking heads on TV and conservative 
politicians. They seem pretty damn sure of themselves.They talk about the 
little guy and the common american folk but they sure don't seem to want to help 
them very much. Some of the things that the current administration has said and 
done show in my opinion contempt for the intelligence of the american 
electorate. Using WMD as the reason for the war because they didn't think americans 
would be willing to fight just to change the political culture in the middle 
east is showing contempt or at least a lack of trust in the judgement of 
americans. 
Disclaimer: Many liberals also have contempt for the people. Unfortunately 
this seems to be a trait of politicians in general. But I think you are just not 
seeing things clearly here. 

How about this as a general rule. We all accept that there are people of bad 
faith at all points in the political spectrum. That way we all know that 
everyone is an ahole and all americans are idiots and we can get on with the debate 
at hand. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 2/15/2004 7:26:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Aw, heck, if everyone were *really* like me, I wouldn't restrain myself
> so often, and, well, I can be a bitch at times.
> Bring it on. BRING IT ON Woman

If someone had used the "s--t" word yesterday, believe me, I would have.

But we usually don't have that much in the way of poop problems in one
day.

;)

Julia

in a pretty good mood for some reason -- then again, the children are
all in bed now and I'm not having to deal with anyone screaming
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: In one error and out the otter

[Julia Thompson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 2/15/2004 6:23:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> > Sorry about the lack of a subject line.  My email bombed on me and I had
> > to copy the text from a backup and I forgot to title it. 8^P
> >
> > --
> > Doug
> >
> 
> A possible subject line.
> 
> It relates to
> 
> What happens when a tytlal mistakes a bar of Exlax for a bar of chocolate.
> 
> William Taylor
> -
> This email has no redeeming social value.

No, but if you'd included a coupon, I might have been able to use it at
Quizno's, so it would have some redeemed value.  And I get out so
rarely, going to Quizno's would be something of a social occasion.  So
that would make it redeemed social value, yes?

Julia

testing the elasticity of the statement
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> 
> > At 06:47 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > >
> > >What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to
> > >basically agree about "Gay Marriage".
> >
> > That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me
> to
> > collect my thoughts on the subject.
> >
> > That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-)
> >
> Now there is a debate.
> Ogre Marriage?

Ogre marriage is fine between two ogres.

I think we can *all* agree on that, anyway.  :)

Julia

won't touch inter-species marriage right now
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 2/15/2004 7:26:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
Aw, heck, if everyone were *really* like me, I wouldn't restrain myself
so often, and, well, I can be a bitch at times.  
Bring it on. BRING IT ON Woman
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

Jim Sharkey wrote:
> 
> Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems
> >to basically agree about "Gay Marriage".  This focus on
> >microscopic points of difference is amazingly like a Monty Python
> >sketch.  Maybe the listname should be changed to "The Argument
> >Clinic".
> 
> No it shouldn't.  :-D
> 
> Jim
> Python, still funny after 30+ years Maru

I remember my father watching Monty Python when I was little and too
young to get the jokes.

And my senior year of high school, one of the local broadcast channels
showed Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and we all sat in the den with
that on.  Nothing like being 18 and in the same room with your mother
during the Castle Anthrax bit

Julia

but that was *nothing* compared to the discussion about sex in the
Japanese restaurant...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

College RepubliKlans offer Whites-Only award

[The Fool]

<>

College Republicans offer whites-only award


- - - - - - - - - - - -
The Associated Press



Feb. 15, 2004  |  BRISTOL, R.I. (AP) -- A student group at Roger Williams
University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students
are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action. 

The application for the $50 award requires an essay on "why you are proud
of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness." 

 
"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application,
issued by the university's College Republicans. 

Jason Mattera, 20, who is president of the College Republicans, said the
group is parodying minority scholarships. 
 
"White kids are at a handicap," Mattera told The Providence Journal.
"Handing out scholarships based on someone's color is absurd." 

The stunt has angered some at the university, but the administration is
staying of the fray. The school's provost said it is a student group's
initiative and is not endorsed by Roger Williams. 

Mattera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is himself is a recipient of a
$5,000 scholarship open only to a minority group. 

"No matter what my ethnicity is, I'm making a statement that scholarships
should be given out based on merit and need," he said. 

It's not the first brush with controversy for the group. The school
temporarily froze the Republicans' money in the fall during a fight over
a series of articles published in its monthly newsletter. One article
alleged that a gay-rights group indoctri nates students into homosexual
sex . 


-

I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted
Co-Conspirators of America
and to the Republicans for which I can't stand
one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud
Indefensible
with Liberty and Justice Forget it.

 -Life in Hell (Matt Groening)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

In one error and out the otter

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 2/15/2004 6:23:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Sorry about the lack of a subject line.  My email bombed on me and I had 
> to copy the text from a backup and I forgot to title it. 8^P
> 
> -- 
> Doug
> 

A possible subject line.

It relates to

What happens when a tytlal mistakes a bar of Exlax for a bar of chocolate.

William Taylor
-
This email has no redeeming social value.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: SciFi site

[Damon Agretto]

> Does anyone else like Orion's Arm?
> 
> http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

IIRC didn't someone on the list go fishing for RPG
ideas for this? Were you that person?

Damon, looks familiar...


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: SciFi site

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:16 PM
Subject: SciFi site


> Does anyone else like Orion's Arm?
>
> http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
>

I'm on their List.

Been there for about a year.
Very OnTopic



xponent
Sophotech Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Doug Pensinger]

John wrote:

That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me to
collect my thoughts on the subject.
Well don't keep us in the dark - I'd very much like to refu... I mean 
_hear_ your side of the arguement.  8^)

That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-)
Good movie, hope you don't have to watch it on network...

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> At 06:47 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >
> >What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to
> >basically agree about "Gay Marriage".
>
> That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me
to
> collect my thoughts on the subject.
>
> That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-)
>
Now there is a debate.
Ogre Marriage?

I must say though, that if you come out against Gay Marriage, it will
certainly illuminate today's conversation with a different sort of
light.

(Don't expect rational responses )


xponent
I Want To Buy A Fish License Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: (no subject)

[Doug Pensinger]

Sorry about the lack of a subject line.  My email bombed on me and I had 
to copy the text from a backup and I forgot to title it. 8^P

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?



> Done with it?  I certainly didn't _start_ it.  But
> more characteristic?  Certainly.  That sort of
> arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less
> common among conservatives.  We don't know The One
> Truth.  That's not our job, after all, so a
> conservative who pretends he does is behaving in a
> fundamentally aconservative manner.

Are you arguing that the religeous right contains people who are not true
conservatives?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

SciFi site

[Trent Shipley]

Does anyone else like Orion's Arm?

http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:47 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
>What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to
>basically agree about "Gay Marriage".

That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me to
collect my thoughts on the subject.

That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-)

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

(no subject)

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam wrote:

<<
Done with it?  I certainly didn't _start_ it.

Not only did you start it, but that between the two of us, you're the only 
one that has engaged in it.

<<
But more characteristic?  Certainly.  That sort of
arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less
common among conservatives.  We don't know The One
Truth.  That's not our job, after all, so a
conservative who pretends he does is behaving in a
fundamentally aconservative manner.  Saying that most
Americans are, I forget the charming turn of phrase,
but arrogant fools was the sense, I think, isn't
something you're going to catch John, Kevin, or me
doing.  Ever.

Well brin-l isn't directly representative of this country but:

"If I _wanted_ to debate with fanatics, there are probably more 
interesting places to do it."

Sounds like arrogant contempt to me.

<<
I submit that the fact that I was (I believe) one of
only two people to note and comment upon that
particular statement supports my earlier contention
that has got you all upset.  The fact that you're more
upset at my response to it that the statement itself
does so even more.

But you misread me.  I'm not upset, I just thought your comments ironic in 
light of recent events.

As far as Tom's comments go, I would not have put it as vociferously as he 
did, but if a poll of the American public reveals that most of them are 
bigots, I would not be afraid to point it out.  Are you saying that 
conservatives would always go along with the majority opinion, no matter 
what?

<<
So the question is, what does it say about you that what Tom said didn't 
bother you
enough to object to it?  Want to prove me wrong?  I'm willing to accept 
that I was.  I was pretty pissed at your comment, since I was trying to 
have fun and you were being very rude.  But I'll accept that my statement 
was easily misinterpreted.

If you were just being flip, I did misread you.  As far as being rude, 
your comments to me going back over the last few weeks have been 
consistently rude.  What's more they seldom even made an attempt to 
address the topic that was being discussed.

<<
But if you want to prove me wrong, saying something when someone on _your_ 
side of the political line says something like that would be a good 
start.  If John ever did the same (and I don't think he ever would, 
because he's a _lot_ more polite than the people on this list who abuse 
him constantly and then whine and whimper when he snaps back) I'd call him 
on it.

In fact, he has and, as best I can recall, you didn't, but I want to give 
credit where it is due; John's  debating in recent months has been polite 
and to the point and as a result much more effective.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 06:40:28PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> And keep in mind that just because someone does not agree with you
> on a topic does not mean that s/he has not thought about the topic,
> perhaps at least as much as you have.  I believe it was Dan who
> mentioned that issues in politics are frequently so complex that
> reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the same
> issue.

And I almost never listen to you because usually your posts are so inane
or else totally miss the point, such as this comment.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Jim Sharkey]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
>What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems 
>to basically agree about "Gay Marriage".  This focus on 
>microscopic points of difference is amazingly like a Monty Python 
>sketch.  Maybe the listname should be changed to "The Argument 
>Clinic".

No it shouldn't.  :-D

Jim
Python, still funny after 30+ years Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> At 03:20 PM 2/15/2004 -0500 Jim Sharkey wrote:
> >I apologize if this seems like I'm putting forth my tolerance bona
fides
> here, but I've had a lot of accusations flung at me today that I
felt were
> unfair, and I thought maybe a little more information might give
some of
> you a better picture of me.  I'd like to thank the folks who gave me
the
> benefit of the doubt for their words.  Those who disagreed, I just
want to
> say that I don't have any hard feelings; this kind of discourse is
what
> makes Brin-L great.
> >
> >Jim
> >It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be
unpopular Maru
>
> I second your opinions about what makes Brin-L great.
>
> Also for what it is worth, I think that it is useful to take this
> opportunity to remind everyone that many of the ListMembers read
this List
> on different schedules.For example, I have just now had probably
40
> posts on this subject dumped into my BrinBox.Thus, a day's worth
of
> reactions on Brin-L particularly over the weekend, is very often not
> necessarily completely representative of the reactions of the List
as a whole.
>

What is really bizarre about this thread is that everyone seems to
basically agree about "Gay Marriage".
This focus on microscopic points of difference is amazingly like a
Monty Python sketch.
Maybe the listname should be changed to "The Argument Clinic".

xponent
Or Maybe One Should Be Started Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:15 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:46:09PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:

> But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either.

Sometimes it does. At least as well as...

> If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone
> is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at
> least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify
> it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is
> wrong, offensive or intolerable.
...which very rarely happens. In fact, if you hadn't said it happened to
you, I'd say it never happens. What were you talking about that had an
email thread that went for 6 months?


Julia can speak for herself and correct me if I am wrong, but I would guess 
that it was not a thread that lasted continuously for six months but that 
it might have been a topic that came up repeatedly in the course of 
discussions over those six months, just as some topics come up repeatedly 
here or on other lists I am a member of.




> That sort of thing has worked on *me*, at least in getting me to
> think about my position.  And I've had my positioned changed at least
> somewhat as a result.
But your contention appeared to be that your way is ALWAYS better.
Saying that it worked once on you is hardly strong evidence. I've seen
many examples on this email list and others where the subtle approach is
just ignored or lost in the noise. Many of the threads that get the most
responses are the "noisy" ones. In fact, one of the people arguing the
same as you, Dan M., has been prone to get involved in obnoxious threads
at least as often as the reserved threads over the past year.
Now, you might argue that getting responses isn't the same as changing
minds. True. The loud approach doesn't have a high success rate. But
getting little or no response to a reserved post probably does have a
strong correlation with people not really thinking about it.


And keep in mind that just because someone does not agree with you on a 
topic does not mean that s/he has not thought about the topic, perhaps at 
least as much as you have.  I believe it was Dan who mentioned that issues 
in politics are frequently so complex that reasonable people can come to 
different conclusions about the same issue.



And I've
seen this happen a lot. So the success rate is likely to be even lower
in with the reserved approach.


I think that if your primary goal is to convince other people that your 
position on a contentious issue is correct and theirs is wrong, you are 
already on the wrong track.  If you want them to come around to agreeing 
with your way of thinking, the best -- and in many cases the only, unless 
frex you are in a position of authority where you can order them to do what 
you tell them regardless of what they themselves think -- way is to first 
show them that you are genuinely interested in having a conversation and a 
relationship with them.  Then they are not going to killfile you 
immediately (or just ignore you) as they may do if you start off shouting 
that they are wrong.



In practice, it surely depends mostly on the person or people who are
the intended audience. I think that both approaches may be successful
depending on the person and circumstances. For example, even before I
read your post I would have said the reserved approach would be more
successful on you (Julia). Alas, not everyone is like Julia! ;-)


No.  But a significant number of people will be more willing to listen to 
the reserved approach than the loud approach . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> At 03:43 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was
done on
> > > this list earlier today.  And doing it more gently will get you
a more
> > > positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat
will.
> > > Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while
sharper
> > > ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce*
the
> > > prejudices.
> >
> >Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the
subtle
> >approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while
> >making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them
> >to really think about an issue.  I would agree that the approach
you
> >explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not
always,
> >maybe not even usually.
>
>
> I agree with Julia.
>
> As far as evidence goes:  the next time you have a disagreement with
your
> spouse, try the "strong statement" method.  Then, the next time
after that,
> try the "soft answer" approach.  Assuming there is a next time after
the
> first one, that is . . .
>

Same here.
If one is to start out making strong challenges to mild statements,
then what is one to do when one encounters true extremists (such as
Michael Savage) as I've mentioned before.

How is it in any way consistent for Jim to be treated similarly to
Savage, when his remarks are decidedly much different.

xponent
Measure By Measure Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

Erik Reuter wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:46:09PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> > But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either.
> 
> Sometimes it does. At least as well as...
> 
> > If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone
> > is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at
> > least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify
> > it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is
> > wrong, offensive or intolerable.
> 
> ...which very rarely happens. In fact, if you hadn't said it happened to
> you, I'd say it never happens. What were you talking about that had an
> email thread that went for 6 months? 

There will be topics that come up one week, then come up again a month
or two later, then again sometime later.  Happens on some lists.  Of
course, I'm usually not the *target* of persuasion on most of those, but
in reading the positions of the most vocal participants, my position
*does* sometimes change.  Or at least I find it challenged.

Now, there's another email list that has *not* managed in 14 months to
shake me from my relatively moderate position on _Dune_, but that's
another story entirely.  :)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

Jim Sharkey wrote:
> 
> Erik Reuter wrote:
> >For example, even before I read your post I would have said the
> >reserved approach would be more successful on you (Julia). Alas, not
> >everyone is like Julia! ;-)
> 
> If they were, the accumulated niceness might just choke me.  :)

Aw, heck, if everyone were *really* like me, I wouldn't restrain myself
so often, and, well, I can be a bitch at times.  :)  I just try *very*
hard not to *be* a bitch a good deal of the time, including on mailing
lists.  (If you could just *see* some of the posts I've deleted before
sending)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Jim Sharkey]

Erik Reuter wrote:
>For example, even before I read your post I would have said the 
>reserved approach would be more successful on you (Julia). Alas, not 
>everyone is like Julia! ;-)

If they were, the accumulated niceness might just choke me.  :)

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Communitcation tactics(was Thoughts on gay marriage?)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:14 PM 2/15/04, Trent Shipley wrote:
Is there a conflict between standards for
honesty and truth on the one hand and satisfying relationships on the other.


"Be honest:  Does this dress make me look fat?"



Yes I've Appeared Onstage In Drag But You Know What I Mean Maru

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:46:09PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:

> But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either.

Sometimes it does. At least as well as...

> If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone
> is opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at
> least get that person to think about their own position, if not modify
> it a bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is
> wrong, offensive or intolerable.

...which very rarely happens. In fact, if you hadn't said it happened to
you, I'd say it never happens. What were you talking about that had an
email thread that went for 6 months?

> That sort of thing has worked on *me*, at least in getting me to
> think about my position.  And I've had my positioned changed at least
> somewhat as a result.

But your contention appeared to be that your way is ALWAYS better.
Saying that it worked once on you is hardly strong evidence. I've seen
many examples on this email list and others where the subtle approach is
just ignored or lost in the noise. Many of the threads that get the most
responses are the "noisy" ones. In fact, one of the people arguing the
same as you, Dan M., has been prone to get involved in obnoxious threads
at least as often as the reserved threads over the past year.

Now, you might argue that getting responses isn't the same as changing
minds. True. The loud approach doesn't have a high success rate. But
getting little or no response to a reserved post probably does have a
strong correlation with people not really thinking about it. And I've
seen this happen a lot. So the success rate is likely to be even lower
in with the reserved approach.

In practice, it surely depends mostly on the person or people who are
the intended audience. I think that both approaches may be successful
depending on the person and circumstances. For example, even before I
read your post I would have said the reserved approach would be more
successful on you (Julia). Alas, not everyone is like Julia! ;-)


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:59 PM 2/15/04, you wrote:
At 05:59 PM 2/15/2004, you wrote:

> For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that
> liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives.
>
>
I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I would
say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than 
conservatives
(not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are lovely
people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking 
in rage).

Tom Beck
I hate allegories but can't resist using them. In my immediate family 
three are liberal, three are conservative and two I don't know about (damn 
kids, keeping their thoughts to themselves). The shrieking rage typifies 
the one lib to a T, all of the time. I have been fearful of physical 
violence against myself or others; or their heart attack when confronting 
this person about their views. Confronting is not the right word. You 
could mention the weather, a flat tire, a bad hair day and it's blamed on 
repubs/conservs. Anything good is only because of dems/libs fighting and 
overcoming the evils of the other side. Mention one word counter to that 
view and it quickly blows up.

That may read like an exaggeration but it isn't. It does color and distort 
my views. Do I think all libs are that way? Of course not, it'd be a 
stretch to say 1% are as bad.. And I know cons that are as bad but none 
that I meet everyday.

So you think libs are nicer people in their politics? I don't.


FWIW, I took that statement not to mean that liberals necessarily act nicer 
when presenting their views, but that their views are nicer than what the 
conservatives stand for and (as has been mentioned in this thread) want to 
force on others.

If I am incorrect, I would appreciate a gentle correction . . .

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: FOOLish

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: FOOLish


>
> >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: FOOLish
> >Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:12:43 -0600
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:58 AM
> >Subject: FOOLish
> >
> >
> > > People of the list,
> >
> >
> >Bully for you Travis
> >(I wouldn't let it bother me too much. There's forest and there's
> >trees, and I think you have made friends here already :)  )
> >
> >
> >
> >xponent
> >He Stuck An Arm In And Brought It Out Bloody Maru
> >rob
> >
>
> Thanks Robert. Now seeing as how your my friend...could you lend me
> $5?...American?
>

Sure, anything else I can do for you?


xponent
Obligatory Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Communitcation tactics(was Thoughts on gay marriage?)

[Trent Shipley]

On Sunday 2004-02-15 15:48, Julia Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Erik Reuter wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> > > Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on
> > > this list earlier today.  And doing it more gently will get you a more
> > > positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will.
> > > Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper
> > > ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the
> > > prejudices.
> >
> > Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle
> > approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while
> > making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them
> > to really think about an issue.  I would agree that the approach you
> > explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always,
> > maybe not even usually.
>
> It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive
> hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation and much gentler prods over
> the course of 6 months or so, the gentler prods will have caused more of a
> change in mindset 12 months after the initial event.
>
> Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50 people
> I've been in close contact with over the course of my life, but it turned
> out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the cynical engineer as it
> was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained artiste.
>
> And sometimes there is just no way a mind will be changed on a particular
> subject if you keep arguing with that person; when that happens, the best
> thing to do is move on and try not to discuss that subject.  Saying things
> that are tangental to that subject in discussions of other things might
> help some, but confronting a subject head-on with someone who has their
> position very deeply entrenched is more likely to make them dig in deeper
> with it.  (I have seen this most notably in a couple of people
> significantly older than myself.)
>
>   Julia
>
> post didn't come through on the account I made the original commend on,
> sigh

Julia, everything I know about persuasion as a science confirms that you are 
correct.  Non-confrontational persuasion works best.  Outright attacks hardly 
work at all.

Nevertheless, my feeling has long been that the non-confrontational techniques 
taught in psychology, social work, communication, and marketing classes are 
highly manipulative.  They are overtly manipulative political tactics 
designed to move from argumentation to conversationalism.  I too prefer being 
on the recieving end of an "I-message" ... until I notice my interloculator 
has changed from a socratic exchange to manipulative psycho-therapy.

There are times where socratic engagement is stupid but optimally persuasive 
engagement is immoral.

Is there a difference between marketing and debate?  When, if ever, does an 
economically rational person opt for socratic debate over friendlier, more 
persuasive diological engagement?  Is there a conflict between standards for 
honesty and truth on the one hand and satisfying relationships on the other.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Political Baiting  Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> > For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that
> > liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives.
> >
> >
>
>
> I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I
would
> say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than
conservatives
> (not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are
lovely
> people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking
in rage).

But, your post sounded like a conservative parody of liberal position.  You
cannot persuade people because, unlike you, most Americans are either
stupid or bad?

I've argued with conservatives for years.  Some of them are selfish, others
don't think very carefully, and still others are caring, thoughtful
individuals who just happen to be wrong on a point or two. :-)   I've
noticed that there are selfish, thoughtless individuals who think like me
tooas well as others who have thought things through carefully.

I would submit that it helps to understand opposing positions well, and to
see where reasonable people can differ with you.  I get very upset as
fellow Christians who think folks like Gautam are damned for worshiping
false gods.  I also get upset at fellow liberals who insinuate that those
who differ with them are either heartless or thoughtless.

I would like to suggest that reasonable people can differ on a number of
subjects.  One of the comments on sci.physics was that there were few
strong discussions on physics between the professionals.  The answer was,
with physics, reasonable people had few passionate disagreements.  A theory
was falsified, supported by data, or the data were still inconclusive.
Rational people do not question the validity of special relativity; only
crackpots do.

But, in politics, things are so multi-causal that it is impossible to
actually prove things.  One only sees indications of various strengths, and
reasonable rational people can weigh these differently.

For example, I have tremendous respect for Gautam's views, even though I
differ significantly with a number of them.  I also know that some of the
top liberal thinkers in his field also have that opinion.  It is hard for
me to fathom how liberal professors at Harvard can think well of him if he
is a closed minded or evil conservative.  It seems more likely that they
value an original well thought out analysis that differs with them more
than agreement that merely regurgitates their teachings.

Finally, as far as persuading people, I found your post offensive and we
agree on the basic issues.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Changes in moral culture (was Thoughts on gay marriage?)

[Trent Shipley]

On Sunday 2004-02-15 16:07, Dan Minette wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
>
> > At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
> > >And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate
> > >of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it
> > >now?
> >
> > Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori
> > true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly
> > decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a
> > factor that would increase the divorce rate.
>
> I know a number of divorced fundamentalists who had accepting gays as a
> "leave the church" issue.  My sample is small, but it is large enough to
> conclude that more than half of divorced and remarried fundamentalists have
> very strong opinions against accepting gays but think divorce is quite
> another matter.
>
> Dan M.


And that is in itself an interesting index of change in the moral culture.  
There was a time when conservative Christian folks were *very* strongly 
opposed to divorce.  Divorce--and definitely remarriage after divorce--was 
ample reason to bar people from church and public leadership and even reason 
to deny communion.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Kevin Tarr]

At 05:59 PM 2/15/2004, you wrote:

> For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that
> liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives.
>
>
I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I would
say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than 
conservatives
(not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are lovely
people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking in 
rage).

Tom Beck
I hate allegories but can't resist using them. In my immediate family three 
are liberal, three are conservative and two I don't know about (damn kids, 
keeping their thoughts to themselves). The shrieking rage typifies the one 
lib to a T, all of the time. I have been fearful of physical violence 
against myself or others; or their heart attack when confronting this 
person about their views. Confronting is not the right word. You could 
mention the weather, a flat tire, a bad hair day and it's blamed on 
repubs/conservs. Anything good is only because of dems/libs fighting and 
overcoming the evils of the other side. Mention one word counter to that 
view and it quickly blows up.

That may read like an exaggeration but it isn't. It does color and distort 
my views. Do I think all libs are that way? Of course not, it'd be a 
stretch to say 1% are as bad.. And I know cons that are as bad but none 
that I meet everyday.

So you think libs are nicer people in their politics? I don't.

Kevin T. - VRWC
That reads bad at the end. I'm smiling through this whole e-mail; only 
saying you opinions are yours to make, mine are different.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

Erik Reuter wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:48:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> > It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive
> > hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation
> 
> Although that would be an exaggeration of what I am talking about...

Yes, but in conversation, that's what it can feel like if you're on the
receiving end of it.
 
> > and much gentler prods over the course of 6 months or so, the gentler
> > prods will have caused more of a change in mindset 12 months after the
> > initial event.
> 
> On an email list? I can't imagine that working on an email list.

But being in-your-face on an e-mail list doesn't work well, either.

If I make 50 posts in a 6-month period that touch on X, and someone is
opposed to my position on X, there's a better chance that I'll at least
get that person to think about their own position, if not modify it a
bit, than if I write one post saying that their position on X is wrong,
offensive or intolerable.

That sort of thing has worked on *me*, at least in getting me to think
about my position.  And I've had my positioned changed at least somewhat
as a result.
 
> > Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50
> > people I've been in close contact with over the course of my life,
> > but it turned out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the
> > cynical engineer as it was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained
> > artiste.
> 
> So, not on an email list? I think there is quite a difference between an
> email list and people you have close contact with in daily life.

It's worked on *me*, at least to some degree.  I think that if you ask
around, you'll find that it's worked to a greater or lesser degree on
some other folks here.  (Of course, I could be wrong on this.)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:52 PM 2/15/04, John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 02:29 PM 2/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>Gautam wrote:
>
>> =-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> It's the word "marriage" that appears to have some
>>> mystical, totemic meaning
>>> for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded
>>> credulous dolts (i.e., most
>>> of the American public).
>>
>> Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm
>> a conservative.  But I can always rely on you to
>> remind me...
>
>So name-calling, now that you're done with it, is characteristic of
>liberals?
For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that
liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives.


Someone brought that up this week on another list I'm on.  FWIW, someone 
then told me that I'm a "moderate", not a conservative.  (YOMV.)



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:18:46PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> common among conservatives.  We don't know The One Truth.

Ha!

> that would be a good start.  If John ever did the same (and I don't
> think he ever would, because he's a _lot_ more polite than the people
> on this list who abuse him constantly and then whine and whimper when
> he snaps back)

Ha, ha!


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:48:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:

> It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive
> hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation

Although that would be an exaggeration of what I am talking about...

> and much gentler prods over the course of 6 months or so, the gentler
> prods will have caused more of a change in mindset 12 months after the
> initial event.

On an email list? I can't imagine that working on an email list.

> Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50
> people I've been in close contact with over the course of my life,
> but it turned out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the
> cynical engineer as it was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained
> artiste.

So, not on an email list? I think there is quite a difference between an
email list and people you have close contact with in daily life.

> And sometimes there is just no way a mind will be changed on a
> particular subject if you keep arguing with that person; when that
> happens, the best thing to do is move on and try not to discuss that  
> subject.  Saying things   

Yup.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So name-calling, now that you're done with it, is
> characteristic of 
> liberals?
> 
> -- 
> The Fanatic

Done with it?  I certainly didn't _start_ it.  But
more characteristic?  Certainly.  That sort of
arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less
common among conservatives.  We don't know The One
Truth.  That's not our job, after all, so a
conservative who pretends he does is behaving in a
fundamentally aconservative manner.  Saying that most
Americans are, I forget the charming turn of phrase,
but arrogant fools was the sense, I think, isn't
something you're going to catch John, Kevin, or me
doing.  Ever.

I submit that the fact that I was (I believe) one of
only two people to note and comment upon that
particular statement supports my earlier contention
that has got you all upset.  The fact that you're more
upset at my response to it that the statement itself
does so even more.  So the question is, what does it
say about you that what Tom said didn't bother you
enough to object to it?  Want to prove me wrong?  I'm
willing to accept that I was.  I was pretty pissed at
your comment, since I was trying to have fun and you
were being very rude.  But I'll accept that my
statement was easily misinterpreted.  But if you want
to prove me wrong, saying something when someone on
_your_ side of the political line says something like
that would be a good start.  If John ever did the same
(and I don't think he ever would, because he's a _lot_
more polite than the people on this list who abuse him
constantly and then whine and whimper when he snaps
back) I'd call him on it.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[TomFODW]

> For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that
> liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives.
> 
> 


I don't consider myself necessarily smarter than anyone else. What I would 
say is that liberals are much nicer people in their politics than conservatives 
(not necessarily nicer as people; I know some conservatives who are lovely 
people even though their politics make me sick - when I'm not shrieking in rage). 



Tom Beck

www.mercerjewishsingles.org

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the 
last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
> >And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate
> >of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it
> >now?
>
> Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori
> true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly
> decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a
> factor that would increase the divorce rate.

I know a number of divorced fundamentalists who had accepting gays as a
"leave the church" issue.  My sample is small, but it is large enough to
conclude that more than half of divorced and remarried fundamentalists have
very strong opinions against accepting gays but think divorce is quite
another matter.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> 
> At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
> >And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate
> >of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it
> >now?
> 
> Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori
> true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly
> decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a
> factor that would increase the divorce rate.

You could look at the *very* small set of fundamentalists who have said
something public about it and look at just *their* divorce rate.

And you're right, there is no way to really tell.  So I could wonder for
the rest of my life.  :)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[John D. Giorgis]

At 03:20 PM 2/15/2004 -0500 Jim Sharkey wrote:
>I apologize if this seems like I'm putting forth my tolerance bona fides
here, but I've had a lot of accusations flung at me today that I felt were
unfair, and I thought maybe a little more information might give some of
you a better picture of me.  I'd like to thank the folks who gave me the
benefit of the doubt for their words.  Those who disagreed, I just want to
say that I don't have any hard feelings; this kind of discourse is what
makes Brin-L great.
>
>Jim
>It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be unpopular Maru

I second your opinions about what makes Brin-L great.

Also for what it is worth, I think that it is useful to take this
opportunity to remind everyone that many of the ListMembers read this List
on different schedules.For example, I have just now had probably 40
posts on this subject dumped into my BrinBox.Thus, a day's worth of
reactions on Brin-L particularly over the weekend, is very often not
necessarily completely representative of the reactions of the List as a whole.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Political Baiting Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[John D. Giorgis]

At 02:29 PM 2/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>Gautam wrote:
>
>> =-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> It's the word "marriage" that appears to have some
>>> mystical, totemic meaning
>>> for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded
>>> credulous dolts (i.e., most
>>> of the American public).
>>
>> Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm
>> a conservative.  But I can always rely on you to
>> remind me...
>
>So name-calling, now that you're done with it, is characteristic of 
>liberals?

For whatever it is worth, it is a common meme among conservatives that
liberals consider themselves to be smarter than conservatives.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[John D. Giorgis]

At 03:21 PM 2/15/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
>And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate
>of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it
>now?

Of course, there is no way of knowing this.Since it is not a priori
true that a given fundamentalist couple that seeks a divorce has loudly
decried gay marriage, let alone even loudly decried gay marriage as a
factor that would increase the divorce rate.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Erik Reuter wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on
> > this list earlier today.  And doing it more gently will get you a more
> > positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will.
> > Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper
> > ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the
> > prejudices.
> 
> Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle
> approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while
> making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them
> to really think about an issue.  I would agree that the approach you
> explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always,
> maybe not even usually.

It has been my experience that given a choice between one massive 
hitting-over-the-head kind of confrontation and much gentler prods over 
the course of 6 months or so, the gentler prods will have caused more of a 
change in mindset 12 months after the initial event.

Now, my experience on this is limited to probably only about 50 people
I've been in close contact with over the course of my life, but it turned 
out to be just as good a tactic in dealing with the cynical engineer as it 
was in dealing with the somewhat scatterbrained artiste.

And sometimes there is just no way a mind will be changed on a particular 
subject if you keep arguing with that person; when that happens, the best 
thing to do is move on and try not to discuss that subject.  Saying things 
that are tangental to that subject in discussions of other things might 
help some, but confronting a subject head-on with someone who has their 
position very deeply entrenched is more likely to make them dig in deeper 
with it.  (I have seen this most notably in a couple of people 
significantly older than myself.)

Julia

post didn't come through on the account I made the original commend on, 
sigh

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam wrote:

=-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the word "marriage" that appears to have some
mystical, totemic meaning
for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded
credulous dolts (i.e., most
of the American public).
Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm
a conservative.  But I can always rely on you to
remind me...
So name-calling, now that you're done with it, is characteristic of 
liberals?

--
The Fanatic
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:32:36PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> > Yawn. You try it, I've got better things to do.
> 
> Than getting along with the people you love?  What could be more important
> than a good intimate relationship?

N/A. Yawn.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?



> Yawn. You try it, I've got better things to do.

Than getting along with the people you love?  What could be more important
than a good intimate relationship?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:55:58PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> 
> I agree with Julia.

Boring.

> As far as evidence goes: the next time you have a disagreement with
> your spouse, try the "strong statement" method.  Then, the next time
> after that, try the "soft answer" approach.  Assuming there is a next
> time after the first one, that is . . .

Yawn. You try it, I've got better things to do.

-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> At 03:43 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
> >On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on
> > > this list earlier today.  And doing it more gently will get you a
more
> > > positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will.
> > > Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper
> > > ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the
> > > prejudices.
> >
> >Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle
> >approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while
> >making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them
> >to really think about an issue.  I would agree that the approach you
> >explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always,
> >maybe not even usually.
>
>
> I agree with Julia.
>
> As far as evidence goes:  the next time you have a disagreement with your
> spouse, try the "strong statement" method.  Then, the next time after
that,
> try the "soft answer" approach.  Assuming there is a next time after the
> first one, that is . . .

A particularly singular experiment would be telling one's spouse that they
are acting irrationally, implying of course that you are rational.  It is
singular because it lowers the chance that there will be another
disagreement. ;-)

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:43 PM 2/15/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:

> Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on
> this list earlier today.  And doing it more gently will get you a more
> positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will.
> Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper
> ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the
> prejudices.
Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle
approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while
making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them
to really think about an issue.  I would agree that the approach you
explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always,
maybe not even usually.


I agree with Julia.

As far as evidence goes:  the next time you have a disagreement with your 
spouse, try the "strong statement" method.  Then, the next time after that, 
try the "soft answer" approach.  Assuming there is a next time after the 
first one, that is . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:23:57PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:

> Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on
> this list earlier today.  And doing it more gently will get you a more
> positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will.
> Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper
> ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the
> prejudices.

Do you have evidence that this is true? It seems to me that the subtle
approach often has little effect in changing people's minds, while
making strong statements can grab someone's attention and get them
to really think about an issue.  I would agree that the approach you
explain will sometimes be the most effective course, but not always,
maybe not even usually.



-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > This was an honest expression of concern and confusion that is shared by
> > many. I suspect and hope that over time people will get used to the idea but
> > for
> > now it does not do the cause of gay union any good to sharply casitgate
> > someone
> > for honestly expressed feelings.
> >
> 
> If you don't confront people and call them on their prejudices, they will get
> the idea that it's okay to feel the way they do. In the long run, that does
> not lead to them abandoning their dislikes. It's easy to walk away when you
> hear someone express feelings of dislike and even hatred based not on knowing a
> particular person but just on the group that person belongs to. How many of us,
> when we hear someone say something negative about "the Jews" or "the blacks"
> or "the Muslims," simply decide to take the easy way out and not cause a
> scene? But how does that advance the cause of increasing rights for all of us? I'm
> not saying jump all over people who express these thoughts, but we also don't
> have to let them think there's nothing wrong with being biased. Because there
> is something very much wrong with it. If we don't object, we are complicit;
> they may even feel we agree with them.
> 
> It doesn't have to be vicious or rancorous, but I think we need to let them
> know.

Yes, but it can be done somewhat more gently than how it was done on
this list earlier today.  And doing it more gently will get you a more
positive reaction than immediately jumping down their throat will. 
Enough gentle prods will help wear down the prejudices, while sharper
ones will just make people more defensive, and maybe *reinforce* the
prejudices.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Julia Thompson]

Jim Sharkey wrote:

> Gay divorce is sure to follow Maru

Hm.  I wonder what the gay divorce rate will be compared to the straight
divorce rate in 30 years.  I imagine it'll be lower for awhile if gay
marriages are permitted.  Not sure when it would catch up.

And I wonder how it would compare for the first 10 years with the rate
of divorces among the fundamentalists who are most loudly decrying it
now?

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Trent Shipley]

> I always imagined that at some point Charlene and I would face some
> questions from the kids about why they live together, etc., but it hasn't
> happened yet.  Possibly because we don't treat their relationship any
> differently than anyone else's, or possibly because even though our oldest
> is pushing eight years old, it hasn't occurred to her to ask.  I'll keep
> you posted.  :)

Expect the question when the child in 6th-9th grade, but more toward the lower 
end.

> Jim
> It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be unpopular Maru

It is?  I thought it was just a way to have fun!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Jim Sharkey]

Erik Reuter wrote:
>Dan Minette wrote:
>> Right, the problem would be that Jim would be uncomfortable.  That 
>>is a problem, because she is his sister.
>And if he has a problem with his sister, who he has just said 
>(or strongly implied) that he has good feelings for, one must at 
>least wonder, if not conclude, that it would be a bigger problem for 
>someone who he wasn't biased to be in favor of.  Apparently, your 
>interpretation was it would be a problem because it was his 
>sister, but it wouldn't be a problem for someone he was unrelated
>to.  From his later clarification, this appears to be close to what 
>he meant.

To settle the sister issue: Of my entire family, I am probably the one who is the most 
comfortable with her sexuality.  She and her girlfriend are both welcome in my home, 
and my children love them; they call her girlfriend "Aunt Diane" and my sister is my 
son's godmother.  In truth, her relationship has little bearing on where I stand on 
the word marriage for gay unions, other than that I want for her what she wants for 
herself.

I always imagined that at some point Charlene and I would face some questions from the 
kids about why they live together, etc., but it hasn't happened yet.  Possibly because 
we don't treat their relationship any differently than anyone else's, or possibly 
because even though our oldest is pushing eight years old, it hasn't occurred to her 
to ask.  I'll keep you posted.  :)

I apologize if this seems like I'm putting forth my tolerance bona fides here, but 
I've had a lot of accusations flung at me today that I felt were unfair, and I thought 
maybe a little more information might give some of you a better picture of me.  I'd 
like to thank the folks who gave me the benefit of the doubt for their words.  Those 
who disagreed, I just want to say that I don't have any hard feelings; this kind of 
discourse is what makes Brin-L great.

Jim
It's tough to put forth a position you know is going to be unpopular Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Trent Shipley]

On Sunday 2004-02-15 12:19, Jim Sharkey wrote:
> Michael Harney wrote:
> >There is a possibility that the issue of gay marriage may be
> >presented before the citizens of the United States for a vote. In
> >such a situation it doesn't take a big leap from not feeling
> >comfortable with gay marriages to voting against gay marriages.  If
> >you really would vote in support of gay marriage even though you
> >feel uncomfortable with the idea, then I think that is
> >very commendable of you.
>
> I would vote against a law or Constitutional Amendment banning gay
> marriage.  But I will be honest with you.  It would not necessarily be a
> vote in favor of gay marriage per se, but it would be a vote against
> telling people what they can and cannot do.  I think it's important to make
> that distinction.  I don't know that I am in favor of gay marriage, but I
> am opposed to treating a group of people (who are not harming others)
> differently because of who and what they are.
>
> Jim
> Is that clear enough for everyone? Maru

Why should government recognize marriage at all?  Why not have domestic 
partnersihps or civil unions for everyone?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 2/15/2004 2:05:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> However, since those who have responded have been about evenly divided in 
> their interpretation of my statement, I will concede that despite my own read 
> of my words, it is possible to interpret it as the vehement opposition to gay 
> marriage that you seem to have taken it as.  Would you then concede that it 
> is possible that you misinterpreted my statement as being more fraught with 
> negative meaning than it was?
> 
> 

You are too generous
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:03:08PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> But you did jump all over someone who expressed personal discomfort
> with the notion of gay marriage at the end of a post that strongly
> supported gay unions.

No. The post did NOT strongly support gay unions. It would be closer to
the truth to say it damned with faint praise. It came off a lot like
"some of my best friends are black".

-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 2/15/2004 1:34:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> 
> >many. I suspect and hope that over time people will get used to the idea 
> but 
> >for
> >now it does not do the cause of gay union any good to sharply casitgate 
> >someone
> >for honestly expressed feelings.
> >
> 
> If you don't confront people and call them on their prejudices, they will 
> get 
> the idea that it's okay to feel the way they do. 

The problem is that the post in no way indicated that he thought it was ok. 
He expressed personal misgivings while acknowledging them for what they were, 
the product of his upbringing. You confront people for their actions not their 
thoughts.   


In the long run, that does > not lead to them abandoning their dislikes. 

I suspect that for many there will be no walking away from the unease about 
this. We come to adulthood with baggage and beliefs and we must live with them. 
You cannot make someone less uneasy about this by calling them biggots. You 
just alienate people trying to honestly deal with a dilemna

It's easy to walk away when you > hear someone express feelings of dislike 
> and even hatred based not on knowing a 
> particular person but just on the group that person belongs to. How many of 
> us, 
> when we hear someone say something negative about "the Jews" or "the blacks" 
> 
> or "the Muslims," simply decide to take the easy way out and not cause a 
> scene? 

Wonderful; I completely agree but it is irrelevent to this particular post 
and poster.

I'm > not saying jump all over people who express these thoughts, but we also 
> don't 
> have to let them think there's nothing wrong with being biased. Because 
> there 
> is something very much wrong with it. If we don't object, we are complicit; 
> they may even feel we agree with them.

But you did jump all over someone who expressed personal discomfort with the 
notion of gay marriage at the end of a post that strongly supported gay 
unions.



> 
> 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

> Right, the problem would be that Jim would be uncomfortable.  That is
> a problem, because she is his sister.

And if he has a problem with his sister, who he has just said (or
strongly implied) that he has good feelings for, one must at least
wonder, if not conclude, that it would be a bigger problem for someone
who he wasn't biased to be in favor of.

Apparently, your interpretation was it would be a problem because it was
his sister, but it wouldn't be a problem for someone he was unrelated
to.  From his later clarification, this appears to be close to what he
meant.

If that was your original interpretation (I mean before the
clarification), then I concede that you read his meaning more accurately
than I did. In either interpretation, though, it is not a rational
position, so this was really a choice between two (or more) irrational
thought processes -- a queer ;-) thing to have a rational argument
about. And I wonder whether his position clarified a little bit in his
mind as the discussion proceeded.

> I think it would be useful in this regard to consider what the
> difference between a civil union and a marriage is.  I proposed one
> possibility that I have yet to see contradicted.

I didn't think it was so useful. I think it would be more useful to
discuss whether the word marriage should be used legally at all. For
legal purposes, why not call all unions as "civil unions" and then
people can call it marriage (or not) "off the record".


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:42:57PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

> Whenever I disagree with you?

No, when you are irrational and do not realize it, which occasionally
occurs when religion is part of the discussion.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:32:45PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Read what he wrote that was unacceptable to you.  He literally said he
> > had no right to impose his feelings, but that wasn't good enough for
> > you.
>
> You're the one that needs to read more carefully. This is what I was
> concerned about:
>
> Jim:
> > Not to +mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been
> > together for +some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants,
> > that what I want for +her.
>
> > But the idea of calling it "marriage" does make me uncomfortable on
> > some vague +level I can't really explain.  Product of my environment, I
> > suppose.
>
> The implication here is pretty strong: the sister can live with her
> girlfriend, but if she calls it marriage, then that could be a problem.

Right, the problem would be that Jim would be uncomfortable.  That is a
problem, because she is his sister.

I think it would be useful in this regard to consider what the difference
between a civil union and a marriage is.  I proposed one possibility that I
have yet to see contradicted.

> Dan again:
> > I think you and I have quite different definitions of rationality.
>
> I don't. But I think you have mental blocks about your occasional
> irrationality.

Whenever I disagree with you?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

[Jim Sharkey]

Travis Edmunds wrote:
>Metallica fan eh? Care to divulge any other bands you like?

Sure.  I'd say my all-time favorite bands are Rush, TOOL, Metallica, Yes, Iron Maiden, 
Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam and Queensryche.

I dig some of the current bands like Disturbed, Outkast, and No Doubt; I like the 
occasional dance tune, and I'm always up for some good classical music.  I find 
something appealing in most musical genres, but I can find a lot that sucks in the 
same.  Bad hip-hop, bad metal, and bad country are the banes of my auditory existence.

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:19:53PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote:

> I would vote against a law or Constitutional Amendment banning gay
> marriage.  But I will be honest with you.  It would not necessarily be
> a vote in favor of gay marriage per se, but it would be a vote against
> telling people what they can and cannot do.  I think it's important
> to make that distinction.  I don't know that I am in favor of gay
> marriage, but I am opposed to treating a group of people (who are not
> harming others) differently because of who and what they are.
>
> Jim Is that clear enough for everyone? Maru

Yes! Thanks for the clarification.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:32:45PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:

> Read what he wrote that was unacceptable to you.  He literally said he
> had no right to impose his feelings, but that wasn't good enough for
> you.

You're the one that needs to read more carefully. This is what I was
concerned about:

Jim:
> Not to +mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been
> together for +some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants,
> that what I want for +her.

> But the idea of calling it "marriage" does make me uncomfortable on
> some vague +level I can't really explain.  Product of my environment, I
> suppose.

The implication here is pretty strong: the sister can live with her
girlfriend, but if she calls it marriage, then that could be a problem.

Dan again:
> I think you and I have quite different definitions of rationality.

I don't. But I think you have mental blocks about your occasional
irrationality.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:10:59PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote:

> Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >I have yet to see a clear statement from him that "Although I have
> >irrational feelings about gay marriage, by my words and actions I do
> >NOT support anti-gay marriage laws or constitutional amendments".
>
> This was not sufficiently clear?  "I've always been a believer in
> people's rights to do what they want in their private lives as long as
> everyone involved is a consenting adult. That doesn't mean that I have
> to like it, or champion it. It just means that I have to allow it to
> happen. So me saying using the word "marriage" for gay unions makes
> me uncomfortable doesn't mean that I'd oppose it, and it doesn't mean
> that I'll never change my mind. "

No, it was not. Why did you leave the wiggle room about "doesn't mean
I'd oppose it"?  Would you oppose it?  Change your mind about what?
Opposing it? See my "yes or no question" in another email.

> Do I need to join GLAAD and wear a pink triangle to satisfy you,
> Erik?  Is it okay with you if I have to actually figure things out for
> myself, rather than take your word for it?  What is your litmus test
> to determine when a person is respectful enough of others' beliefs to
> satisfy your standards?

I'd like to see you talking about rational reasons instead of vague
feelings that you can't explain. I'd like to know whether you would vote
against imposing your unexplainable feelings on others.




-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Sloan3D Store Update -- Black shirts now available

[Steve Sloan II]

Julia Thompson wrote:

> I don't know what's "common" these days.  Do the dark colors
> include one somewhere between green and blue?  :)  (And would
> that color be available in XL?)
I can certainly look. Last time I was in the local Hobby Lobby,
a few weeks ago, they had some XL shirts in some unusual colors,
so they might have a dark blue-green shirt.
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?


> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:11:26PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > If my questions were "sharp castigation", then his statement was a
lot
> > > more than an "expression of concern".
> >
> > Nah.
>
> Yah. You are applying a double-standard. Literally, I was asking
> questions. Literally, he was stating his feelings. One had to read the
> implications to come up with more. And the implications were definitely
> there in both cases.
>
> Your double standard sounds like the response I often hear from
> religious people who can't reconcile their rationality with their
> irrationality.

Read what he wrote that was unacceptable to you.  He literally said he had
no right to impose his feelings, but that wasn't good enough for you.

I think you and I have quite different definitions of rationality.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Jim Sharkey]

Michael Harney wrote:
>There is a possibility that the issue of gay marriage may be 
>presented before the citizens of the United States for a vote. In 
>such a situation it doesn't take a big leap from not feeling 
>comfortable with gay marriages to voting against gay marriages.  If 
>you really would vote in support of gay marriage even though you 
>feel uncomfortable with the idea, then I think that is 
>very commendable of you.

I would vote against a law or Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.  But I 
will be honest with you.  It would not necessarily be a vote in favor of gay marriage 
per se, but it would be a vote against telling people what they can and cannot do.  I 
think it's important to make that distinction.  I don't know that I am in favor of gay 
marriage, but I am opposed to treating a group of people (who are not harming others) 
differently because of who and what they are.

Jim
Is that clear enough for everyone? Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:03:13PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote:

> However, since those who have responded have been about evenly divided
> in their interpretation of my statement, I will concede that despite
> my own read of my words, it is possible to interpret it as the
> vehement opposition to gay marriage that you seem to have taken it as.
> Would you then concede that it is possible that you misinterpreted my
> statement as being more fraught with negative meaning than it was?

"Vehement"? Now who is putting words in others mouths? I said you made
an implication. Where did I say or imply you are "vehemently" opposed? I
had the impression you were opposed, and due to your uncomfortable
feeling that you may very well vote against using the word marriage for
gay unions. I didn't write or imply that you were vehemently opposed.

Yes or no question: would you vote against legislation or amendments
which would ban using the word "marriage" to refer to gay unions?


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:11:26PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > If my questions were "sharp castigation", then his statement was a lot
> > more than an "expression of concern".
> 
> Nah.

Yah. You are applying a double-standard. Literally, I was asking
questions. Literally, he was stating his feelings. One had to read the
implications to come up with more. And the implications were definitely
there in both cases.

Your double standard sounds like the response I often hear from
religious people who can't reconcile their rationality with their
irrationality.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Jim Sharkey]

Erik Reuter wrote:
>I have yet to see a clear statement from him that "Although I 
>have irrational feelings about gay marriage, by my words and actions 
>I do NOT support anti-gay marriage laws or constitutional 
amendments".

This was not sufficiently clear?
"I've always been a believer in people's rights to do what they want 
in their private lives as long as everyone involved is a consenting 
adult. That doesn't mean that I have to like it, or champion it. It 
just means that I have to allow it to happen. So me saying using the 
word "marriage" for gay unions makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean 
that I'd oppose it, and it doesn't mean that I'll never change my 
mind. "

Do I need to join GLAAD and wear a pink triangle to satisfy you, Erik?
Is it okay with you if I have to actually figure things out for 
myself, rather than take your word for it?  What is your litmus test 
to determine when a person is respectful enough of others' beliefs to 
satisfy your standards?

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:55:30 -0800 (PST)
> -Travis "it's all about the Guns and the Roses"
> Edmunds
Eeee!!!

Damon.



They're the center of my musical world. But I love coherent sound in the 
broad spectrum of things.

-Travis "Mozart to Slayer" Edmunds

_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Michael Harney]

From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> And Michael Harney wrote:
> >You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't
> >that lend you to think that your belief is likely an irrational
> >one. No offense intended, but should we bend towards an irrational
> >belief simply to make holders of that irrational belief feel more
> >comfortable or should we stand firm in the belief that everyone
> >should be treated equally?
>
> I think I implied in my original post that I understood it wasn't
rational.  Perhaps I wasn't direct enough.  And never did I say that others
should bend to what I think.
>
> >Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse
> >than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what?
>
> See, that signoff was called "humor," Michael.  I have no reason to think
that gay divorce will be more or less likely, and I don't care either way.
>
> Eric, Michael, I was ruminating on the idea of gay marriage, and where I
stand.  I never once said, or even hinted, that if gay marriage came to a
vote, especially an "all-or-nothing" prospect, that I would oppose it; I'm
pretty certain I wouldn't.
>
> There are a number of laws and concepts that I don't heartily agree with
that I also do not oppose, since I realize any difficulties with it are my
problem.  A*** comes immediately to mind.  It's not something I think
everyone ought to be doing in place of smarter alternatives, but I support
the rights of others to do it.
>
> Honestly, the fact that I don't *like* something doesn't mean
automatically that I would stop others from doing it.  Place some weights on
your knees so that they won't jerk so quickly next time.
>


>From your original post, I got the distinct impression that you would
support  the concept of gay civil unions, but was opposed to gay marriages.
This was reinforced when taken in context to the message that yours was a
reply to.  If this was a misunderstanding on my part, I appologise.  There
is a possibility that the issue of gay marriage may be presented before the
citizens of the United States for a vote. In such a situation it doesn't
take a big leap from not feeling comfortable with gay marriages to voting
against gay marriages.  If you really would vote in support of gay marriage
even though you feel uncomfortable with the idea, then I think that is very
commendable of you.  If only all people were willing to do the same on all
issues (voting for what thier mind says is right rather than voting their
personal prejudices)...

Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Jim Sharkey]

Erik Reuter wrote:
>Fine, he is entitled to his opinion, but I am damn well going to 
>reply sharply to people who make posts implying that their 
>unexplainable feeling of uncomfortable has any bearing on what 
>others should or should not be allowed to do.

Your interpretation of my initial statement was incorrect.  Period.  There was, in my 
opinion, no implication that I opposed the rights of others.

However, since those who have responded have been about evenly divided in their 
interpretation of my statement, I will concede that despite my own read of my words, 
it is possible to interpret it as the vehement opposition to gay marriage that you 
seem to have taken it as.  Would you then concede that it is possible that you 
misinterpreted my statement as being more fraught with negative meaning than it was?

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?



> If my questions were "sharp castigation", then his statement was a lot
> more than an "expression of concern".

Nah.  Even though I support gay marriages, I saw what he said quite
clearly, as well as the immediate reaction of several posters that only
idiots or people who are morally deficient could differ with he poster.
That type of response feels like the response I sometimes get from
fundamentalist.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

[Damon Agretto]

> -Travis "it's all about the Guns and the Roses"
> Edmunds

Eeee!!!

Damon.


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:57:32PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> In a message dated 2/15/2004 10:43:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Why should we care about your vague feeling? What gives you the
> > right to take your vague feeling of uncomfortable that you can't
> > explain and impose it on someone else? What makes your vague feeling
> > more important than someone else's strong feeling that they can
> > explain? How in the hell is your vague feeling more important than
> > rational, logical arguments that others have made?
>
> This was an honest expression of concern and confusion that is shared
> by many. I suspect and hope that over time people will get used to the
> idea but for now it does not do the cause of gay union any good to
> sharply casitgate someone for honestly expressed feelings.

If my questions were "sharp castigation", then his statement was a lot
more than an "expression of concern". The implication in his statement
came through fairly strongly to several people, that it was okay for
a gay civil union, but if they call it marriage, then it makes him
uncomfortable, and by implication, then he is against it.  His gay
sister can do what she wants, but if she wants to talk about being
married to her loved one then it makes him uncomfortable.

If that wasn't what he meant, then he could have replied to my questions
and explained it wasn't what he meant. Instead, he replied to questions
with questions and says that we are putting words in his mouth and
having a knee-jerk reaction. Fine, he is entitled to his opinion, but I
am damn well going to reply sharply to people who make posts implying
that their unexplainable feeling of uncomfortable has any bearing on
what others should or should not be allowed to do.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:32 PM 2/15/04, "Tom Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

It doesn't have to be vicious or rancorous,


Unfortunately, referring to "most of the American public" as "lamebrained 
lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts" comes across as "vicious" and 
"rancorous", whether that was your intention or not.



but I think we need to let them know.


Now you know.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?

[Dan Minette]

Personally, I favor the idea of gay marriage.  From my perspective, it
strengthens the concept of marriage by extending it.  By accepting, one
broadens the acknowledgement of the lifetime commitment made by two people
(yea I know the commitment is often broken).  Different types of families
are affirmed in their commitment to be a family; and to live a life that
intimately involves others.

Having said that, I acknowledge that this is a radical redefinition of
marriage.  I cannot think of a society without marriage or with same sex
marriages being common.  One of the reasons is that, while marriage has
involved politics and business, the very foundation has been the care of
children.  A woman would have children by one man, and that man will
provide for those children.  In addition, the man saw often saw himself
living on in his sons.

Redefining this requires people to redefine their most important
relationship.  It, quite literally, strikes home.  It is not surprising
that resistance would be found to such a fundamental redefinition.

In addition, I've been meditating on the difference between gay civil
unions and gay marriages.  If the civil unions give all the rights and
privileges of marriage, then the difference is the blessing of society on
the union.   I strongly believe that gay people have the right to choose a
partner that they share everything with and who is designated as having the
final say as to what their best interests are if they are incapacitated.
But, I don't really think the approval of society is a right.  I think it
is a darn good idea, but not a right.

So, I would suggest that, for now, the state approval of civil unions
guarantee rights for gays is the best way to go.  Religious marriages can
add the affirmation of community to this; and I also support that.  For
those who are not religious, there could still be a community  ceremony
that affirms the union.  My hope would be that, after years of folks
knowing that nice gay couple down the street, society could honestly give
its general affirmation, and the gay civil unions would be acknowledged as
marriages by society as a whole.

But, I don't think we're there yet; and saying we are would just be a lie.
Further, it would also be a distraction from real attacks on the American
families. I do think there are trends in the US now that are anti-family
and that are dangerous to societythe most important of which is the
increased social acceptability of men abandoning the responsibility they
have towards their children.

Dan M,


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l