Writes Chip Ahoy, in
the Chick-fil-A thread a few posts down.
Don't like that. It's a very unsightly thing to behold, everyone standing around agreeing that some old man who expressed a traditional opinion personifies HATE. Every happy gathering becomes some kind of mini political caucus where lines of thought are stroked and combed. I must toss a screwdriver into that. But in the end I am enjoying the company of other people less and less. It's not that I don't respect different opinions, it's that I don't respect poorly developed opinions and spoon-fed opinions, it's seeing my friends' personalities subsumed to the most radical expressions. So I go to a party and the conversation is whatever the present day activists out there say is is and gone are any unique points of view or any unique expressions. Conversations with the DNC, conversations with the most political active, not conversations with my friends, they are all mouthpieces now.
And then:
I just realized how to deal with that. Comically turn the speaker into into the person they sound like but pick an egregious example. "Tell me Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I'm very curious about this, what did that owner of Chick Fil A say exactly?" Just acknowledge that you're speaking to someone else.
Inquire thoughtfully, "Who should I put on to respond?"
Since we're using other peoples' words, other peoples' thoughts.
Ha ha. That reminds me: Back in the 1970s, one time — one time! — I defended Richard Nixon for something, and for quite a while after that, my then-husband thought it was funny to call me
"Baruch."
Posts
96 comments:
Chip Ahoy, once again showing why he's the best Althouse commenter.
Yeah, that's a real yuck-a-minute, that is.
Don't break the groupthink! You may find they are not such good friends.
H8er.
Pondering whether or not to post this to Facebook. It is needed there.
I think this has been coming on for a while. There are many, many people that you flat out cannot have a conversation about politics without them going absolutely crazy at any sign of disagreement. People like Obama fan those flames, hoping they will help him politically, but it is bad for us as a people. Nobody should be having falling out with friends over who they vote for.
I just wish more people would actually really honestly think about a given topic. I mean learn a bit about each side of an argument, and about what the motivations are of various groups making an argument before forming and voicing their own opinion. I myself am far from perfect. I know I've been guilty of group think or knee jerk responses plenty of times before, but the older I get the more effort I try to put into learning all that I can about a topic before opening my stupid mouth.
Back in the 1970s, one time — one time! — I defended Richard Nixon for something, and for quite a while after that, my then-husband thought it was funny to call me 'Baruch.'
So when did he stop beating his brow?
I have the same problem with a long time friend who reads nothing but the NYT. He thinks that NPR is conservative.
I wouldn't mind if he would just admit that he's a social democrat. But, he thinks he's a centrist, and that a large portion of his fellow citizens have wandered off into right-wing extremism. When asked how exactly those terms can retain any meaning if they cover 40-something per cent of the American population, he demurs.
Question global warming -- he goes apeshit. Bring up the fact that the Obama administration hired an unrepentant commie as its environmental jobs czar, and he thinks you're insane. When I told him that the UN was trying to control the domain registration mechanism for the internet, he thought I had wigged out for sure, in spite of the fact that the Senate just voted overwhelmingly to keep domain registration in American hands.
This guy is brilliant, but it's amazing how poorly informed one can be if one reads only the NYT.
You know why people act as repeaters for propaganda?
Because if you don't follow the line almost everyone ignores you. And people would rather be heard, even if it's someone else's words, than be ignored.
Having independent thoughts doesn't mean everything you say is profound, either.
Try it.
Man, is Chip right on the money.
Here;'s a question - does the fact women are going for Obama in greater numbers than for Romney - and knowing that that is absoltuely the most stupid move they make, being against theirs and their families future financial self-interests and also against continued liberty and freedom for the united States as a whole - indicate that women are inherently as an overall group less intelligent than men overall?
I believe it does. I believe it proves that overall women as a group (denying the edges which of course have major exceptions to this rule) are far more short-term
oriented in thinking and far more susceptible to emotional appeals.
Which certainly explains a disgusting amoral man like Barack Obama being seen as a better choice to lead this country than Mitt Romney.
When the fall of America is studied and written about by future historians, it will undeniably be centered around the foolishness of those who could no longer reason effectively for themselves. America's Public school system and the utter and complete control of it by the NEA and it's anti-American, me-first-before-the-children-I'm supposed-to-serve attitudes have borne their fruit.
Servitude to the governement is only a generation away folks. man how I used to believe that was only the statement of nutcases. How sad that the nutcases now lead America's trained-to-not-think-only-expect-the-government-to-be-their-daddy school graduates.
These are quickly becoming the worst of times. A re-elected, invigorated Obama and left will have 4 years to continue gutting the Bill of Rights. 2016 will be too late to wake up.
But that's okay - go back to sleep and let Obama and company put a soft warm tit in your mouth.
Chip, you are correct sir!
"Pondering whether or not to post this to Facebook. It is needed there."
Amen to that. To the extent I go to Facebook it's for keeping up with very old friends and looking at family/friend photos (dogs, kids). Lately, however, Uncle Obamabot is daily linking progressive un-think on my wall, the latest comparing voting Republican to voting for a child molester. Can't delete or respond w/o igniting an emotional meltdown, accusations, hyperventilating, to be followed, inevitably, by the mediators of the family wading in and finding everyone and no one at fault.
I set up my Wall so that if people post to it, they are the only ones who can see it.
That was nice for someone to demonstrate that this does not only happen on the left.
learn a bit about each side of an argument
I did high school debate and you were forced to argue both sides of an issue. If you cannot do that and do it well, you really don't understand what you are talking about.
Did something change recently for Chip?
My life has been like that for 15 years.
The bad economy has caused them difficulty talking up their man, but he remains their man.
That someone can do this bad of a job and remain in the running for President is evidence of how truly fucked we are. So yes, now I think people who vote for Obama are stupid and/or evil.
And no, I cannot talk to people who want to put me in shackles, whether literally or metaphorically.
Reminds me of talking to a Scientologist.
I recently spent time questioning a college student friend of one of my children about her statement "Mitt Romney doesn't care about the average guy." I was walking through the family room when I heard it and simply stopped and asked why she you believed that blanket statement was true. After the little laughter to get past the discomfort of her friend's father entering the conversation, I sat down and said directly to her (there were 5 friends in the room) "I actually would like to know why you believe that about Mitt Romney?" She was confident and not afraid to go down the list of everything she had been told. I smiled and nodded. When i began to respond after she had her say, my daughter - who does not agree with her friend- shot me looks that said "there's no point, dad - she's just not that smart".
I said thank you and left her to her closed-minded, lemming-like Obama-worshipping, government-drug-like existence.
As Trotsky might say, it is no accident that those who routinely define contrary opinions as hate are also those who support hate crimes legislation. Once enacted, they shall slowly separate the hate and the physical crime while retaining the prosecutable nature of each. Then, like Canada and most of Europe, the crime of hate can be prosecuted. And we all know whose opinions will be defined as hate. Just look at college campus hate speech regulations.
The problem is the inability to disagree agreeably. I'm not going to pretend that I am particularly open-minded - it would take an awful lot to change my basically conservative worldview. But I can still be respectful of differing opinions and assume (or at least pretend to believe) that they are honestly and genuinely held. And unless the person is an outright commie, I certainly don't want to blow up a friendship over politics.
But so many (though not all) folks on the left seem to be incapable of acting similarly. They are so stuck in their NYT/NPR/MSCBC cocoon that a significantly different political viewpoint just freaks them out.
The latest thing going around is a photo from the 60s showing angry looking white people milling around with signs about race mixing and a caption that reads "Imagine how stupid you'll look in 40 years."
I get that it makes gay marriage supporters feel good and righteous and morally superior, but how does it convince the other side?
I support civil unions for everyone but I oppose gay marriage. That was the liberal position in the 90s. Back then my views on gay marriage made me enlightened and politically correct and beloved by all the right people. In the span of fifteen years I've become the modern day equivalent of an anti-cvil rights racist? For holding the same views that all the pro gay marriage people held a decade and a half ago? I'm the lunatic for suggesting that maybe 15 years of debate might be a little brief for changing the definition of marriage we've had since the beginning of time?
Okay then!
And since everybody seems to have forgotten, the freaking lynchpin of the argument in favor of civil unions was that homosexuals were not asking for the right to marry!
So far, it appears to me that *almost* everyone commenting seems to think that what Chip wrote applied primarily, if not only, to those on the liberal to left side of things. Despite the W-S example, I'm not sure that's what he intended (for my part, I think it's a more generalized thing, more widespread). So let me ask him: Chip, was your comment targeted specifically to just one flavor of partisan, or would you apply it more broadly?
That reminds me: Back in the 1970s, one time — one time! — I defended Richard Nixon for something
My experience about Chick-fil-A is that gay people are vastly more informed about them than others. We have been concerned about, and talking about Chick-fil-A for years.
I get the impression that many of the opponents of gay marriage think that this just became an issue over the summer. But the fight over Chick-fil-A isn't just about gay marriage. And it didn't start this summer.
If people are talking about Chick-fil-A, and they don't know what WinShape is and what it does, then they haven't been paying attention.
A niece's boyfriend is a math wizard and math teacher at a NYC charter school. He is an indocrinated librul but I can see him struggle [silently] even when he is agreeing with the librul ideas and memes that conflict with his innate knowledge of metrics, math, common sense and public education. I only laugh [silently] knowing he is a future far right conservative.
My experience about Chick-fil-A is that gay people are vastly more informed about them than others. We have been concerned about, and talking about Chick-fil-A for years.
I think you are mistaken in this and that it's more that people just don't care. They care more about whether the food is good or not. Not everything is about politics.
I think this has been coming on for a while. There are many, many people that you flat out cannot have a conversation about politics without them going absolutely crazy at any sign of disagreement.
My father-in-law faked a suicide attempt last year because somebody was insulting Obama (this is not an exaggeration --- I had to take my mother-in-law to the hospital that night over it). I don't discuss politics with him because, honestly, he has nothing remotely interesting or intelligent to say on the matter. Also, when he resorts to calling his daughter and me racists at the drop of a hat makes conversations as banal as possible.
Can't delete or respond w/o igniting an emotional meltdown, accusations, hyperventilating, to be followed, inevitably, by the mediators of the family wading in and finding everyone and no one at fault.
I've erased several family members from my FB page. I've told them, point blank, that I am sick of their political bullshit and can cut and paste my own crap so they can spare me the time.
I'm the guy who "disrespects" family members, but it does save a lot of time and headaches.
Andy R almost wrote: If people are talking about Chick-fil-A, and they don't know what WinShape is and what it does, then they haven't been playing attention whore.
FTFH
@Andy R: "My experience about Chick-fil-A is that gay people are vastly more informed about them than others"
Your experience is limited. And wrong.
The Farmer said: I get that it makes gay marriage supporters feel good and righteous and morally superior, but how does it convince the other side?
This is my problem with 95% of what passes for discussion in support of gay marriage. It's all sloganeering and gotchas, with very little honest evaluation.
It's simple enough to make a case for gay marriage that many if not most people can, perhaps not agree on, but at least understand the rational basis for. I've done it numerous times with my more socially conservative friends and, while perhaps not changing anyone's mind, I've at least given them food for thought.
Most of what passes for gay marriage support; however, is just spewing hatred towards the other side (while pretending to be tolerant), rather than an honest attempt to engage and overcome their concerns. Quite frankly, it's embarassing.
Andy's probably right, because most of us do not give a rip about the day-to-day angst of the radical gay rights movement. I don't follow every donation made by the powers at CFA, nor do I track every looney-left cause supported by Soros, Buffet or the guy who owns Progressive Insurance. Most of us have lives outside of radical activist politics. Andy, not so much.
Andy R. said...
"My experience about Chick-fil-A is that gay people are vastly more informed about them than others. We have been concerned about, and talking about Chick-fil-A for years. "
And by "years" do you mean two?
Andy R.
I know what you are talking about.
The fact that you bring it up shows how shallow and fearful you are.
Because if WinShape is complete nonsense, then you have nothing to be upset about, and there would be no reason to criticize Chik-fil-A. Let them waste their money if they want, right?
But if WinShape can actually change orientation, then homosexuality pretty much is a choice, isn't it?
And that is the one thing your ideology will never let you admit. Which is why you attack Chik-fil-A like an existential threat. Because deep inside, nearly everything you insist is true about homosexuality is a lie.
A few decades from now, the people who didn't see through the progressive facade (those who deliberately ignored the despicable means by which the liberals attempted to achieve their ends via SSM legality) will be feeling really foolish.
YMMV and all that, but from what I can tell it is far riskier for conservatives to express their views to liberals than visa-versa.
I sweat bullets in conversations with liberal friends and acquaintances about how much I might say what I really think without being attacked or losing the relationship.
My liberal friends mostly say what they want without such concern. They know that I might disagree and push back, but I won't attack them or end the relationship because of a disagreement.
But if WinShape can actually change orientation, then homosexuality pretty much is a choice, isn't it?
Exodus International has admitted that reparative therapy doesn't work and abandoned the practice. This was clear to everyone back when WinShape was using Chick-fil-A profits to support Exodus International, but Christians still thought it would be fine to torture brainwashed gay men with promises that they could be turned straight.
I've not heard any kind of apology from Exodus International for all the lives they tried to destroy.
And by "years" do you mean two?
I heard something or read something about how Chick-fil-A was bad news and gay people shouldn't eat there when I moved to Atlanta three years ago.
Nathan Alexander said: But if WinShape can actually change orientation, then homosexuality pretty much is a choice, isn't it?
I see where you are going re: Andy R, and get that, but, personally, I don't think that, if orientation can be "changed" through extensive therapy, that really means anything about its causes or morality.
There are a lot of things that are natural and inborn, but can still be overcome by extensive therapy. That doesn't mean that they don't exist in the first place, though. It just means that they might be manageable. (It also doesn't speak to how desireable it might be to manage it like that, either - perhaps for some people, it's better to manage it, for others, better to live with it.)
I do agree that many gay rights advocates are afraid of any information that might require them to question any part of their worldview. It's just an irrational fear, IMO.
Exodus International has admitted that reparative therapy doesn't work and abandoned the practice.
Those damned oncologists also keep trying to cure cancer, too. If only they realized that the appropriate response to an unsuccessful experiment is to give up. Think of all the cancer patients that will no longer be "tortured" by false hope!
Lyssa: I agree on the gay marriage issue. I am all for it. But I also know, as do the proponents, that it won't be marriage marriage and it is this obvious point that infuriates them.
I heard something or read something about how Chick-fil-A was bad news and gay people shouldn't eat there when I moved to Atlanta three years ago.
That sort of reasoning reminds me of the child's game called "telephone"
I heard something or read something about how Chick-fil-A was bad news and gay people shouldn't eat there when I moved to Atlanta three years ago.
The mindless and sevile groupthink on display here is beyond parody.
I'm sure you felt very virtuous and self-righteous though!
The reason I phrased my comment the way I did is because I don't remember what I saw or read. I could talk for hours about WinShape, Focus on the Family, the AFA, Exodus International, the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda, and various other bad acts from Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. I have no idea what I first read about three years ago in relation to Chick-fil-A, but it's not like it's been a secret that Dan Cathy is hostile to gay people.
I think maybe the first thing I heard about was the funding of reparative therapy, and I decided I didn't want to contribute money to that.
I sweat bullets in conversations with liberal friends and acquaintances about how much I might say what I really think without being attacked or losing the relationship.
This is my experience too. Mostly I'm taciturn when it comes to political discussion offline. I limit myself to occasional socratic prodding, gently questioning premises, correcting publicly refuted "factoids," or getting them to see some of their own side's hypocrisy. But usually with a noncommittal air, and often with some such qualification as "just to be a devil's advocate..."
I get my political catharsis commenting anonymously or pseudonymously at blogs like Althouse.
I always hear about this Uganda/Chick-fil-A connection, yet no one ever seems to Google it to see it is not true.
Which, by the way, is why I don't believe much of what I hear about Chick-fil-A being evil. Because the most evil, violent thing I heard, in about twenty seconds on Google, I found out I had been lied to about, makes me think very, very poorly of those trying to lie to me.
I always hear about this Uganda/Chick-fil-A connection, yet no one ever seems to Google it to see it is not true.
In Douchebag Andy-land, the truth is much less important than whether something "is not like a secret."
Here's from Snopes, bottom has the bit on Uganda.
it's not like it's been a secret that Dan Cathy is hostile to gay people.
See, that's where you absolutely lose the argument: "hostile."
That word, it does not mean what you think it means.
Given that his story about "gay killing in Uganda" hasn't exactly rung the bell of truth, I'd be curious to know whether Andy has questioned anything else that he's heard. I've no doubt he can talk for hours, but I questions whether what he says will be based upon anything resembling fact.
Further curious to know why Andy included the Ugandan "kill the gays" bill in his list of horribles. Andy has asserted that he is knowledgeable about Mr. Cathy. Short of his utter dishonesty, I can't think of why he would repeat the lie.
@rcommal,
"...or would you apply it more broadly?
Well, I can't speak for the Chipster, but I sure as hell would.
Get outside the liberal groupthink mostly bi-coastal areas and you run into the "well all good, rational folks vote Republican"-think. I see it all the time when I visit either Alabama or my wife's folks in Texas.
The difference between the two, and why the left version is so much more aggravating is because:
1) The righties at some level know that their faith is just that --- faith. The lefties think that they've got natural reason on their side, but seem unable to do any critical reflection on what that might mean.
2) The righties think that they know how things work, and think they are practical & pragmatic. They think they're just good Uhmerichans, and are happy at that. The Lefties think they are uber-tolerant citizens of the world, when they are nothing of the sort.
In my experience, I'll take American lefties over Euro-lefties any day. Those people are the most arrogant, brainwashed, ignorant shitheads on the planet. Romney was right about culture, and when you really get to know your share of European "Last Men" (Nietzsche sure called that one..), you see why the EU is failing so miserably.
"I've not heard any kind of apology from Exodus International for all the lives they tried to destroy"
Really? "lives they tried to destroy"? No possibility that they thought they were helping? It is a shame we can't all be so broad-minded as Andy R.
Thinking your trying to help doesn't matter if you do actually destroy something. I have no idea what Exodus International is, but good intentions are not enough to ignore bad results, if that is indeed what happened.
"Exporting the Anti-Gay Movement"
The best-known example of these efforts is Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Introduced in the fall of 2009, the bill imposed the death penalty for certain homosexual acts and criminalized human-rights advocacy on behalf of sexual minorities. It grew directly out of a well-attended conference, the “Seminar on Exposing the Truth behind Homosexuality and the Homosexual Agenda,” that took place in the capital, Kampala, in March. To put on the conference, the Uganda-based Family Life Network, which is supported by U.S. Christian-right groups, teamed with two leading anti-gay activists from the States, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively and Dan Schmierer of the ex-gay group Exodus International. The seminar attracted high-profile religious leaders, parliamentarians, police officers, teachers, and concerned parents. I videotaped the proceedings.
Chick-fil-A has donated money to Exodus International.
I'm not thrilled that FRC tried to water down the condemnation of the Uganda bill, although that is a separate issue. But Chick-fil-A has been knee deep in anti-gay bigotry for years and there are lots of examples. The American Christian involvement in Africa is disgusting and it's not about gay marriage.
This Chick-fil-A debate isn't just about gay marriage. Focus on the Family, Exodus International, and the American Family Association are not making narrow arguments solely around gay marriage. They have a broad agenda targeting gay people as people.
Further curious to know why Andy included the Ugandan "kill the gays" bill in his list of horribles. Andy has asserted that he is knowledgeable about Mr. Cathy. Short of his utter dishonesty, I can't think of why he would repeat the lie.
Perhaps you can defend Chick-fil-A for donating money to Exodus International in 2009 at the same time Exodus International was setting up the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda.
Perhaps you can apologize to me for your accusations against me even though you didn't know what you are talking about.
@Andy,
West African culture is, for some cultural reason, virulently anti-homosexual. Perhaps the most of any culture on the planet (and, yes, I'm including the Middle East in that, because there seems to be an awful lot of homo-eroticism in the ME on the down-low). Not so West Africa.
To try and impose the narrative that nasty old Western Christians are imposing their values is just lefty "it's all imperialism" bullshit. Homophobic seeds just landed on very fertile soil is rather the case.
Oh, and by the way, I'd take the American Prospect a little more seriously if it wasn't advertising crap like this on its main page.
But as long as they're down for sodomy they're sane and rational in your book.
Andy R: The American Christian involvement in Africa is disgusting and it's not about gay marriage.
You'll never forgive them for teaching and advocating a boring position you find impossible.
Is that it?
Scott Lively, statement about Uganda:
Statement about Uganda: From NPR, "While I was there I had the opportunity to address members of the Ugandan Parliament regarding this bill that was proposed at that time...And my advice to the parliament was to go the other direction from what they did to actually go on a proactive positive message promoting the family, promoting marriage, etcetera, through the schools, and that if they were going to continue to criminalize homosexuality that they should focus on rehabilitation and not punishment. And I was very disappointed when the law came out as it is written now with such incredibly harsh punishments."
Don Schmierer, Statement about Uganda: Statement about Uganda: From the Times, "I feel duped. [The bill is] horrible, absolutely horrible. Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people."
http://gawker.com/5439886/
These men may have said things about homosexuality with which we disagree, but the article doesn't support its assertion that the went there intending to support a "kill they gays bill."
To be clear, I don't defend theses guys or their beliefs. The attempt to tie them to Chick Fil a is weak at best.
The article is enough for me to retract and apologize for calling you dishonest, although I think a critical reading of it is in order.
AndyR: If you really gave a shit about gay rights you would move to Uganda to do something about it. But I think you find it more comfortable being edgy and hard line right here in the good ole homophobic USofA where you can ride your high horse above the good works of CFA and the Salvation Army: the two foes who won't chop your fucking head off.
61% approval is chick-fil-a-buster proof!
Get outside the liberal groupthink mostly bi-coastal areas and you run into the "well all good, rational folks vote Republican"-think. I see it all the time when I visit either Alabama or my wife's folks in Texas.
The difference between the two, and why the left version is so much more aggravating is because […]
I'd add this to the differences. Even if you grow up in a conservative/ Republican family in a conservative/ Republican town in a conservative/ Republican state, if you're a liberal, you've still got almost all of popular culture and the media on your side. Turn on the radio or TV, open almost any magazine, and you'll find your liberal opinions glowingly mirrored back to you. You're not alone-- and indeed, the "elites" are on your side.
From Oprah to Madonna to Clooney to Ellen to Beyonce to almost any given celebrity profiled in People magazine, from Law & Order to Time Magazine to the Oscars, daytime talk shows and night time talk shows, comedians and comedy shows, sitcoms and soap operas, TV news and what's being taught in school (in textbooks themselves), even our holidays (Earth Day!), the "they say" and you are in sync.
It is virtually impossible to live in a right-wing "bubble," even if you're the most closed-minded conservative living in the most closed-minded town in the country, if you have any access to popular culture whatsoever. And of course, if you ever step foot on a college campus, forget it.
Whereas it's exceedingly easy, in certain large pockets of this country, to live in a left-wing or liberal "bubble" your whole life in which your only acquaintance with right-wing persons or ideas, mediated through left/ liberal media, is to something foreign, repugnant, ridiculous, stupid, evil, other. Those bitter clingers out there, whose strange and repellent beliefs are ethnographically explained to us by the NYT or Obama (or its own department at UC Berkeley).
It's easy enough to avoid Rush on the radio or FOX on TV-- yet seize on both as your bogeymen, because you know they're evil (that's what "everyone" says, "everyone" knows). Cognitive dissonance kept safely at bay.
Anti-Homosexual Bill In Uganda Causes Global Uproar
The Proposed Bill Could Punish Homosexuals Who Marry With Life In Prison
...
As for Lively, he says if they drop the death penalty, he'll actually endorse it.
Again, Scott Lively is a monster. I have no doubt that he might think he likes and supports gay people and wants to save them by giving them the message of Jesus. Almost all the anti-gay Christian bigots say they love and support gay people. It doesn't surprise me that Christians can say that they love gay people and also support a bill that would give them life in prison.
American Christians going to Africa to incite hatred against gay people is both disgusting, and completely unsurprising. And Chick-fil-A was giving them money.
Michael said...
AndyR: If you really gave a shit about gay rights you would move to Uganda to do something about it.
So if you didn't move to the USSR and fight the power you didn't really give a shit about Communism?
If you don't move to Afghanistan and do something about the Taliban you don't really give a shit about women's rights?
Oh! How about if you don't move to China and do something about their government you don't really give a shit about freedom!
See what I mean? You will now have a conversation with the most extreme activist, the activist earliest on the case, the activist most interested in something you honestly don't give a crap about. Two things you don't care about. Your discussion will be with the most extreme activist in the most extreme expressions. I suspect Andy didn't know shit about this chicken outfit even though, no because he's told us that fifteen times, it's that important to be among the best thinkers. Their language is his language, you will never reach Andy directly. I, we, will never know Andy. I know when my friends are speaking, they're creative and lively and say unexpected things, they're delightful, and I know when they're speaking for someone else.
Here's the difference. An example.
It's a long drive, three of went together, on the way up one asked if I had heard from someone far away and I said no, I emailed but didn't hear back. Which was odd. But then so was my email. I sent the same thing to three people, and none responded. It described something in sign language and I provided pictures that showed what I was on about. It's not the sort of email that you usually open up, something pedantic and tautological as that and flat off the wall, they agreed such a thing has no natural rejoinder. Thud. But then later at dinner observe those same signs used like la la la see the new sign words I just learned? How incredibly useful I don't even have to interrupt. hahahahaha. That's the difference.
Farmer. Faulty logic. Sophmoric, actually, but thanks for taking the time from the fields to give it a shot.
Michael said...
Farmer. Faulty logic. Sophmoric, actually, but thanks for taking the time from the fields to give it a shot.
Good point.
Andy: Perhaps you can apologize to me for your accusations against me even though you didn't know what you are talking about.
Or perhaps he could just consider you to be a dramatic hyperbolic christian-hating little queen bigot and ignore you.
Chip Ahoy:
I love the way you think. I'm sorry we don't get to converse in real life, I think I would enjoy it very much.
Andy:
> If Chick-Fil-A gave material support to "killing gays," then this whole thing would be a hugely different story.
> News flash: Christians believe homosexual behavior is sinful; and an orientation toward it is problematic. They have for awhile.
> So naturally they think moving from behavior that might get you damned, to behavior that doesn't, is a good thing. Working to keep people from going to hell is a strange notion of "hate."
> The fact that the present blip of history, in the rapidly decaying West, thinks Christian notions about homosexuality are terrible, is...well...something I don't lose sleep over.
Maybe you're smart enough to figure out that the decline of Christianity and Christian attitudes toward homosexuality are related.
Andy:
What "decline of Christianity"?
Christianity is growing rapidly. Maybe not in your neighborhood, but it's a big world.
Sorry, I was talking about America.
Andy:
I love my country, but: if I had to bet on which would last longer, Christianity or the United States of America, only a fool would bet on the latter.
If this thread can tolerate an extended quote--from the English (and non-Catholic) historian, Thomas Macauley:
There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation.
No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains.
The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila.
The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe.
The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions.
Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca.
And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's.
Further evidence that Andy has no idea what he is talking about when he bashes Christianity.
Andy, was there ever a time when Christianity taught that homosexuality was not a sin? The only way this works is if you mean that the "decline" of Christianity started when certain denominations decided to condone the behavior, but I doubt that is what you meant. Thing is, it is those denominations that are declining.
Andy R just has to be a moby.
No one could read Chip's note and post the shit Andy posted in earnest.
No one could be that stupidly ironic.
Andy R. said...
Sorry, I was talking about America.
This is why Andy R would like to to see an angry, nuked-up gay POTUS: Take it out on the world.
The latest thing going around is a photo from the 60s showing angry looking white people milling around with signs about race mixing and a caption that reads "Imagine how stupid you'll look in 40 years."
Given that religious conservatives are the only demographic groups whose marriage rate *isn't* dropping like a rock, I'm tempted to suspect that the reaction of the youth of 2052 will be something along the lines of "You mean *normal* people used to get married? Weird!".
I'm for gay marriage, but realistically the reason the public as a whole is even considering the idea is that marriage just isn't a big deal anymore. Easy to get into, easy to get out of, no significant social benefits or penalties.
The douchebag isn't a moby, he's just too uninformed and incurious to even consider that not all short-term trends are permanent and irreversible.
The Catholic Chaplain at Myrtle beach AFB, before the base closed, once told me he thought NPR was too conservative. He also did not know what MD-40 was. Whatever that means. You make your own mind up.
Again, Scott Lively is a monster
And his connection to Cathy is -- if I'm following you -- that Lively attended a conference that was also attended by someone from an organization that has received money from a foundation that is run by Cathy?
You should get together with Mick and write the best conspiracy novel EVER. :)
Andy, seriously?
Decline in Christianity parallels decline in morals. Who could have seen that?
No, the link between Chick-fil-A and the "kills the gays" bill is because Exodus International supported the bill and Chick-fil-A gave money to Exodus International.
The Scott Lively discussion was just about whether he supports killing gay people or giving them life in prison. Someone else brought up a defense of him and I thought it was worth pointing out how much of a monster he is.
No, the link between Chick-fil-A and the "kills the gays" bill is because Exodus International supported the bill and Chick-fil-A gave money to Exodus International.
Except that Exodus doesn't support the bill and never has; you made that up. :)
Also, if you're going to make stuff up, shoot for something a little more damning than "Cathy owns a company that gave money to a foundation that gave money to another group that supposedly said something positive about evil Ugandans". Just a friendly bit of advice from a long-time reader of Internet forums.
Wow..
Chip is not often political.. but when he is... he is dead on the money.. (whatever that means)
Well said Chip.. and thank you professor for catching it.
@Brent I believe it proves that overall women as a group (denying the edges which of course have major exceptions to this rule) are far more short-term
oriented in thinking and far more susceptible to emotional appeals.
Which certainly explains a disgusting amoral man like Barack Obama being seen as a better choice to lead this country than Mitt Romney.
This. I'm in Virginia, and I heard on the radio that Virginian women (according to the latest poll) would vote for Obama over Romney 54% to 40%. Of course, many of these Virginian women are probably working for the federal government.
But it made me depressed for the rest of the day.
I thought of the term "sympathetic appeals" as perhaps opposed to "emotional," but it means the same thing. I put up Milton Friedman's "There's no such thing as a free lunch" speech on facebook. Of course, my female friends on facebook are all conservative, except for my nieces and some younger folks.
One can be compassionate but hopefully still see the nonsense in sending one's dollars to the feds so they can graciously send it back to one's community with strings attached and after taking out a huge hunk for operating expenses. (Example: we are currently working with our local Chick-fil-A to drum up $150K for our local family homeless shelter, since the feds took it away because they weren't letting felons and child molesters in.)
Andy, using your logic I would protest Bill Gates and his foundation because they encourage forced third trimester abortions in China.
I love my country, but: if I had to bet on which would last longer, Christianity or the United States of America, only a fool would bet on the latter.
The race is on. Conveniently, someone just linked to the "WIN-Gallup International GLOBAL INDEX OF RELIGIOSITY AND ATHEISM - 2012"
On pg. 6, America is in the top ten for "Drop in Religiosity Index", narrowly edging out Canada.
I would just like to give a big shout out and thank you to all the Christian anti-gay bigots who have so tarnished their religion and driven so many people away. Keep up the good work!
I would like to think that I have done my own small part by helping to get the message out there that American Christianity is linked with anti-gay bigotry and anyone who cares about gay people should avoid the anti-gay bigoted Christians in America.
Hopefully we get another 13% drop or more in another ten years.
Hopefully we get another 13% drop or more in another ten years.
You just may experience more than 13% drop in trousers as you age ten years and your looks catch up with your ugly mind.
The race is on.
The rate of growth of Christianity (1.3%) exceeds the rate of growth of the overall human population of Earth (1.2%). Hinduism and Islam are growing as well.
Generally speaking, the trend (both in the United States and around the world) is that the more serious, traditionalist or fundamentalist religions are growing like weeds, while the wishy-washy religions (such as the Episcopal church I was raised in) die off. Thus the world polarizes into the non-religious and the extremely religious.
On one side, people struggle with questions of right and wrong as they try to connect to the infinite.
On the other side, mentally ill people are compelled to use their reproductive systems in an inherently in-reproductive manner.
Notwithstanding the douchebag's delusions, the religious will win this one.
@Andy R. and Exodus International.
I am not aware of Exodus International changing their mind on the subject of counseling to change sexual orientation.
(I have had contact with two men and one woman who were helped by a local organization affiliated with EI. To my knowledge this organization still offers help to people who suffer from behavior/sexual/addictive disorders. The number of testimonies I have heard is not broad, but the spectrum of disorders dealt with is broad. Such testimonies are also not disseminated far beyond the circle of people directly involved with the organization; for privacy reasons. The help offered is usually a combination of counseling, spiritual guidance, prayer, and replacement of the old social circle with a circle dedicated to a different lifestyle.)
So, Andy, give me a cite.
I would believe it if EI stated that counseling will not work without spiritual guidance and a come-to-Jesus experience. That position is consistent with my knowledge of the organization's behavior.
However, if EI said that counseling was worthless, I'd be surprised.
@Andy,
I just did a skim of Wikipedia's article on Exodus International, looking into the Uganda bill.
That article quotes a leader of Exodus International as saying that the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill was a bad thing.
Also, they joined in a letter to the Ugandan government stating that said bill would hurt the outreach of various churches to homosexuals.
Whether or not you like EI and their goals, they are not apparently supportive of that "Kill the Gays" bill.
Christian group backs away from ex-gay therapy
Post a Comment