Wow, it's been a long time since I've gotten on this thing. I thought maybe it had already evaporated into the intertubes or something, but I guess they really meant it when they said that things on the internet stay up forever. Anyways, I'd just like to put it out there that even though years have passed and times have changed significantly since I last posted, I'll also say that 1.) I still have ire, and that 2.) there are many things worthy of it.
Today's subject is one not-so-near-and-dear to my heart, namely PETA. The media and a veritable cornucopia of celebrities would tell you that that particular acronym stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but they're lying through their impeccably-capped teeth. What it really stands for is Pornographers Engaged in Tactless Advertising. You'd be surprised at just how many Hollywood starlets and other easily-manipulated college girls are willing to take off their clothes for these people, just so they can feel better about being drooled over by truckers. Hey, at least the cause is a worthy one, right?
More like one worthy of my ire. For starters, let's take a look at some statistics about PETA's "animal shelters": here we see the kill rates of animals accepted to a PETA-run shelter in Virginia. For an organization that wants to put off a hippy-dippy, good feelin' drum circle vibe, they sure do like killing their "friends". I guess their plan to "phase out" companion animals is to literally phase them out of life by the thousands. How 'bout that. Just think about where your money's going next time you buy one of their "I'm Not A Nugget" necklace charms: is it going to buy body paint for sidewalk protesters? Will it be used to purchase euthanasia drugs? Perhaps fake blood to lob at runway models? Or will it go towards their decades-old campaign to pull hapless celebrities into an arguably-misogynistic image campaign? The world may never know, because even though PETA releases annual financial statements, I'm no accountant and therefore have no clue what most of the numbers and labels on this thing even mean, much less what it tells me about their funds allocation strategies.
tl;dr Jennifer Lawrence was right to say "screw PETA", though if we consider the organization's usual advertising methods, there's a good chance this could be taken far more literally than Ms. Lawrence ever imagined.
Go eat a burger or something. I know I will.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Monday, November 2, 2009
O is for Over-the-Top Flirts
We all know them. We might even be them; whether this is something we'll admit to is a different matter altogether. My point is that we all know them, lying in wait to make everybody's day just that much more awkward. This specific example pertains to cosmic bowling, but I think the nature of the activity is pretty irrelevant, since these people show up to everything.
So anyways, cosmic bowling. It's great! There's lasers, bowling, crazy people and goofy shoes, not to mention crazy people. I went yesterday with my friend. He brought along a friend (who happened to be a girl, a fact that'll be rather important soon) and another friend planned on showing up later. The ride there was pretty cool, as it involved totally rocking out to Muse's "The Resistance" at unseemly volumes and everyone in the car being generally hilarious and having a good time. We get to the bowling alley having only gotten a little bit lost, which is no big d. We get there, get our shoes and prepare ourselves for a rockin' good time, when here comes Bowler #4. Now, I've known this kid for a long time, giving me a broad base of experience concerning his thought and potential actions in many areas, i.e. bowling, moral and intellectual superiority, cars, the Marine Corps and girls. He was also my sister's ex-boyfriend, which not only increased his creep factor but gave me some slightly prophetic insights into what would become a Situation.
This is where my friend's friend's gender becomes important. Not only was she a girl, but she would quite obviously be a high-priority Flirt Target. Bowler #4, having some basis in tactical reasoning (vidya games and fantasy novels), figured this out right away. I decided early on that I wasn't getting involved- first, she's quite obviously taken, and second, I've only known her for an hour. Bowler #4, however- who for reasons of anonymity and ease of typing I will henceforth refer to as "Mike"- is apparently from the "The name of the game is your girl and I won" school, and only took my reasons for not trying as reasons why he should outdo me and everyone else within 10 square miles.
Now, bowling can either be based in skill or fun, meaning you can either stress over vectors, rotations and thrust-to-weight ratios or just have fun. I chose the middle ground, since high scores are nice but not the sole objective of bowling; if you want to remain socially viable, that is. "Mike" here decided it was best to tackle both sides of the "skill-fun" spectrum in the course of two games. This also translated into flirting, running the gamut between "Oh look, I'm the greatest bowler in the history of the world, so stand back and admire my skillz" and "Aw man, I'm terrible at bowling but you know what, life isn't all about bowling, it's about friendship and love and flowers and puppies, I hope you like those things because I like them too."
Naturally, this induced RAGE on my part. First, he was trying too hard, to the point where it had to have been painfully obvious to everyone. Second, he was trying to win something that was not winnable. Third, I've seen this all before. It was like a re-run but with a new cast and a different setting, somewhat akin to Star Trek: TNG using a plot from TOS, except that's a bad example because TNG did that all the time and neither of those shows were fail, whereas this situation most certainly was. Anyways, it was completely stupid. The best part of the night was when "Mike" tried to bowl with beer goggles on as part of some college newspaper promotion. All you had to do was knock down one pin with the goggles on, so naturally, "Mike" assured us that not only did he know the trick to beer goggles, but he was also gonna get a strike. HA. He rolled a gutter ball after three feet. SO THERE. His attempts at flirting resulted in much rejoicing between my friend, his friend and myself, but also much fail on "Mike"'s part. Long post short, we ditched him there at 10:30 at night, rocking out to the "The Resistance" again and lulzing all the way home.
Share your stories of over-the-top flirts below. Whether or not you'll lol, I probably will.
So anyways, cosmic bowling. It's great! There's lasers, bowling, crazy people and goofy shoes, not to mention crazy people. I went yesterday with my friend. He brought along a friend (who happened to be a girl, a fact that'll be rather important soon) and another friend planned on showing up later. The ride there was pretty cool, as it involved totally rocking out to Muse's "The Resistance" at unseemly volumes and everyone in the car being generally hilarious and having a good time. We get to the bowling alley having only gotten a little bit lost, which is no big d. We get there, get our shoes and prepare ourselves for a rockin' good time, when here comes Bowler #4. Now, I've known this kid for a long time, giving me a broad base of experience concerning his thought and potential actions in many areas, i.e. bowling, moral and intellectual superiority, cars, the Marine Corps and girls. He was also my sister's ex-boyfriend, which not only increased his creep factor but gave me some slightly prophetic insights into what would become a Situation.
This is where my friend's friend's gender becomes important. Not only was she a girl, but she would quite obviously be a high-priority Flirt Target. Bowler #4, having some basis in tactical reasoning (vidya games and fantasy novels), figured this out right away. I decided early on that I wasn't getting involved- first, she's quite obviously taken, and second, I've only known her for an hour. Bowler #4, however- who for reasons of anonymity and ease of typing I will henceforth refer to as "Mike"- is apparently from the "The name of the game is your girl and I won" school, and only took my reasons for not trying as reasons why he should outdo me and everyone else within 10 square miles.
Now, bowling can either be based in skill or fun, meaning you can either stress over vectors, rotations and thrust-to-weight ratios or just have fun. I chose the middle ground, since high scores are nice but not the sole objective of bowling; if you want to remain socially viable, that is. "Mike" here decided it was best to tackle both sides of the "skill-fun" spectrum in the course of two games. This also translated into flirting, running the gamut between "Oh look, I'm the greatest bowler in the history of the world, so stand back and admire my skillz" and "Aw man, I'm terrible at bowling but you know what, life isn't all about bowling, it's about friendship and love and flowers and puppies, I hope you like those things because I like them too."
Naturally, this induced RAGE on my part. First, he was trying too hard, to the point where it had to have been painfully obvious to everyone. Second, he was trying to win something that was not winnable. Third, I've seen this all before. It was like a re-run but with a new cast and a different setting, somewhat akin to Star Trek: TNG using a plot from TOS, except that's a bad example because TNG did that all the time and neither of those shows were fail, whereas this situation most certainly was. Anyways, it was completely stupid. The best part of the night was when "Mike" tried to bowl with beer goggles on as part of some college newspaper promotion. All you had to do was knock down one pin with the goggles on, so naturally, "Mike" assured us that not only did he know the trick to beer goggles, but he was also gonna get a strike. HA. He rolled a gutter ball after three feet. SO THERE. His attempts at flirting resulted in much rejoicing between my friend, his friend and myself, but also much fail on "Mike"'s part. Long post short, we ditched him there at 10:30 at night, rocking out to the "The Resistance" again and lulzing all the way home.
Share your stories of over-the-top flirts below. Whether or not you'll lol, I probably will.
Friday, October 30, 2009
M is really for Misleading Debating Tactics, Part Two
Here it is, part two in the ever-expanding and always awesome series concerning misleading debating tactics.
Issue number two: SOCIALISM.
The history lesson will come a little later in the post- first off, let's discuss context. According to Republicans and others, the Democrats are mislabeled. In an effort to combat this, a lot of them have started calling them the Democrat Socialist Party. Think about that- this isn't just some cutesy nickname they gave them, this is what they use in their official literature. Apparently, the combination of opinion about a certain party+party name=true colors. Now, why don't the Democrats pick up on this? Their claims that the GOP is too exclusive could totally take a whole new angle if their party literature started using the term Republican Bigot Party or something. Why let Republicans have a monopoly on defining their party's public image? It would also produce some juicy irony/drama considering the GOP's long and vaunted history of trust-busting and its more recent history of enabling a private health care monopoly, but that's just beside the point.
My real point is that the term "Democrat Socialist Party" is silly for a couple reasons. First, there's already a Socialist Party in America. Why don't the Republicans ask them how they feel about all this? Chances are the real Socialists won't approve. Second, they seem to think that "socialism" is either intrinsically evil or a label that can be used interchangeably with things like "fascism", "communism", "Marxism" and so on. Well, guess what, guys- it's time for a history lesson! Well, etymology too*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at this definition, I find it hard to believe that America is a socialist country, or even that it's on the road to becoming one. In the context of the health care debate, it makes even less sense, since a government-sponsored health insurance option is hardly a mean of production. Sure, I'd like to be informed if Obama collectivizes all private property- I like my iPod a lot- and I'd appreciate a phone call or something when this happens. Until then, quit throwing "socialism" around like it's some kind of Frisbee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is more specific than socialism, making claims of an imminent communist America even more dubious. Again, I kind of have a vested interest in non-collectivized economic systems- because I think personal property is awesome- and would certainly be worried if Democratic stormtroopers showed up at my door demanding my cell phone and coin collection for the good of the State; however, I'm not counting on that occurring. Of course, I could say that about any party, since not only is there a real Communist Party here, but claims of communistic leanings get bandied about by every party at every other party. The identity of the party wouldn't really be that important, as they would singularly control all means of production and things would suck regardless.
I understand Marx's angle; you don't have to look hard to see exploitation of workers by the wealthy elite. I mean, have sweatshops really gone away, despite American Apparel's claims to the contrary? No, and they probably won't ever, at least not until machines supplant human beings as a labor force. Of course, we all saw how well that went over on BSG, so no need to go there now. Even though I get where he's coming from, that doesn't mean I agree with him about, well, anything else. Sure, his dialectical class struggle model seems to fit pretty well, and yeah, exploitation sucks, but as it is, I'm kinda sitting in the middle of the same white-collar world he wanted to eliminate in a violent, proletarian uprising. Ouch. Also, who has the time to read Das Kapital? Definitely tl;dr. Plus, the Manifesto has all the juicy parts about the workers of the world uniting, massacring the bourgeoisie (you have no idea how hard it is to spell that word without the Firefox dictionary) and living in Utopian forest communes, so I'd just suggest you pick that up first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh noes, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod doesn't like FOX News! Well, it shouldn't really surprise anyone, much less FOX and their viewers. By and large, I'd say that the only people who like FOX are the people who watch it. Of course, this doesn't imply that only those who watch FOX like it, because I watch it occasionally just to stare in utter amazement as Glenn Beck shoves not only his foot down his throat, but his head through his rectal sphincter. It's quite fascinating, really, but that's a different post. Anyways, the White House has apparently "declared war" on FOX because they present opposition. Two things: explain Shepard Smith and "The Daily Show". "You mean Jon Stewart, a liberal, makes fun of and/or critiques the Obama administration? But he's a liberal!" Yes, I do and yes, he does. Why should this shock anyone? Because he made fun of Bush? Everyone made fun of Bush. Anyways, let me know when the Black Shirts come marching down your street and I'll agree that there's some pretty fascistic stuff going down. Until then, I fail to see how verbal scoldings of FOX News can be called "forcible suppression of opposition" or how this could even be considered a step towards such a thing. If anything, I saw more fascistic tendencies demonstrated by the home-school parents and youth pastors in "Jesus Camp" (the kids pledging allegiance to the Christian flag, fawning all over a cut-out of George Bush and general hyper-zealousness) than in the Obama administration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically the biggest, baddest socio-economic system out there. I mean, you can't beat Stalinism as far as scariness goes, hence the heavy Stalinist critiques in a little book called 1984. Unfortunately, Stalinist-era technology hadn't advanced to the point where Yakov Smirnoff could truthfully say "In Soviet Russia, television watches you!" As a matter of fact, the Stalinist-era Yakov Smirnoff didn't even exist, since he was born in 1961, but I digress. So it's basically communism, but with jingoism, state-as-god policies and personality cults added for extra flavor. As examples, just look at the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba (to some extent) and- according to some deleted scenes from "A New Hope" I found on YouTube- the Galactic Empire.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, I think now's the time to mention my absolute hatred of the aphorism that trying the same thing expecting a different result is a definition of insanity. I don't hate it because it's used against me, but because everyone uses it all the time. Literally. If someone mentioned this phrase in a political context to a room full of mixed ideologies, the Republicans would take it to mean "the Democrats keep trying to implement socialistic policies and they fail every time hurr durr" and the Democrats would take it to mean "Bush got elected twice and he was dumb hurr durr". It's stupid. Seriously- I don't care if you have to wait twenty years to hear this phrase again, but look around next time you hear it and watch literally everyone's face light up because they just applied the phrase to their political opponents. Works every time.
Well, I hope you learned about some definitions. Now you can call BS on people who throw the above terms around too much. I know I will.
*All definitions copied in entire from Merriam-Webster.
Issue number two: SOCIALISM.
The history lesson will come a little later in the post- first off, let's discuss context. According to Republicans and others, the Democrats are mislabeled. In an effort to combat this, a lot of them have started calling them the Democrat Socialist Party. Think about that- this isn't just some cutesy nickname they gave them, this is what they use in their official literature. Apparently, the combination of opinion about a certain party+party name=true colors. Now, why don't the Democrats pick up on this? Their claims that the GOP is too exclusive could totally take a whole new angle if their party literature started using the term Republican Bigot Party or something. Why let Republicans have a monopoly on defining their party's public image? It would also produce some juicy irony/drama considering the GOP's long and vaunted history of trust-busting and its more recent history of enabling a private health care monopoly, but that's just beside the point.
My real point is that the term "Democrat Socialist Party" is silly for a couple reasons. First, there's already a Socialist Party in America. Why don't the Republicans ask them how they feel about all this? Chances are the real Socialists won't approve. Second, they seem to think that "socialism" is either intrinsically evil or a label that can be used interchangeably with things like "fascism", "communism", "Marxism" and so on. Well, guess what, guys- it's time for a history lesson! Well, etymology too*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Looking at this definition, I find it hard to believe that America is a socialist country, or even that it's on the road to becoming one. In the context of the health care debate, it makes even less sense, since a government-sponsored health insurance option is hardly a mean of production. Sure, I'd like to be informed if Obama collectivizes all private property- I like my iPod a lot- and I'd appreciate a phone call or something when this happens. Until then, quit throwing "socialism" around like it's some kind of Frisbee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communism
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
This is more specific than socialism, making claims of an imminent communist America even more dubious. Again, I kind of have a vested interest in non-collectivized economic systems- because I think personal property is awesome- and would certainly be worried if Democratic stormtroopers showed up at my door demanding my cell phone and coin collection for the good of the State; however, I'm not counting on that occurring. Of course, I could say that about any party, since not only is there a real Communist Party here, but claims of communistic leanings get bandied about by every party at every other party. The identity of the party wouldn't really be that important, as they would singularly control all means of production and things would suck regardless.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marxism
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society
I understand Marx's angle; you don't have to look hard to see exploitation of workers by the wealthy elite. I mean, have sweatshops really gone away, despite American Apparel's claims to the contrary? No, and they probably won't ever, at least not until machines supplant human beings as a labor force. Of course, we all saw how well that went over on BSG, so no need to go there now. Even though I get where he's coming from, that doesn't mean I agree with him about, well, anything else. Sure, his dialectical class struggle model seems to fit pretty well, and yeah, exploitation sucks, but as it is, I'm kinda sitting in the middle of the same white-collar world he wanted to eliminate in a violent, proletarian uprising. Ouch. Also, who has the time to read Das Kapital? Definitely tl;dr. Plus, the Manifesto has all the juicy parts about the workers of the world uniting, massacring the bourgeoisie (you have no idea how hard it is to spell that word without the Firefox dictionary) and living in Utopian forest communes, so I'd just suggest you pick that up first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Oh noes, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod doesn't like FOX News! Well, it shouldn't really surprise anyone, much less FOX and their viewers. By and large, I'd say that the only people who like FOX are the people who watch it. Of course, this doesn't imply that only those who watch FOX like it, because I watch it occasionally just to stare in utter amazement as Glenn Beck shoves not only his foot down his throat, but his head through his rectal sphincter. It's quite fascinating, really, but that's a different post. Anyways, the White House has apparently "declared war" on FOX because they present opposition. Two things: explain Shepard Smith and "The Daily Show". "You mean Jon Stewart, a liberal, makes fun of and/or critiques the Obama administration? But he's a liberal!" Yes, I do and yes, he does. Why should this shock anyone? Because he made fun of Bush? Everyone made fun of Bush. Anyways, let me know when the Black Shirts come marching down your street and I'll agree that there's some pretty fascistic stuff going down. Until then, I fail to see how verbal scoldings of FOX News can be called "forcible suppression of opposition" or how this could even be considered a step towards such a thing. If anything, I saw more fascistic tendencies demonstrated by the home-school parents and youth pastors in "Jesus Camp" (the kids pledging allegiance to the Christian flag, fawning all over a cut-out of George Bush and general hyper-zealousness) than in the Obama administration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stalinism
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin; especially : the theory and practice of communism developed by Stalin from Marxism-Leninism and marked especially by rigid authoritarianism, widespread use of terror, and often emphasis on Russian nationalism
This is basically the biggest, baddest socio-economic system out there. I mean, you can't beat Stalinism as far as scariness goes, hence the heavy Stalinist critiques in a little book called 1984. Unfortunately, Stalinist-era technology hadn't advanced to the point where Yakov Smirnoff could truthfully say "In Soviet Russia, television watches you!" As a matter of fact, the Stalinist-era Yakov Smirnoff didn't even exist, since he was born in 1961, but I digress. So it's basically communism, but with jingoism, state-as-god policies and personality cults added for extra flavor. As examples, just look at the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba (to some extent) and- according to some deleted scenes from "A New Hope" I found on YouTube- the Galactic Empire.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, I think now's the time to mention my absolute hatred of the aphorism that trying the same thing expecting a different result is a definition of insanity. I don't hate it because it's used against me, but because everyone uses it all the time. Literally. If someone mentioned this phrase in a political context to a room full of mixed ideologies, the Republicans would take it to mean "the Democrats keep trying to implement socialistic policies and they fail every time hurr durr" and the Democrats would take it to mean "Bush got elected twice and he was dumb hurr durr". It's stupid. Seriously- I don't care if you have to wait twenty years to hear this phrase again, but look around next time you hear it and watch literally everyone's face light up because they just applied the phrase to their political opponents. Works every time.
Well, I hope you learned about some definitions. Now you can call BS on people who throw the above terms around too much. I know I will.
*All definitions copied in entire from Merriam-Webster.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
W is for White Nationalists
If you've read any of my other posts, you've probably noticed that I tend to argue using logic and (hopefully) reason, steering away from fallacies and ad hominems. Well, at least I try.
Naturally, your first assumption on coming to a post entitled "W is for WhiteSupremacists Nationalists" would be that I'd apply the same principles to this post that I've applied to all the others. Maybe I'd dazzle you with my knowledge of morphology to denounce the belief that race is an indicator of humanity! Or perhaps I'd detail the efforts of modern anthropologists to disprove phrenological assertions that some races are smarter because their skulls are bigger! I could even go to great lengths to argue that race is nothing more than differences regarding melanin and facial structure with some minor body type differences!
If you assume that, you'd be wrong. Here's why:
There's no arguing with them. To quote Rep. Barney Frank, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table," the word "you" here meaning White Nationalists. They think they already have the proof and even if they lack proof, they can just call anyone who opposes them a racist or any racial slur they can think of, meaning just about every racial slur invented. In fact, if you ask nicely, I'm sure they'll make one up for you.
In light of this fact, I think I'll skip the traditional debating parlance and get right to the ad hominem attacks.
I despise every single one of you.
I have nothing but contempt for you.
Your leaders are impotent and their followers are intellectual children.
"White pride" is nothing more meaningful than a facade for white supremacists looking to survive in a world that hates them.
There is not a thing that your movement can do to help this world or improve the life of a single person in it.
And finally,
I hope for your sakes that Hell looks like Auschwitz, because then it will be a lot harder for you to doubt Auschwitz' existence.
That was fun, wasn't it?
Naturally, your first assumption on coming to a post entitled "W is for White
If you assume that, you'd be wrong. Here's why:
There's no arguing with them. To quote Rep. Barney Frank, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table," the word "you" here meaning White Nationalists. They think they already have the proof and even if they lack proof, they can just call anyone who opposes them a racist or any racial slur they can think of, meaning just about every racial slur invented. In fact, if you ask nicely, I'm sure they'll make one up for you.
In light of this fact, I think I'll skip the traditional debating parlance and get right to the ad hominem attacks.
I despise every single one of you.
I have nothing but contempt for you.
Your leaders are impotent and their followers are intellectual children.
"White pride" is nothing more meaningful than a facade for white supremacists looking to survive in a world that hates them.
There is not a thing that your movement can do to help this world or improve the life of a single person in it.
And finally,
I hope for your sakes that Hell looks like Auschwitz, because then it will be a lot harder for you to doubt Auschwitz' existence.
That was fun, wasn't it?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
B is for Blog Action Day
So, I literally found out that Blog Action Day was on the exact same subject as my "A is for Activism" post like three hours after that post was posted. As such, I may have preempted the actual Day, but I still think you'll find my post to be both enjoyable and rather pertinent.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
M is really for Misleading Debating Tactics, Part One
Debating is awesome. I love it almost too much to be a part of a coherent society. Some (my parents, for instance) could say that my study of logical fallacies, winning tactics, applications of philosophy and the opposing views of a lot of different issues has probably consumed an inordinate amount of my time, but I could argue that it hasn't. See? I'm debating already and I haven't even written more than four sentences. All I'm basically saying is that debating is awesome. Why? Because it is. It's hard to quantify or describe fully, because not everyone likes it and not everyone who likes it is good at it. In fact, some people are really bad, and that's what this post is all about. Let's proceed, shall we?
Issue number one: GAY MARRIAGE
I wish I could make music play when people read the above title, because that would be awesome. However, just assume that there is a song playing: if you oppose gay marriage, it's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" by Bach and if you support gay marriage, it's "It's Raining Men" by Pauls Jabara and Shaffer.
Propositions 8 and 102 passed, though not without controversy. This is understandable, but the extremes of the debate were not. I mean, check out this commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
For those of you not willing to go the extra mile and click the link, it's the National Organization For Marriage's "Gathering Storm" commercial. You know, the one where those "average people" are standing in front of a green screen making vague references to storms and clouds and stuff. Well, they also make some passing mentions that legalizing gay marriage will take away "average people"s' rights and generally lead to the downfall of Western Civilization and/or Judgment Day, but you can just ignore a statement that unverifiable, right? Like heck, you can. Or at least, like heck, I can. Well, you can too, but I'm writing right now. BACK ON TOPIC. Normally, a responsible citizen/viewer of a commercial such as this would request some data that would prove beyond all doubt that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the above. I'm sure plenty of people actually did this, so if you did, let me know how that turned out. Anyway, if you haven't done so yet, let me tell you what'll happen- nothing. NOM won't give you this data because none exists. Their debate is an entirely moral argument based mostly on speculation and- it could be argued for some, though certainly not all- personal prejudice. That's right, I said it, prejudice. OOGITY BOOGITY. Not the P-word! Yes, the P-word.
Now let's talk about the P-word. It exists. I don't discount that, and anyone who does is deluding themselves. However, it shouldn't be the go-to rebuttal every time an opponent presents a contradictory argument. Otherwise, we spend too much time looking at maybe-bigots when we could be worrying about actual-bigots. Just like it doesn't help the debate for opponents to say "You're taking away my rights!" (they aren't), it doesn't help the debate for proponents to say "You don't want gay marriage because you hate me and all I love!" (they don't). Both sides are making moral arguments, which is pretty much the only argument you can make about this kind of thing. Yes, opponents, the proponents have morals. They may not be a carbon-copy of yours, but calling them "amoral" or "godless" won't get you anywhere. They probably aren't, because only Alex Delarge is amoral and if you wanna get technical about it, no one's godless, but that's a different post altogether.
Since both arguments are moral and both sides believe that, in fact, there really is no argument because they are, in fact, right, you'd think reconciliation would be impossible or at least impossible. That's what both sides tell me, so it must be true, right? HAHAHAHAHAHA no. That's where I come in!
See, I'm Mormon. That should get gay marriage proponents excited, right? Well, it turns out the Church leadership didn't donate that money, the members did. I didn't, because I've read the Constitution and about 75% or so of the Bible. Numbers and parts of Leviticus are really boring, which probably accounts for most of the 25% I didn't read. Also, for anyone who says Isaiah's boring or confusing, you must've been sleeping in high school English class, because Shakespeare's about as hard as Isaiah and Shakespeare's not that tough. It makes sense if you think about it, since they both use the same English. However, this isn't a literature post, it's a debate post. Anyway, I have counterarguments prepared for anyone who would like to engage me concerning my justifications of the following Opinion, so feel free to leave your thoughts in the Comments section. Here goes:
The problems are that gay people want to get married, claiming marriage as a Constitutionally-recognized civil right, and most religious people think gay people caused Sodom and Gomorrah and say "no". The matter is complicated by the fact that civil unions and gay marriage aren't recognized everywhere, civil unions are kind of a cop-out and both sides think that they're right.
Constitutionally, the proponents are right; ever since the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law and made bans on mixed-race marriages unconstitutional, marriage has been a civil right. Based on this assessment, the only recourse is to legalize it everywhere. But this is a compromise, remember? There has to be a caveat in a compromise, so here it is: gay marriage would be legal, but no church would be forced to perform or authorize them against the will of their leadership. But wait! That defeats the point, right? NO, for three reasons: there are churches that want gay marriage legalized, Justices of the Peace, ship captains and Elvis impersonators will still be able to perform legally binding marriages, and the separation of church and state would dictate the government not force any church to perform a marriage it doesn't want to perform. Yeah, I said "separation of church and state", what about it? Doesn't feel too awesome when it's used against you, does it, secular humanists? Take that! Ahem... Back on topic.
"Separation of church and state" works both ways: churches don't try and enact undue influence on the government, and the government doesn't tell churches what to do. Therefore, any religious organization that objects to gay marriage doesn't have to do them, since the marriage could just be performed elsewhere and be just as legal.
Anyway, that's my Opinion. I think it's rad, but I'm biased in its favor, so what do you expect? Feel free to express your Opinions below so I may tell you how wrong they are.
Issue number one: GAY MARRIAGE
I wish I could make music play when people read the above title, because that would be awesome. However, just assume that there is a song playing: if you oppose gay marriage, it's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" by Bach and if you support gay marriage, it's "It's Raining Men" by Pauls Jabara and Shaffer.
Propositions 8 and 102 passed, though not without controversy. This is understandable, but the extremes of the debate were not. I mean, check out this commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
For those of you not willing to go the extra mile and click the link, it's the National Organization For Marriage's "Gathering Storm" commercial. You know, the one where those "average people" are standing in front of a green screen making vague references to storms and clouds and stuff. Well, they also make some passing mentions that legalizing gay marriage will take away "average people"s' rights and generally lead to the downfall of Western Civilization and/or Judgment Day, but you can just ignore a statement that unverifiable, right? Like heck, you can. Or at least, like heck, I can. Well, you can too, but I'm writing right now. BACK ON TOPIC. Normally, a responsible citizen/viewer of a commercial such as this would request some data that would prove beyond all doubt that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the above. I'm sure plenty of people actually did this, so if you did, let me know how that turned out. Anyway, if you haven't done so yet, let me tell you what'll happen- nothing. NOM won't give you this data because none exists. Their debate is an entirely moral argument based mostly on speculation and- it could be argued for some, though certainly not all- personal prejudice. That's right, I said it, prejudice. OOGITY BOOGITY. Not the P-word! Yes, the P-word.
Now let's talk about the P-word. It exists. I don't discount that, and anyone who does is deluding themselves. However, it shouldn't be the go-to rebuttal every time an opponent presents a contradictory argument. Otherwise, we spend too much time looking at maybe-bigots when we could be worrying about actual-bigots. Just like it doesn't help the debate for opponents to say "You're taking away my rights!" (they aren't), it doesn't help the debate for proponents to say "You don't want gay marriage because you hate me and all I love!" (they don't). Both sides are making moral arguments, which is pretty much the only argument you can make about this kind of thing. Yes, opponents, the proponents have morals. They may not be a carbon-copy of yours, but calling them "amoral" or "godless" won't get you anywhere. They probably aren't, because only Alex Delarge is amoral and if you wanna get technical about it, no one's godless, but that's a different post altogether.
Since both arguments are moral and both sides believe that, in fact, there really is no argument because they are, in fact, right, you'd think reconciliation would be impossible or at least impossible. That's what both sides tell me, so it must be true, right? HAHAHAHAHAHA no. That's where I come in!
See, I'm Mormon. That should get gay marriage proponents excited, right? Well, it turns out the Church leadership didn't donate that money, the members did. I didn't, because I've read the Constitution and about 75% or so of the Bible. Numbers and parts of Leviticus are really boring, which probably accounts for most of the 25% I didn't read. Also, for anyone who says Isaiah's boring or confusing, you must've been sleeping in high school English class, because Shakespeare's about as hard as Isaiah and Shakespeare's not that tough. It makes sense if you think about it, since they both use the same English. However, this isn't a literature post, it's a debate post. Anyway, I have counterarguments prepared for anyone who would like to engage me concerning my justifications of the following Opinion, so feel free to leave your thoughts in the Comments section. Here goes:
The problems are that gay people want to get married, claiming marriage as a Constitutionally-recognized civil right, and most religious people think gay people caused Sodom and Gomorrah and say "no". The matter is complicated by the fact that civil unions and gay marriage aren't recognized everywhere, civil unions are kind of a cop-out and both sides think that they're right.
Constitutionally, the proponents are right; ever since the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law and made bans on mixed-race marriages unconstitutional, marriage has been a civil right. Based on this assessment, the only recourse is to legalize it everywhere. But this is a compromise, remember? There has to be a caveat in a compromise, so here it is: gay marriage would be legal, but no church would be forced to perform or authorize them against the will of their leadership. But wait! That defeats the point, right? NO, for three reasons: there are churches that want gay marriage legalized, Justices of the Peace, ship captains and Elvis impersonators will still be able to perform legally binding marriages, and the separation of church and state would dictate the government not force any church to perform a marriage it doesn't want to perform. Yeah, I said "separation of church and state", what about it? Doesn't feel too awesome when it's used against you, does it, secular humanists? Take that! Ahem... Back on topic.
"Separation of church and state" works both ways: churches don't try and enact undue influence on the government, and the government doesn't tell churches what to do. Therefore, any religious organization that objects to gay marriage doesn't have to do them, since the marriage could just be performed elsewhere and be just as legal.
Anyway, that's my Opinion. I think it's rad, but I'm biased in its favor, so what do you expect? Feel free to express your Opinions below so I may tell you how wrong they are.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
m iz 4 mean ppl >:C
srsly y do ppl hav 2 b so mean??? if every1 wuz nice than we wouldnt have war or dizeeses an stuff thatd b awesum bcuz than noone wood hafta cry or anything... i was listening 2 this song bie the black eyed pees the other day and it talked about how we shood all jsut get along and i thougth "wow thats amazing!!! why hasnt any1 else thought of that b4?" if ppl were nice to mee @ skool than maybee i wud b nice back but noooo all they do iz judg meee :((( its like that scripture that says "be exellent to each other and party on doods" right? i jus wish they wouldnt judge mee jus becuz i wear clothes from kohls and pay attention in class... their so racist!!! sometimes i just wanna go right songs on piano about how suckie my leif iz an put them on myspace cuz u no thats were all the cool kids hang out... man i wish i was cool like those ppl that shop at american apparell and have iphones cuz than my phone could play songz and take pics at the same tiem
anyway dont b mean to other ppl or ill hit u in the face til u die from it!!!!!111!!!llololololololllolol
jk that would b mean an im not mean so i wont (unless u make me!!!) :D
anyway dont b mean to other ppl or ill hit u in the face til u die from it!!!!!111!!!llololololololllolol
jk that would b mean an im not mean so i wont (unless u make me!!!) :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
