Election Thread

[Vandiablo]

Title: It's more fun than a barrel of primates...

I wish I was a monkey again.

Yeah, me too! I've got a new breeding strategy I've been waiting to try out, but I'm stuck in this ol' human monogamousy-thing.

-V

.

.

(edited to get the title the right length, need some practice)

[Vandiablo]

Yep, *spit*, welcome to the Old Domination, Macaca

In sum, this is purely vindictive, and smacks of state-sponsored bigotry.

Yep, it smacks its tobacco-chawin' lips of it. (Both our outgoing Senator and our Senator-elect, assuming recount holds up, spit the vile juice.)

I was disappointed that a majority of my fellow voters voted yes for Proposal 1. I think most of them knew that it defined marriage as "one man, one woman". (How do they enforce this? Will we do genital checks at weddings now??) Maybe a lot of them realized it prohibited "civil unions" the "benefits of marriage". But the wording of the proposal was "ANY contract between unmarried persons" that would (memory fails here) resemble marriage was prohibited. Now, if my wife and I divorce, can she move to deny joint custody of the kids because we are now "unmarried" and custody is a benefit of marriage?? Sheesh. What a stupid amendment.

If you really don't want "them" to have a monogamous relationship, enforce the sodomy laws and change their cellmates frequently.

I think the only area where the "gay marriage" issue really matters is in adoptions. Women can go to a special bank and have their own children. Gay men basically have to adopt, and, it seems, nobody wants them to. At least, not in this state.

I had grown weary of being Blue-Green in a Red state, but the canning of our formerly smug-little-smirk faux-cowboy from California has given me some hope.

-V

[Vandiablo]

Why dya have such a big chip on your shoulder?

No, Eurotrash, it is a matter of personal accountability. It was against the regs I was bound by to speak perjoratively of my chain of command, so I did not. Alias or no, I am still me.

I guess you wouldn't understand that.

Why don't you change your alias to "Anonymous Coward?" It fits your idea on the uses of "internet anonymity."

Occhi

Drunk again? You know, every time you start swinging at the "ferners" somebody has to patch the walls.

I saw his post as a light-hearted joke, and not even one at your expense (until your reaction that is) nor even seriously at the ol' you-ess-ay. Just one at the ol' see-eye-ay, who are often joked about regarding privacy and internet (even tho the eff-bee-eye might be a better foil).

It pains me to see you, who probably has the biggest combination of intelligence and world experience (as opposed to some who have a lot of one or the other) on this forum sink to the depths like that. Are all Americans hair-trigger jerks? Well, if one the most erudite and experienced ones here is like that, what hope is there that the rest are not like that?? YOU EFFIN BASTRD! HOW DARE YOU! heh heh

-V

[SwissMercenary]

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't put anything past eppie.

Why dya have such a big chip on your shoulder?
Drunk again? You know, every time you start swinging at the "ferners" somebody has to patch the walls.

I saw his post as a light-hearted joke, and not even one at your expense (until your reaction that is) nor even seriously at the ol' you-ess-ay. Just one at the ol' see-eye-ay, who are often joked about regarding privacy and internet (even tho the eff-bee-eye might be a better foil).

It pains me to see you, who probably has the biggest combination of intelligence and world experience (as opposed to some who have a lot of one or the other) on this forum sink to the depths like that. Are all Americans hair-trigger jerks? Well, if one the most erudite and experienced ones here is like that, what hope is there that the rest are not like that?? YOU EFFIN BASTRD! HOW DARE YOU! heh heh

-V

[Vandiablo]

Your belief about non-belief is Unbelievable!!

The same way that I am qualified to reflect on other philosophical concepts, like beauty. I don't need to be beautiful to know what is generally considered to be beautiful. But then, everyone has their own standard. We could pick apart that one statement, or agree that their is a generally agreed upon understanding of Atheistic philosophy. I've read most of the primary works, including Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Nietzche, Dietzgen, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Chapman Cohen, Ayn Rand, and a few others...

So, am I qualified?

No.

Atheistic philosophy: there are no gods.

Beyond that is all individual opinion.

My credential: I've read primary and secondary works of Mark Twain. So there!

Also, I take the lesser parts of Non-belief and Free-Thinking and combine them into my own philosoply:
Non-Thinking.

But, back to you, whether you exist or not:

If you are an atheist, then you shouldn't believe in marriage. From the atheist point of view, marriage is an anachronism of treating woman as the property of the husband. Perhaps you would not even believe in that quaint old notion of monogamy.

That's where you go wrong: telling us what we should think.

Perhaps if we agree to call your idea of marriage "Marriage" and mine "marriage". "Marriage" is all the things you said, some of which I do not agree with. But I certainly believe in "marriage", an agreement between two people to spend the rest of their lives together as a team -- in a very real and legally-binding sense, as Herbert's father said at Swamp Castle. I believe, at least for now, that such agreements do exist. Whether I believe, and have the opinion that, marriages are a "good" thing depends primarily upon how my wife is treating me recently.

Yes, "Marriage" and "marriage" have probably both been used to subjugate women in the past, (and "Marriage" does continue to do so IMO) but that doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be unfair in the present and future. It sounds like you're combining atheism with something else, like socialism or feminism or thisism or thatism.

Atheistic opinion varies almost as wide as theistic opinion. Atheists do not hold One Set of Beliefs, it's foolish to think so, or to say that they "should" feel one way or another about any non-religious issue (such as "marriage"). You are right to say, though, that if "Marriage" is defined as a union blessed by God, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then all atheists will not believe it -- by definition.

I believe monogamy exists, but it's for chumps. (.... just kidding, honey...) Seriously though, atheists can think monogamy is a good idea, and be monogamous. Or not. They are free to decide, because they don't have anyone telling them what God thinks about it. Well, they do, they just don't necessarily think what they're told to think.

(Okay, you may notice me switching back and forth between calling atheists "they" and "we"... that's because although I'm pretty atheistic, I don't consider myself an "Atheist." Figure that one out! I guess I don't call myself names based on what I'm not.)

-V

p.s. Argh, matey!

[Vandiablo]

History makes a difference, and I'm ignorant...

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't put anything past eppie.

I guess if you had American Johnny B. Nice and Osama B. Notsonice sitting in a restaurant, and Osama says sumpthin' like "I guess that pitcher's plane was too small to do much damage", I can see how Johnny should punch him in the face. The comment, read literally, doesn't offend, but tie it to history and a speaker and it has a whole different meaning.

Since I have no memory of previous posts in this case, I don't see what others might. Even admitting that, though, I still continue to see the post as innocuous and its response as over the top. Should I add "eppie-Occhi" as a "do not interject myself" pairing?? -- default: yes.

so, I'll take off my Junior Patrolman hat, and badge, and flashlight/baton, and cuffs, and stun gun, and gas canister, and communication device, roger that, and bullets, and semi-automatic, and holster, and belt oops my pants fell down I'll just put the belt back on, thanks. Yes, that was Dora and it's very difficult to find her in this size... it's for traffic stops... uh, no I can't tell you any more about that.

-V

[Doc]

Pastafarian?

Your belief about non-belief is Unbelievable!!
No.

Atheistic philosophy: there are no gods.

Beyond that is all individual opinion.

My credential: I've read primary and secondary works of Mark Twain. So there!

Also, I take the lesser parts of Non-belief and Free-Thinking and combine them into my own philosoply:
Non-Thinking.

But, back to you, whether you exist or not:
That's where you go wrong: telling us what we should think.

Perhaps if we agree to call your idea of marriage "Marriage" and mine "marriage". "Marriage" is all the things you said, some of which I do not agree with. But I certainly believe in "marriage", an agreement between two people to spend the rest of their lives together as a team -- in a very real and legally-binding sense, as Herbert's father said at Swamp Castle. I believe, at least for now, that such agreements do exist. Whether I believe, and have the opinion that, marriages are a "good" thing depends primarily upon how my wife is treating me recently.

Yes, "Marriage" and "marriage" have probably both been used to subjugate women in the past, (and "Marriage" does continue to do so IMO) but that doesn't mean that it needs to continue to be unfair in the present and future. It sounds like you're combining atheism with something else, like socialism or feminism or thisism or thatism.

Atheistic opinion varies almost as wide as theistic opinion. Atheists do not hold One Set of Beliefs, it's foolish to think so, or to say that they "should" feel one way or another about any non-religious issue (such as "marriage"). You are right to say, though, that if "Marriage" is defined as a union blessed by God, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then all atheists will not believe it -- by definition.

I believe monogamy exists, but it's for chumps. (.... just kidding, honey...) Seriously though, atheists can think monogamy is a good idea, and be monogamous. Or not. They are free to decide, because they don't have anyone telling them what God thinks about it. Well, they do, they just don't necessarily think what they're told to think.

(Okay, you may notice me switching back and forth between calling atheists "they" and "we"... that's because although I'm pretty atheistic, I don't consider myself an "Atheist." Figure that one out! I guess I don't call myself names based on what I'm not.)

-V

p.s. Argh, matey!

[kandrathe]

I thought I was clearer on the point. Just as with Theists, there are as many beliefs as practitioners. But, we can categorize some (perhaps too much so) and lump some together to label them Baptists for example. So it is with Atheism, one philosophy, but many divergent ideas.

A theist only acknowledges one type of "Marriage", and there is no marriage without God being involved. What you have they would call a civil union.

[Doc]

I thought I was clearer on the point. Just as with Theists, there are as many beliefs as practitioners. But, we can categorize some (perhaps too much so) and lump some together to label them Baptists for example. So it is with Atheism, one philosophy, but many divergent ideas.

A theist only acknowledges one type of "Marriage", and there is no marriage without God being involved. What you have they would call a civil union.

I'd say that is because people see marriage as a moral act. One of ethics. A choice to dedicate themselves to each other and no one else. And typically, the people have these sorts of morals tend to be people who believe in God.

Perhaps that is what the God fearing folk are so upset about. The homosexuals in society are developing morals and ethics for things that outsiders see as an immoral act. Thinking about it, I can see how that might lead to some conflicting feelings.

If somebody's opinions tell them homosexuality = immoral then they would have a very hard time connecting any sort of moral or ethical boundry with what they believe is wrong. How could anything wrong have small bits of good scattered through it?

Meh, I am probably talking out of my ass.

[LemmingofGlory]

The same way that I am qualified to reflect on other philosophical concepts, like beauty. I don't need to be beautiful to know what is generally considered to be beautiful. But then, everyone has their own standard. We could pick apart that one statement, or agree that their is a generally agreed upon understanding of Atheistic philosophy. I've read most of the primary works, including Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Nietzche, Dietzgen, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Chapman Cohen, Ayn Rand, and a few others...

So, am I qualified?

If you've read and understood Van's post, yes. Otherwise, no.

-Lem

[eppie]

History makes a difference, and I'm ignorant...
I guess if you had American Johnny B. Nice and Osama B. Notsonice sitting in a restaurant, and Osama says sumpthin' like "I guess that pitcher's plane was too small to do much damage", I can see how Johnny should punch him in the face. The comment, read literally, doesn't offend, but tie it to history and a speaker and it has a whole different meaning.

Since I have no memory of previous posts in this case, I don't see what others might. Even admitting that, though, I still continue to see the post as innocuous and its response as over the top. Should I add "eppie-Occhi" as a "do not interject myself" pairing?? -- default: yes.

so, I'll take off my Junior Patrolman hat, and badge, and flashlight/baton, and cuffs, and stun gun, and gas canister, and communication device, roger that, and bullets, and semi-automatic, and holster, and belt oops my pants fell down I'll just put the belt back on, thanks. Yes, that was Dora and it's very difficult to find her in this size... it's for traffic stops... uh, no I can't tell you any more about that.

-V

You actually understood me correctly. It was just a ironic joke towards Occhi and had nothing to do with behaving according to company (army) policy (where I hadn't been thinking about at the moment I was writing this down.

Occhi and me had many discussions about Iraq, and finally now he told us why he wrote the things that he did.:D

For the same reason I'm always so positive about our royal family.

[Ashock]

and yet you respond. no i'm not freaking kidding. you constantly throw out these ideas that are supposedy "obvious" to you without offering any type of data to back it up. Show me the data. if it is so obvious it shouldnt take you more than five minutes to find it. instead of being rhetorically insulting put your money where your mouth is and give me a link...

i'm waiting.

You still waiting?

-A

[Ashock]

If you don't see bettering yourself as a realistic option, then social programs aren't really even relevant.

Yes, but don't you think that they don't see bettering themselves, because the social programs have offered them a means to survive without lifting a finger? It is surprising as to what people can accomplish when they have nothing to rely on except themselves. This is one of the major reasons and possibly THE major reason why in general, immigrants (legal ones that is) do well.

-A

[Jester]

I thought I was clearer on the point. Just as with Theists, there are as many beliefs as practitioners. But, we can categorize some (perhaps too much so) and lump some together to label them Baptists for example. So it is with Atheism, one philosophy, but many divergent ideas.

That is like discussing the properties of things that are apples, and things that aren't. One group has reasonable boundaries. The other does not.

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

You still waiting?

-A

I think it can be assumed that I, as well as many others, will always be waiting for you to bring some hard data to the table every time you spout unsubstantiated ignorance and claim it to be fact relying on stereotypes and other "common sense" references.

This is one of the major reasons and possibly THE major reason why in general, immigrants (legal ones that is) do well.

while your at it why don't you define what "doing well" is and show me why it is you feel that "legal" immigrants are succeeding so superbly in that catagory.

[Occhidiangela]

Why dya have such a big chip on your shoulder?

Because standard, garden variety eurotrash are the beneficiaries of two generations of being security leaches, are oblivious to that state of play, and top it off by being blinders-on ingrates.

Any other questions?

PS: Van, as kind as your other words were, Pete's got a significant edge on me in experience, as well as in erudition. All I have is a higher post count.

Occhi

[Doc]

Because standard, garden variety eurotrash are the beneficiaries of two generations of being security leaches, are pblivious to that state of play, and top it off by being blinders-on ingrates.

Any other questions?

PS: Van, as kind as your other words were, Pete's got a significant edge on me in experience, as well as in erudition. All I have is a higher post count.

Occhi

This is not a slam toward Pete, but Occhi, my dear rogue, you write so much better than Pete. Pete uses words like blunt force trauma. A club. Cold, hard edged, brutal, no frills, just hard edges. Reading what he writes is like being hit with a brick. (Which can be a good thing, nothing at all wrong with that.)

You on the other hand, put away the blunt objects and tend to cause trauma with a feather. It is kinky and weird and strange. The feather never goes where you expect it to, never tickles exactly what it should, and typically comes away with unexpected results. You write poetically, with irony, double meanings, entendre.

Where Pete lops off an arm with an axe in one well placed blow, you deal the death of a thousand tiny cuts with a sheet of paper and a side of lemon juice.

I have no clue what my own writing is like. I am an observer, but can not observe my self.

If Occhi uses a single feather, I am probably guilty of using the whole chicken.

[Occhidiangela]

Pete uses words like blunt force trauma.

Pete's writing displays an elegant economy of words.

You on the other hand, put away the blunt objects and tend to cause trauma with a feather. It is kinky and weird and strange. The feather never goes where you expect it to, never tickles exactly what it should, and typically comes away with unexpected results. You write poetically, with irony, double meanings, entendre.

Maybe that makes me a Pervy Hobbit Fancier. :P

Where Pete lops off an arm with an axe in one well placed blow, you deal the death of a thousand tiny cuts with a sheet of paper and a side of lemon juice.

If Occhi uses a single feather, I am probably guilty of using the whole chicken.

I've been cutting down on eating eggs lately, though what made me think about that I'll never know. <_<

Thanks, I think. :blush: I was not out fishing for compliments.

If I was so damned good, I'd be published. :(

Occhi

[Doc]

Pete's writing displays an elegant economy of words.

Maybe that makes me a Pervy Hobbit Fancier. :P

I've been cutting down on eating eggs lately, though what made me think about that I'll never know. <_<

Thanks, I think. :blush: I was not out fishing for compliments.

If I was so damned good, I'd be published. :(

Occhi

Heh, economy of words.

Comparing you and Pete is a bit like comparing apples to asteroids. I like Pete's style. It is dry and witty and there are mood swings in my mind that truly appreciate dry wit, much like a dry martini.

I have been trying to refine my own writing style for a while now. My thoughts, however garbled those might be, tend to flow directly through my fingertips. Observing my own writing is futile. But I have become a great deal more appreciative of others and how they write as of late.

I think what hobbles me as a writer is that I am Southern. No amount of thought or will power will ever change, hrm, the style of how I write and the words I choose to use to express my self. Sure, we have Faulkner and Twain, but it shows in their work too.

Ugh, see, I did it again, I actually included the mental pause I took in thinking in the flow of my writing. I'd like to rid my self of that.

[Luminon]

I just saw this strip which summarizes some of the opinions expressed in this thread quite well, so I'm reposting it here.:P



Oh, and some of the posters here are so eloquent it intimidates me, I could never come close to that in english.