Bruce Jenner interview

[SHAFT]

Tonight. I'm guessing his new name is Belinda.

[Gelston]

Who cares?

[Parkbandit]

Britney!

[SHAFT]

I can't wait to watch this.

[iJin]

Trash TV.

[Gelston]

LSU is stomping Texas A&M right now. #1 LSU vs #2 Texas A&M

[SHAFT]

Trash TV.

Bruce Jenner won the decathelete in 1976. He was considered to be one of the greatest athletes in the world at the time. Now he's telling the world he's a woman! Fascinating to me. Kinda feel bad for the guy.

[Androidpk]

Why do you feel bad for him?

[SHAFT]

Why do you feel bad for him?

Watching the interview he seems tormented. That's gotta be hard.

[Androidpk]

I'd be tormented too if I was associated with the Kardashians.

[Parkbandit]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGbVow8W8AAp0cs.jpg

[SHAFT]

She's about your age, right PB? Holla....

[everan]

Seriously, if you're going to use the K sound you should have just gone with Kaitlyn.

[Wrathbringer]

Is this guy gay?

[Allereli]

Is this guy gay?

She's a lesbian now, I guess.

[Wrathbringer]

She's a lesbian now, I guess.

Wait, so he's still into chicks and chicks only? This is important information and big news. We need more details.

[Allereli]

Wait, so he's still into chicks and chicks only? This is important information and big news. We need more details.

you do understand that sexual preference and gender identity are separate, right?

[Tgo01]

you do understand that sexual preference and gender identity are separate, right?

Sexual orientation! SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!!

[Parkbandit]

She's about your age, right PB? Holla....

As much as you are my age.

Feel free to holla at her though.

[Wrathbringer]

you do understand that sexual preference and gender identity are separate, right?

Of course, but I'm just trying to figure out if he's considered A) gay because as a dude he was into dudes but now as a chick he's still into dudes and is still gay but not considered gay but straight B) Not gay because as a dude he was into chicks but now as a chick is gay for chicks still, but not really gay for them, just is still straight. Someone help.


Sexual orientation! SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!!

lol

[Candor]

I could care less about this topic. Why it is even news is beyond me.

[Wrathbringer]

I could care less about this topic. Why it is even news is beyond me.

THEN GTFO

Now.

neg rep: He isn't a he anymore, she's a she.

What? Uh, no. He'll always have man hands because he's a man. He's just a man that tries to gross straight guys out by attempting to look like a hot chick until the crying game music comes on.

[Androidpk]

I could care less about this topic. Why it is even news is beyond me.

It's news because it draws the attention of so many people.

[SHAFT]

As much as you are my age.

Feel free to holla at her though.

Say I wouldn't knock Bruce Jenner up! Get me some of that jenner/kardashian money. I need that money yo.

[Androidpk]

Say I wouldn't knock Bruce Jenner up! Get me some of that jenner/kardashian money. I need that money yo.

She may identify as a lady but you still can't knock her up.

[Latrinsorm]

I could care less about this topic. Why it is even news is beyond me.Because other people have different interests than you.

[Tgo01]

Because other people have different interests than you.

You didn't go for the "You could care less or you couldn't care less?" dig

For shame, Latrin. For shame :(

[Latrinsorm]

As you are well aware, Terry, I don't go in for trivial one-up-person-ship.

[Tgo01]

As you are well aware, Terry, I don't go in for trivial one-up-person-ship.

Oh yeah.

[Wrathbringer]

So...nobody knows for sure? Okay.

[SHAFT]

She may identify as a lady but you still can't knock her up.

My seed has magical powers. It can do things! My little guys can knock anything up! Say they won't

[Allereli]

She may identify as a lady but you still can't knock her up.

many women cannot have children, it does not make them not women.

[Thondalar]

many women cannot have children, it does not make them not women.

No, what makes them women is being born with a hole instead of a protuberance.

As psychology advances, we understand things we already knew but ignored...I point most directly to homosexuality being a defined mental "condition" until the mid 70's...as Latrin so readily points out, it's all really just chemistry...sometimes those wires get crossed.

What I would love to see is a world where the people who are born with those wires crossed admit they're not normal, while at the same time everyone else who is born with those wires not crossed admits it really doesn't matter and people with their wires crossed are still cool anyway because they're still fellow people.

It's about acceptance of differences. We don't really all want to be the same...being the same kills where we came from. It kills culture. We're NOT all the same, and that's a wonderful, beautiful thing.

Trying to make us all the same kills all the things that are wonderful about the human condition, because we're afraid of the things that are bad about it.

[Androidpk]

I suggest those women contact Shaft.

[Wrathbringer]

No, what makes them women is being born with a hole instead of a protuberance.

As psychology advances, we understand things we already knew but ignored...I point most directly to homosexuality being a defined mental "condition" until the mid 70's...as Latrin so readily points out, it's all really just chemistry...sometimes those wires get crossed.

What I would love to see is a world where the people who are born with those wires crossed admit they're not normal, while at the same time everyone else who is born with those wires not crossed admits it really doesn't matter and people with their wires crossed are still cool anyway because they're still fellow people.

It's about acceptance of differences. We don't really all want to be the same...being the same kills where we came from. It kills culture. We're NOT all the same, and that's a wonderful, beautiful thing.

Trying to make us all the same kills all the things that are wonderful about the human condition, because we're afraid of the things that are bad about it.

Somehow you've managed to describe a certain subset of people as defective, abnormal and bad without being offensive about it. Well said.

[Thondalar]

Somehow you've managed to describe a certain subset of people as defective, abnormal and bad without being offensive about it. Well said.

Eh...I'll accept that I described them as defective and abnormal, but I won't accept at all that they're bad.

That's the issue. They're not at all bad, but "society" has deemed them so.

With that being said, social pressure has made them more and more acceptable, which I applaud completely. THEY ARE acceptable. Completely.

What I'm trying to get around is the idea that because they're different, because they're...THEY...it somehow automatically means they're bad....as you yourself demonstrated by your last post.

Different isn't automatically bad...it's just different.

And I have no qualms stating "they", because this isn't a Ross Perot "you people" moment. That's exactly what the fuck we have to get over. THEY (LGBT community) isn't some sort of pariah. THEY are people.

At the same time, you can't say THEY are "normal"...and fuck, who wants to be normal? My point is, I genuinely believe that trying to "normalize" the LGBT "movement" does more harm than good...ACCEPT the fact that you're not normal, and less people will have a problem with it. I promise.

Take away Muslims and the Ultra-religious Right, nobody really gives a flying fuck if you're gay or transgender anymore. Seriously. Just like if you take away the ultra-racist South, which hasn't really existed since Superman destroyed the KKK in 1947 (actually happened, google it), nobody gives a flying fuck anymore if you're black.

I feel like the shadows of our past, mostly perpetrated by ourselves, and stories we've heard about the past that don't really apply anymore, are the only reasons we still have such silly notions.

[Warriorbird]

Eh...I'll accept that I described them as defective and abnormal, but I won't accept at all that they're bad.

That's the issue. They're not at all bad, but "society" has deemed them so.

With that being said, social pressure has made them more and more acceptable, which I applaud completely. THEY ARE acceptable. Completely.

What I'm trying to get around is the idea that because they're different, because they're...THEY...it somehow automatically means they're bad....as you yourself demonstrated by your last post.

Different isn't automatically bad...it's just different.

And I have no qualms stating "they", because this isn't a Ross Perot "you people" moment. That's exactly what the fuck we have to get over. THEY (LGBT community) isn't some sort of pariah. THEY are people.

At the same time, you can't say THEY are "normal"...and fuck, who wants to be normal? My point is, I genuinely believe that trying to "normalize" the LGBT "movement" does more harm than good...ACCEPT the fact that you're not normal, and less people will have a problem with it. I promise.

Take away Muslims and the Ultra-religious Right, nobody really gives a flying fuck if you're gay or transgender anymore. Seriously. Just like if you take away the ultra-racist South, which hasn't really existed since Superman destroyed the KKK in 1947 (actually happened, google it), nobody gives a flying fuck anymore if you're black.

I feel like the shadows of our past, mostly perpetrated by ourselves, and stories we've heard about the past that don't really apply anymore, are the only reasons we still have such silly notions.

They're also useful wedge issues for major parties trying to generate votes.

[Latrinsorm]

At the same time, you can't say THEY are "normal"...and fuck, who wants to be normal?People who have suffered on the basis of not being so.
My point is, I genuinely believe that trying to "normalize" the LGBT "movement" does more harm than good...ACCEPT the fact that you're not normal, and less people will have a problem with it. I promise.I can promise you that harm to the LGBT community isn't based on a lack of THEIR acceptance.
Take away Muslims and the Ultra-religious Right, nobody really gives a flying fuck if you're gay or transgender anymore. Seriously. Just like if you take away the ultra-racist South, which hasn't really existed since Superman destroyed the KKK in 1947 (actually happened, google it), nobody gives a flying fuck anymore if you're black. I feel like the shadows of our past, mostly perpetrated by ourselves, and stories we've heard about the past that don't really apply anymore, are the only reasons we still have such silly notions.Two things here.

1. You give a vehement speech about how there's no bigotry anymore... and include in it a statement that is comically bigoted against Muslims.

2. I challenge you, Thondalar, to dress in traditional Muslim attire for a day. Take the bus. Go to a few stores. See how silly, shadowy, past, and inapplicable discrimination is.

[Parkbandit]

Fucking video link is broken.. anyway it was a scene from Family Guy where Stewie said Bruce Jenner is a woman....

From 2008...

[everan]

Try this one:

http://louderwithcrowder.com/caitlyn-jenner-shocker-the-family-guy-warned-us/

[Grey]

Poor Bruce.

[Androidpk]

Yeah, poor Bruce. Raking in all this money with exclusive interviews, tabloid covers, a new TV show.. :jerkit:

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, poor Bruce. Raking in all this money with exclusive interviews, tabloid covers, a new TV show.. :jerkit:

It's Caitlyn.

And life isn't just about money.

[Grey]

The dude has what may be a congenital psychiatric disorder that led him to believe happiness is achievable by severing his penis. Yeah, I'd say poor Bruce. Even more so since interviewers, photographers and television producers are there to egg him on.

[Grey]

For the dude who doesn't sign his rep, yeah, I agree he probably didn't lose it either. If he had it would probably have been a headline.

[Methais]

I could care less about this topic. Why it is even news is beyond me.

How much less could you care?

[Gelston]

How much less could you care?

A LOT LESS.

[tyrant-201]

How much less could you care?

So much less, he just can't even.

[Thondalar]

People who have suffered on the basis of not being so.

Which is nobody. None of us are normal. There is no normal.


I can promise you that harm to the LGBT community isn't based on a lack of THEIR acceptance.

What harm is that?


1. You give a vehement speech about how there's no bigotry anymore... and include in it a statement that is comically bigoted against Muslims.

So you're saying that Muslims support the LGBT community? I wasn't aware direct observations could be considered bigotry.


2. I challenge you, Thondalar, to dress in traditional Muslim attire for a day. Take the bus. Go to a few stores. See how silly, shadowy, past, and inapplicable discrimination is.

The issue you're missing here is that we have a reason to distrust Muslims. There is no reason to distrust gay or black people.

[Back]

When I was a teenager two things convinced me that transgender was not an issue.

The first was learning that Wendy Carlos, who did the electronic interpretation of Beethoven for the Clockwork Orange soundtrack, was formerly Walter Carlos.

The second was learning that my buddy's dad used to be his mother.

It's all good.

EDIT: Looking her up I found that she also did music for the Shining and the first Tron movie. How cool is that?

[Methais]

I'm curious Back, is Jenner different than normal women? If so, in what way(s)?

[Back]

I'm curious Back, is Jenner different than normal women? If so, in what way(s)?

Well, not many women can claim they've won a gold medal in a male competition. What are you fishing for?

[Latrinsorm]

Thread: Bruce Jenner interview
Dress like an American in an middle eastern country and you see the same thing.

Thanks for proving both my points! :)

[Latrinsorm]

Which is nobody. None of us are normal. There is no normal.Of course there's a normal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#/media/File:Empirical_Rule.PNG).
What harm is that?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_Uni ted_States
So you're saying that Muslims support the LGBT community? I wasn't aware direct observations could be considered bigotry.Of course Muslims (http://www.lgbtmuslimretreat.com/) support the LGBT community. There are a billion Muslims. You understand this number? There will be some who support anything. The problem isn't that you made an observation, the problem is that you're factually wrong.
The issue you're missing here is that we have a reason to distrust Muslims. There is no reason to distrust gay or black people.In twenty years you'll tell us there's reason to distrust whatever minority you're told to distrust then, and go to great pains to say how you don't distrust Muslims. Too bad you can't think for yourself, you could skip to the end now.

[Thondalar]

Of course there's a normal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#/media/File:Empirical_Rule.PNG).

...really?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_Uni ted_States

You can find evidence of violence against any group from any other group. Except maybe furries and people who play Magic: The Gathering. The point you missed here is that we're talking about two different kinds of "acceptance". All I was saying is being gay isn't normal. If it was, we wouldn't exist...we would have died out as a species long before we developed a scientific method to propagate our species without natural intercourse between a male and female of the species. That's just science. Science!

In the same way that you're more likely to attract things you normally wouldn't want to attract anyway with sugar instead of vinegar, you're more likely to attract a broader range of acceptance by not making such a spectacle of yourself and just being you. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but the bleating kid also attracts all the predators. Gay marriage is a perfect example. I'm all for LGBT couples living together and getting the same tax breaks as hetero married couples. I'd be even more happy if the Powers That Be didn't show any sort of preference to married couples of any sort. NOBODY should ever be FORCED to do ANYTHING they don't want to do, or don't approve of. If this maxim was enforced equally across all parties at all times in any given scenario, the world would be a better place.


Of course Muslims (http://www.lgbtmuslimretreat.com/) support the LGBT community. There are a billion Muslims. You understand this number? There will be some who support anything. The problem isn't that you made an observation, the problem is that you're factually wrong.

Name one other situation, scenario, group, anything where we judge the whole by their most minority faction, ignoring the stance of the vast majority of said faction. (ok, BESIDES the Tea Party).


In twenty years you'll tell us there's reason to distrust whatever minority you're told to distrust then, and go to great pains to say how you don't distrust Muslims. Too bad you can't think for yourself, you could skip to the end now.

Seriously? I will always distrust Muslims, and I'm not even a Christian. Go ahead and bring up the Crusades to tell me how bad Christians are, and my distrust of modern-day Muslims is misplaced because Christians did evil shit too 800 years ago.

If Islamic groups hadn't bombed US embassies and US ships, hadn't flown planes into buildings, hadn't kidnapped and murdered little girls just for going to school, or thrown acid on little girls just for going to school, hadn't kidnapped and beheaded countless journalists and nationals, hadn't expressed numerous times across numerous media their distinct and eternal hatred for the West, and the US, and everything I believe in and love...yeah, I probably wouldn't give a shit. Here's a clue...I don't give a shit about blacks, or LGBT's, or Furries, or people who play Magic: The Gathering. Can you figure out what the difference is between all of those minority groups?

[Ker_Thwap]

...really?



You can find evidence of violence against any group from any other group. Except maybe furries and people who play Magic: The Gathering. The point you missed here is that we're talking about two different kinds of "acceptance". All I was saying is being gay isn't normal. If it was, we wouldn't exist...we would have died out as a species long before we developed a scientific method to propagate our species without natural intercourse between a male and female of the species. That's just science. Science!

In the same way that you're more likely to attract things you normally wouldn't want to attract anyway with sugar instead of vinegar, you're more likely to attract a broader range of acceptance by not making such a spectacle of yourself and just being you. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but the bleating kid also attracts all the predators. Gay marriage is a perfect example. I'm all for LGBT couples living together and getting the same tax breaks as hetero married couples. I'd be even more happy if the Powers That Be didn't show any sort of preference to married couples of any sort. NOBODY should ever be FORCED to do ANYTHING they don't want to do, or don't approve of. If this maxim was enforced equally across all parties at all times in any given scenario, the world would be a better place.



Name one other situation, scenario, group, anything where we judge the whole by their most minority faction, ignoring the stance of the vast majority of said faction. (ok, BESIDES the Tea Party).



Seriously? I will always distrust Muslims, and I'm not even a Christian. Go ahead and bring up the Crusades to tell me how bad Christians are, and my distrust of modern-day Muslims is misplaced because Christians did evil shit too 800 years ago.

If Islamic groups hadn't bombed US embassies and US ships, hadn't flown planes into buildings, hadn't kidnapped and murdered little girls just for going to school, or thrown acid on little girls just for going to school, hadn't kidnapped and beheaded countless journalists and nationals, hadn't expressed numerous times across numerous media their distinct and eternal hatred for the West, and the US, and everything I believe in and love...yeah, I probably wouldn't give a shit. Here's a clue...I don't give a shit about blacks, or LGBT's, or Furries, or people who play Magic: The Gathering. Can you figure out what the difference is between all of those minority groups?

Just like the people you're dumping on, you're not being consistent with your beliefs, opinions. Were you drunk when you wrote this, or is your thinking always this sloppy?

Your first assignment is to re-write this entire rant when sober, without making wild generalizations. Hint: word usage, some vs. all. Consider the logical difference between these words.

[Wrathbringer]

Just like the people you're dumping on, you're not being consistent with your beliefs, opinions. Were you drunk when you wrote this, or is your thinking always this sloppy?

Your first assignment is to re-write this entire rant when sober, without making wild generalizations. Hint: word usage, some vs. all. Consider the logical difference between these words.

Are you still mad, bro?

[Wrathbringer]

I don't give a shit about blacks

Time to banhammer Thondalar?

[caelric]

I'm not upset about the former Bruce Jenner now coming out as woman known as Caitlynn; I'm firmly libertarian when it comes to sexual preference, orientation, and what people do with their own bodies.

What bothers me is that I have a three year old daughter named Caitlynn, and 20 years from now, when the difference between 20 and 23 years will be very little, and people will assume she is named after Caitlynn Jenner. I can't say exactly why that bothers me, but it does.

[Grey]

Don't sweat it. At this rate the world isn't going to make it another 20 years.

[Ker_Thwap]

I'm not upset about the former Bruce Jenner now coming out as woman known as Caitlynn; I'm firmly libertarian when it comes to sexual preference, orientation, and what people do with their own bodies.

What bothers me is that I have a three year old daughter named Caitlynn, and 20 years from now, when the difference between 20 and 23 years will be very little, and people will assume she is named after Caitlynn Jenner. I can't say exactly why that bothers me, but it does.

My first and middle name is the same as a terrible 80s pop star. He's about my age.

Yes, that guy.

[Parkbandit]

My first and middle name is the same as a terrible 80s pop star. He's about my age.

Yes, that guy.

S'up Rick?

[Ker_Thwap]

S'up Rick?

Worse.

[Allereli]

Worse.

George (Michael)?

[Ker_Thwap]

George (Michael)?

I go by Mike.

[Warriorbird]

https://www.idmaker.net/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1200x1200/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/n/initech_michale_bolton_id_card.jpg

[Androidpk]

Michael Michael??

[Ker_Thwap]

https://www.idmaker.net/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1200x1200/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/n/initech_michale_bolton_id_card.jpg

Allerelli already won. Thanks for playing.

[Ker_Thwap]

Michael Michael??

My mother used to scream "George" across the house, my father and I would look at each other and say "she wants you!"

Edit: Thus I got switched to Mike early on.

[Taernath]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/66MefY3N0MeM8/200_s.gif

[Ker_Thwap]

There are a surprising number of Irish idiots who moved to America and named their child after George Washington, you know, so the kid would fit in with an American name.

[Androidpk]

Nevermind I thought you were saying your first and middle name were the same. That is also my middle name, same with my dad, grandpa and my son.

[Ker_Thwap]

It could be worse. I teach a Michael Jackson.

Cause this is thriller! That is worse, because his parents likely did it to him on purpose.

[Latrinsorm]

...really?Yes. I can point out your place on the graph for you if you like. :)
You can find evidence of violence against any group from any other group. Except maybe furries and people who play Magic: The Gathering. The point you missed here is that we're talking about two different kinds of "acceptance". All I was saying is being gay isn't normal. If it was, we wouldn't exist...we would have died out as a species long before we developed a scientific method to propagate our species without natural intercourse between a male and female of the species. That's just science. Science!Makes you wonder how people keep being gay if it's such an evolutionary disadvantage, eh?
In the same way that you're more likely to attract things you normally wouldn't want to attract anyway with sugar instead of vinegar, you're more likely to attract a broader range of acceptance by not making such a spectacle of yourself and just being you. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but the bleating kid also attracts all the predators. Gay marriage is a perfect example. I'm all for LGBT couples living together and getting the same tax breaks as hetero married couples. I'd be even more happy if the Powers That Be didn't show any sort of preference to married couples of any sort. NOBODY should ever be FORCED to do ANYTHING they don't want to do, or don't approve of. If this maxim was enforced equally across all parties at all times in any given scenario, the world would be a better place.Should they not make such a spectacle, or should they accept the fact that they're not normal? Those strike me as opposites.
Name one other situation, scenario, group, anything where we judge the whole by their most minority faction, ignoring the stance of the vast majority of said faction. (ok, BESIDES the Tea Party).That's why your doing so with Muslims is so frustrating!
Seriously? I will always distrust Muslims, and I'm not even a Christian. Go ahead and bring up the Crusades to tell me how bad Christians are, and my distrust of modern-day Muslims is misplaced because Christians did evil shit too 800 years ago.I am in fact going to bring up the acts of contemporary white people. 2977 Americans were murdered in 9/11. White people murder 2700 Americans every year, rape 9000 every year, commit 6000 arsons every year.
If Islamic groups hadn't bombed US embassies and US ships, hadn't flown planes into buildings, hadn't kidnapped and murdered little girls just for going to school, or thrown acid on little girls just for going to school, hadn't kidnapped and beheaded countless journalists and nationals, hadn't expressed numerous times across numerous media their distinct and eternal hatred for the West, and the US, and everything I believe in and love...yeah, I probably wouldn't give a shit. Here's a clue...I don't give a shit about blacks, or LGBT's, or Furries, or people who play Magic: The Gathering. Can you figure out what the difference is between all of those minority groups?People you respect have told you its okay to be bigoted against Muslims. Nobody you respect has told you its okay to be bigoted against blacks etc. Like I said, in twenty years you'll change your tune, just like people like you did for the Jews, the Irish, the Slavics, the blacks, the gays. If you honestly believe minorities of those groups weren't paraded around as (supposed) justification for each bigotry, you're kidding yourself.

[Ker_Thwap]

Like I said, in twenty years you'll change your tune, just like people like you did for the Jews, the Irish, the Slavics, the blacks, the gays.

Just so long as I can keep discriminating against the Liechtensteiners.

[Grey]

Since when did we start accepting the Irish?

[Methais]

Well, not many women can claim they've won a gold medal in a male competition. What are you fishing for?

Your opinion. I'm not talking about things they've done. I'm talking about things they are.


Which is nobody. None of us are normal. There is no normal, only Zuul.

Fixed.


It could be worse. I teach a Michael Jackson.

This is Michael Jackson on the right:
https://libcom.org/files/images/library/hqdefault.jpg

[Tenlaar]

No, this is Michael Jackson!

http://a.abcnews.com/images/2020/ht_mj_ghost_making_of_the_mayor_100624_ssh.jpg

[Warriorbird]

This is Michael Jackson on the right:
https://libcom.org/files/images/library/hqdefault.jpg

He's like that but preppier.

[Parkbandit]

I think my daughter put this more into perspective than anyone so far:

#WorryBoutYoSelf

[Gelston]

I think my daughter put this more into perspective than anyone so far:

#WorryBoutYoSelf

Your daughter needs to learn to spell.

[Parkbandit]

Your daughter needs to learn to spell.

It's some viral video of a kid saying it to her father.

Here it is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A6Bu96ALOw

[Gelston]

It's some viral video of a kid saying it to her father.

Twitter tags annoy me. :(

[Parkbandit]

Twitter tags annoy me. :(

I used to get annoyed with that.. and twitterspeak....

Then I had 2 teenage daughters and I learned to live with it.

U 2 will get usd 2 it.

[Gelston]

I used to get annoyed with that.. and twitterspeak....

Then I had 2 teenage daughters and I learned to live with it.

U 2 will get usd 2 it.

I will stick them on a remote island with no internet.

[Neovik1]

The movie idiocracy isn't too far off.

[Methais]

He's like that but preppier.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Michaeljackson.jpg

[Silvean]

Vocal fry bothers me more than hashtags and leetspeak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsE5mysfZsY

[Ker_Thwap]

I used to get annoyed with that.. and twitterspeak....

Then I had 2 teenage daughters and I learned to live with it.

U 2 will get usd 2 it.

I put an end to this at preteen stage. They were allowed to chat on AIM for an extra hour to friends if they used proper grammar. If they clicked closed any window as I walked into the room, they were done with the computer for the day. Told them to know their audience. Teachers, old people, people with the power to make their life miserable cared about grammar. Want that birthday check from grandpa, best not make the old man translate text speak. They got to use the "my dad is an idiot" excuse, their friends understood. Eventually the friends started using proper grammar as well, maybe out of some desire not to feel/be perceived as less intelligent. Probably spent a total of ten minutes on enforcement, was an easy parenting choice.

[Parkbandit]

I put an end to this at preteen stage. They were allowed to chat on AIM for an extra hour to friends if they used proper grammar. If they clicked closed any window as I walked into the room, they were done with the computer for the day. Told them to know their audience. Teachers, old people, people with the power to make their life miserable cared about grammar. Want that birthday check from grandpa, best not make the old man translate text speak. They got to use the "my dad is an idiot" excuse, their friends understood. Eventually the friends started using proper grammar as well, maybe out of some desire not to feel/be perceived as less intelligent. Probably spent a total of ten minutes on enforcement, was an easy parenting choice.

LOL.

I don't worry about the silly little stuff.

[Nieninque]

I put an end to this at preteen stage. They were allowed to chat on AIM for an extra hour to friends if they used proper grammar. If they clicked closed any window as I walked into the room, they were done with the computer for the day. Told them to know their audience. Teachers, old people, people with the power to make their life miserable cared about grammar. Want that birthday check from grandpa, best not make the old man translate text speak. They got to use the "my dad is an idiot" excuse, their friends understood. Eventually the friends started using proper grammar as well, maybe out of some desire not to feel/be perceived as less intelligent. Probably spent a total of ten minutes on enforcement, was an easy parenting choice.

Nice job dude. Never mind that the friend they are talking to is a paedophile, as long as they are using proper grammar

[Ker_Thwap]

Nice job dude. Never mind that the friend they are talking to is a paedophile, as long as they are using proper grammar

That was what the no clicking the windows closed was about. The grammar thing had other benefits, the conversations went from lol/derp/lol/derp/lol/derp and became actual conversations where they discussed their little 12 year old worlds.

[Latrinsorm]

Since when did we start accepting the Irish?We elected a mick President, didn't we not?
The movie idiocracy isn't too far off.Hesiod, is that you? You've aged horribly.
Nice job dude. Never mind that the friend they are talking to is a paedophile, as long as they are using proper grammarThat escalated quickly.

[Tgo01]

That was what the no clicking the windows closed was about. The grammar thing had other benefits, the conversations went from lol/derp/lol/derp/lol/derp and became actual conversations where they discussed their little 12 year old worlds.

lol

[Ker_Thwap]

lol

lol derpity lol!!!

[Thondalar]

Just like the people you're dumping on, you're not being consistent with your beliefs, opinions. Were you drunk when you wrote this, or is your thinking always this sloppy?

Your first assignment is to re-write this entire rant when sober, without making wild generalizations. Hint: word usage, some vs. all. Consider the logical difference between these words.

Still not sober, but I'll give it a go anyway just for shits n' giggles...


You can find evidence of violence against any group from any other group. Except maybe furries and people who play Magic: The Gathering. The point you missed here is that we're talking about two different kinds of "acceptance". All I was saying is being gay isn't normal. If it was, we wouldn't exist...we would have died out as a species long before we developed a scientific method to propagate our species without natural intercourse between a male and female of the species. That's just science. Science!

In the same way that you're more likely to attract things you normally wouldn't want to attract anyway with sugar instead of vinegar, you're more likely to attract a broader range of acceptance by not making such a spectacle of yourself and just being you. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but the bleating kid also attracts all the predators. Gay marriage is a perfect example. I'm all for LGBT couples living together and getting the same tax breaks as hetero married couples. I'd be even more happy if the Powers That Be didn't show any sort of preference to married couples of any sort. NOBODY should ever be FORCED to do ANYTHING they don't want to do, or don't approve of. If this maxim was enforced equally across all parties at all times in any given scenario, the world would be a better place.



Name one other situation, scenario, group, anything where we judge the whole by their most minority faction, ignoring the stance of the vast majority of said faction. (ok, BESIDES the Tea Party).



Seriously? I will always distrust Muslims, and I'm not even a Christian. Go ahead and bring up the Crusades to tell me how bad Christians are, and my distrust of modern-day Muslims is misplaced because Christians did evil shit too 800 years ago.

If Islamic groups hadn't bombed US embassies and US ships, hadn't flown planes into buildings, hadn't kidnapped and murdered little girls just for going to school, or thrown acid on little girls just for going to school, hadn't kidnapped and beheaded countless journalists and nationals, hadn't expressed numerous times across numerous media their distinct and eternal hatred for the West, and the US, and everything I believe in and love...yeah, I probably wouldn't give a shit. Here's a clue...I don't give a shit about blacks, or LGBT's, or Furries, or people who play Magic: The Gathering. Can you figure out what the difference is between all of those minority groups?


Ok, so there I just re-wrote that entire rant, and I bolded all the times I said "some" and "all".

Maybe I'm cross-eyed or something, but I can't see where I said "some" anywhere in that post.

[Thondalar]

Yes. I can point out your place on the graph for you if you like. :)

Oh, I'm sure. And I could point out where you are. While I fully admit that the vast majority of our life, our universe, and everything contained therein can be "explained" by math...sociology simply can't, at least not with any sort of regularity that mathematical equations generally require.


Makes you wonder how people keep being gay if it's such an evolutionary disadvantage, eh?

Not at all. There will always be variances...with something as complicated as our DNA, and our brain chemistry, and our...just, our existence as a whole...there will always be variables. Having homosexual tendencies isn't necessarily an evolutionary disadvantage, it's deeper than that...and is a uniquely human condition. In raising dogs, I've often observed males attempting to copulate with each other...but these same males will always prefer, and will always first go to, a bitch in heat.

For humans, at least, you have to do some serious philosophy. Aristippus would tell you hey, who cares, stick your dick in any tactile surface that gives you some friction. Although it is completely alien to me to be "turned off" by the female anatomy, I can also say that I'm not necessarily "turned off" by the male anatomy. The former, I think, is based strictly on my need as a mammal to procreate sexually. The latter is based strictly on my need as a mammal to enjoy pleasure. In the latter sense, I'm open to both possibilities...in the former, obviously, only one will work.


Should they not make such a spectacle, or should they accept the fact that they're not normal? Those strike me as opposites.

Not really, no. If you consider that none of us is really "normal", and then consider that human nature is to be confrontational...it makes perfect sense. If the LGBT community would get behind the idea that the Constitution grants them all the same rights as every other legal citizen, maybe we could make some progress. The only real issue here is that the State somehow controls marriage...which is, historically, a religious doctrine. That shouldn't be in the State's purview. Remove all tax breaks, all State-granted status to married couples, and this entire issue goes away. Boom, done.


That's why your doing so with Muslims is so frustrating!

Except I'm not. The majority of Islam doesn't agree with anything even remotely progressive, as far as women or gays. Especially these two groups.


I am in fact going to bring up the acts of contemporary white people. 2977 Americans were murdered in 9/11. White people murder 2700 Americans every year, rape 9000 every year, commit 6000 arsons every year.

One fell swoop vs. combined various acts across the largest livable country in the world over a year... C'mon, man...not to mention you completely bypassed all the things I brought up that happen outside the US that still influence our opinions...

If you are walking down the street at 10pm, and you see a pit bull a hundred feet away from you, not leashed, just sitting there...are you going to run up and give it a hug? Are you going to approach it in any fashion?

Are all pit bulls bad? Of course not, in the same way that not all Muslims are bad. Well, kinda different, but you get my point. You specifically referenced Muslims dressed in traditional Muslim attire...my assumption there, upon seeing them on my bus or in my place of business, would be that they are traditional Muslims, since they are abiding by traditional dress code. I'm going to deal with them with a certain amount of distrust, you're damn right. In the same way I would distrust that pit bull...I don't know them, but I know the reputation.

Many years ago, when I was working at Winghouse...I had a table ask for a manager...I went to the table, and it was two guys of very obvious Middle Eastern decent. What they were doing in a Winghouse, with all that flesh exposed, I don't know...but anyway...the issue was, one of them ordered a chicken sandwich that was on the menu, that automatically came with bacon...he didn't realize this when he ordered it, and when it came to his table with bacon on it, he was mortified. I told him I would fix it, and he insisted that I didn't just go back and take the bacon off, I had to make him a completely new sandwich. Even TOUCHING pork was against Halal...which I understood completely from my time running foodservice for prisons. I assured him I would take care of it, and I did.

Was I afraid this guy would blow up my house? No. Was I afraid he would shoot me in the parking lot after work? No. I took his sandwich back to the kitchen, threw it in the trash, and made sure he got a new one, completely pork-free, because I respected his religious beliefs.


People you respect have told you its okay to be bigoted against Muslims. Nobody you respect has told you its okay to be bigoted against blacks etc.

Haha. 1) Nobody has told me it's ok to be bigoted against Muslims, I don't trust them because I'm a student of history, and came to that on my own.

2) Quite the contrary, I was told often and long to be bigoted against Blacks...my grandfather was a rank-step KKK member, Grand Wizard I'm told, though haven't been able to verify...my father, obviously being his father's son, also taught me the same, although he did have a black guy save his ass in Vietnam once, and told me about that, and then, naturally, said that was the only black person in the history of the world that was ever any good...

Being raised in a split Southern Baptist/Roman Catholic family, gays were, quite simply, the devil...one thing both sides agreed on.

Somehow, from that background...one where Muslims really weren't even mentioned at all, but Blacks and Gays were reviled at every turn....I've come to love Blacks and Gays, and support them completely...not to mention full support of abortion and a lot of other things I was "raised" to disagree with...

At some point you'll realize the only difference between me and you is real life experience.


Like I said, in twenty years you'll change your tune, just like people like you did for the Jews, the Irish, the Slavics, the blacks, the gays. If you honestly believe minorities of those groups weren't paraded around as (supposed) justification for each bigotry, you're kidding yourself.

I'm fully aware of the negative propaganda associated with each of those groups you mentioned. While nefarious acts were certainly conceived and acted upon by all those groups at various times, I can't think of, off the top of my head, a single one that compares to anything "mainstream" Muslims have done. Completely ignore all the horrific "terrorist" events...just talk about the basic human rights of citizens in most majority Muslim countries. Especially women.

Break it down, man. Fuck the terrorist shit, blowing stuff up, throwing acid on schoolgirls, kidnapping, raping, murdering...throw all that to the curb. Just assume it never existed, never happened...are you ok with the human rights scenario of regular citizens in most Arab countries? You want to get rid of the sensational stuff, fine...I'm actually good with that. Let's talk about the reality day-to-day.

[Androidpk]

Go drunk Thondalar, your home.

[Thondalar]

Go drunk Thondalar, your home.

Pretty sure I nailed it.

[Thondalar]

I made a mistake thinking I should write a book from scratch...I just need to collate all my PC posts into a book.

[Androidpk]

I'd read it.

[elcidcannon]

I put an end to this at preteen stage. They were allowed to chat on AIM for an extra hour to friends if they used proper grammar. If they clicked closed any window as I walked into the room, they were done with the computer for the day. Told them to know their audience. Teachers, old people, people with the power to make their life miserable cared about grammar. Want that birthday check from grandpa, best not make the old man translate text speak. They got to use the "my dad is an idiot" excuse, their friends understood. Eventually the friends started using proper grammar as well, maybe out of some desire not to feel/be perceived as less intelligent. Probably spent a total of ten minutes on enforcement, was an easy parenting choice.

When I have a kid/s I will do this as well.

[Ceyrin]

Try this one:

http://louderwithcrowder.com/caitlyn-jenner-shocker-the-family-guy-warned-us/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juPn7yGObm8

[Thondalar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juPn7yGObm8

I've often said that Married with Children is the solution to all of our problems.

[Candor]

I made a mistake thinking I should write a book from scratch...I just need to collate all my PC posts into a book.

But you'll need a title. How about "Farts from the Heart"?

[Ker_Thwap]

Still not sober, but I'll give it a go anyway just for shits n' giggles...




Ok, so there I just re-wrote that entire rant, and I bolded all the times I said "some" and "all".

Maybe I'm cross-eyed or something, but I can't see where I said "some" anywhere in that post.

The point is that you SHOULD have used the modifiers some, all, many, few, about the same number as, proportionally the same, significantly less/higher. You're absolutely useless when you're drunk. You made a statement so very general that it was obviously unrealistic and wrong. That was only the first assignment and you failed miserably.

Show me that you can complete the first assignment, and I'll tell you the second element that you left out of your drunken rant. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate a drunk. Get your shit together.

[Tisket]

I made a mistake thinking I should write a book from scratch...I just need to collate all my PC posts into a book.

What's the point? You already have a wide audience of people who don't read your posts.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh, I'm sure. And I could point out where you are. While I fully admit that the vast majority of our life, our universe, and everything contained therein can be "explained" by math...sociology simply can't, at least not with any sort of regularity that mathematical equations generally require.Here's what I don't get about you. It would have taken you 10 seconds to google "sociology standard deviation" and find thousands of examples of it in sociology. Why don't you want to be right? What is it that makes you put so much faith in your guesses? It just puzzles me. This applies to pretty much everything in your post, so for brevity I'm only explicitly going to comment on especially egregious cases.
One fell swoop vs. combined various acts across the largest livable country in the world over a year... C'mon, man...not to mention you completely bypassed all the things I brought up that happen outside the US that still influence our opinions...You can couch it however you want. White people have killed ten times as many Americans as Muslims, but you distrust Muslims and not white people. Hence, the amount of people killed is in no way a factor in your decision making. You tell yourself it is, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. These things happen.
Haha. 1) Nobody has told me it's ok to be bigoted against Muslims, I don't trust them because I'm a student of history, and came to that on my own.You seriously want to claim, as an American, that nobody has told you it's okay to be bigoted against Muslims? Seriously??? You missed the qualifier for people, so none of that was relevant anyway, but sheesh.
I'm fully aware of the negative propaganda associated with each of those groups you mentioned. While nefarious acts were certainly conceived and acted upon by all those groups at various times, I can't think of, off the top of my head, a single one that compares to anything "mainstream" Muslims have done. Completely ignore all the horrific "terrorist" events...just talk about the basic human rights of citizens in most majority Muslim countries. Especially women. Break it down, man. Fuck the terrorist shit, blowing stuff up, throwing acid on schoolgirls, kidnapping, raping, murdering...throw all that to the curb. Just assume it never existed, never happened...are you ok with the human rights scenario of regular citizens in most Arab countries? You want to get rid of the sensational stuff, fine...I'm actually good with that. Let's talk about the reality day-to-day.As an actual student of history, I am aware that the active ingredient in human rights is wealth. Not religion, not race, not philosophy, not democracy. Just wealth. Look what happened when Germany was impoverished after the first World War. Look what happened when the Islamic (including Arab) region was the wealthiest in the world: they invented science, were the #1 destination for Jewish refugees from European barbarism, led the world in women's rights, etc. Do you think it's a coincidence America is the wealthiest and freest country the world has ever seen? Can't wait to hear your explanation for why this history somehow doesn't count as history.

Bottom line, I'm not okay with the human rights scenario of regular citizens in any country. Maybe this is why I'm not as vulnerable to the lies you've fallen prey to.

[Thondalar]

The point is that you SHOULD have used the modifiers some, all, many, few, about the same number as, proportionally the same, significantly less/higher.

I would disagree with that. Principles are absolute...if you find yourself considering a situation where principle doesn't apply absolutely, you're looking at the wrong principle. I stand by what I said.


You're absolutely useless when you're drunk. You made a statement so very general that it was obviously unrealistic and wrong. That was only the first assignment and you failed miserably.

Instead of attacking me, and being even more general in your assessment, why not give a specific counter-point to something I've said? That's generally how this goes.


Show me that you can complete the first assignment, and I'll tell you the second element that you left out of your drunken rant. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate a drunk. Get your shit together.

Hrmm. Many educated people did their finest work while drunk. I don't need any education, I'm just asking you to bring a counter-point instead of attacking me directly.

[Thondalar]

What's the point? You already have a wide audience of people who don't read your posts.

...you say in response to my post.

[Thondalar]

Here's what I don't get about you. It would have taken you 10 seconds to google "sociology standard deviation" and find thousands of examples of it in sociology. Why don't you want to be right? What is it that makes you put so much faith in your guesses? It just puzzles me. This applies to pretty much everything in your post, so for brevity I'm only explicitly going to comment on especially egregious cases.

If it were that simple, sociologists would all agree on why people do what they do. They do not. You can google whatever you want, and take the first 3 results and call it gospel, but that's not really how this works. Being a "scientist", I think you would already understand that.


You can couch it however you want. White people have killed ten times as many Americans as Muslims, but you distrust Muslims and not white people.

Actually, you're the one trying to make it a straight comparison to people killed. Who said I trust white people? Ask my wife, I'm pretty paranoid in general. Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?


Hence, the amount of people killed is in no way a factor in your decision making.

Glad you recognize that. That was never one of my standards. Should it be? Across what time frame? Is it really a zero-sum scenario?


You tell yourself it is, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. These things happen.

I don't tell myself that at all. This is what you're trying to make it out to be. Do you disagree that mainstream Islam considers the Western World a threat? Do you disagree that mainstream Islam has a comparatively HORRIBLE record of human rights violations across any spectrum that isn't heterosexual male?


You seriously want to claim, as an American, that nobody has told you it's okay to be bigoted against Muslims? Seriously??? You missed the qualifier for people, so none of that was relevant anyway, but sheesh.

Now you're moving the goal posts. At first you claimed I was taught to be bigoted against Muslims because people I respected told me to be so...when that was removed from the table, now I'm supposed to be bigoted just because other Americans may or may not feel that way? Are you even proof-reading this?


As an actual student of history, I am aware that the active ingredient in human rights is wealth.

What? Actually, to some degree, you're right...in the sense that when people, as a general majority, no longer need to worry about food, and clothing, and shelter...they start looking at other things to be worried about, like human rights. It's a concept of human society, not of base survival. Unfortunately for your narrow view of this, it doesn't explain how some of the wealthiest countries per capita in the world (Saudi Arabia, UAE) are some of the worst when it comes to civil rights, especially for women.


Not religion, not race, not philosophy, not democracy. Just wealth. Look what happened when Germany was impoverished after the first World War.

In a roundabout way it lead to Hitler's rise, and the fact that you can stimulate an economy by building a massive war machine. At least a third of Germany's war funds were the direct result of seizing Jewish assets...pretty fucked up, if you think about it. Not really sure what you're fishing for here.


Look what happened when the Islamic (including Arab) region was the wealthiest in the world: they invented science, were the #1 destination for Jewish refugees from European barbarism, led the world in women's rights, etc.

So many things with this...A lot of the "Islamic/Arab region" is STILL the wealthiest, per capita. I'm surprised to hear you claim they "invented" science, when we can go further back in history to various Greeks and Romans...even Egyptians, Phoenicians...hell, Sumerians...although I guess you could claim a lot of this was from the modern-day "Islamic" areas, they weren't Muslims at the time...

Muslims/Arabs during the "Middle Ages" definitely advanced modern science and medicine (especially) a great deal. Certainly in your vein of expertise, mathematics...

I would argue that they were less wealthy than certain European powers at the time that had a terrible track record for human rights, compared to our modern understanding of such things.

This is where your theory doesn't hold any water. You state "wealth" with no conditions...back then, Nations were wealthy, and individual people weren't. Nobility was wealthy, but only because of the subjugation and, compared to modern day, terrible working conditions of the "commoner".

While I'll agree that many Jews "fled" to "Muslim" lands during the time of the Crusades, this was because of a mutual threat...at the time, Jews and Muslims had a sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality, and rightly so. Powerful European Christian nations (again, very wealthy nations with terrible (by modern standards) human rights situations) were at war with both of them, over the disputed "Holy Lands".

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

As far as "leading the world in women's rights"...I'm going to insist on some sort of citation. That, to me, is the one singular most horrific breach of human rights by "mainstream" Muslims. I'm not even counting the total loonies.


Do you think it's a coincidence America is the wealthiest and freest country the world has ever seen?

In a way, yes. At the time that we laid down our freedoms, we weren't at all the wealthiest. Hell, we borrowed what...17 billion or some such from France? We were a colony on the east coast of a massive land area, the wealth of which hadn't been exploited yet. The freedoms laid down at that point ensured we would be able to fully exploit the wealth we eventually developed...not only for the "nobility", but for the commoner as well. This was a joint effort between our system of government, and the fact that we had boundless natural resources and the freedom to exploit them. It's quite shocking to me how you seem to really be clueless about how this all worked out, historically.


Can't wait to hear your explanation for why this history somehow doesn't count as history.

See above.


Bottom line, I'm not okay with the human rights scenario of regular citizens in any country. Maybe this is why I'm not as vulnerable to the lies you've fallen prey to.

Seriously? What lies are those? I'm the one trying to point out the egregious human rights violations perpetrated by even "main-stream" Muslims, and you're the one falling all over yourself trying to make excuses for them.

[Ker_Thwap]

I would disagree with that. Principles are absolute...if you find yourself considering a situation where principle doesn't apply absolutely, you're looking at the wrong principle. I stand by what I said.



Instead of attacking me, and being even more general in your assessment, why not give a specific counter-point to something I've said? That's generally how this goes.



Hrmm. Many educated people did their finest work while drunk. I don't need any education, I'm just asking you to bring a counter-point instead of attacking me directly.

I'm attacking your drinking problem, not you. I'm attacking your lack of information, your lack of education, and your pride in being wrong.

You believe it's some kind of universal principle that Muslims are icky? The actual people? Have you met a Muslim, just one? Did they kill you? Did they? The fact that you're still wasting our time with your idiot rants tells me that single Muslim didn't kill you. Therefore you are logically incorrect, and indeed not all Muslim people are cranky. By contending otherwise, you display a complete lack of understanding of what logic is. Logic is not some nebulous term where you just say "makes sense to me!" it's a strict set of rules that tells us about valid reasoning. You clearly have not learned these rules. It's not about saying, I made up some shitty principle, so I'm just going to stick to it forever. That's as stupid as an eight year old, saying "my daddy says that this political party is best, game over. Game over I say!"

Most religions including Christianity and Islam are all about interpreting made up rules, based on something some dead men wrote down long before we were born. Taken as a whole, these rules are insane. Luckily, people tend to pick and choose which of these ancient rules they wish to apply to their current modern life, and which one's they don't feel like applying. The poor and uneducated are particularly susceptible to the influence of the religions leaders. It's in the church/mosque leader's personal benefit to keep the flock poor, fleece them of their tithe, and deflect attention against "outsiders." The outsider after all is the one who can ruin their little income/influence/political scheme.

Islam as a religion has many problems in poor nations. The leaders keep the adherents in the dark, education is discouraged, outsiders/infidels are reviled. The crazy shit about Jihad by the Sword is emphasized. It's bad. Islam as a religion is mostly harmless in rich neighborhoods. They emphasize it's the religion of peace.

Christianity is equally repulsive in poor areas. Adherents engage in all sorts of anti social behavior. A Christian man just beheaded a Muslim man. I'm running out of time, so just read all the way through this gem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism)

[Gelston]

Wow. This thread is more fucked up than Bruce Jenner.

[Latrinsorm]

If it were that simple, sociologists would all agree on why people do what they do. They do not. You can google whatever you want, and take the first 3 results and call it gospel, but that's not really how this works. Being a "scientist", I think you would already understand that.If what were that simple? All I said was that sociologists use the standard deviation, thus there is a well-defined "normal" for humans.
Actually, you're the one trying to make it a straight comparison to people killed. Who said I trust white people? Ask my wife, I'm pretty paranoid in general. Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?You specifically said you don't distrust people who play M:tG. Game, set, match.
Do you disagree that mainstream Islam considers the Western World a threat?Muslims have integrated quite well in the Western world: they've been part of the United States since before there was a United States. As a city dweller you have probably walked past a Muslim every day of your life: some good, some bad, most normal... just like every other demographic in the history of the world.
Do you disagree that mainstream Islam has a comparatively HORRIBLE record of human rights violations across any spectrum that isn't heterosexual male?Compared to what? Compared to the richest Christian nation (America), yes. Compared to the poorest Christian nations (e.g. some in sub-Saharan Africa), no. Compared to where they ought to be, yes... which I can say for every polity in the history of the world.
Now you're moving the goal posts. At first you claimed I was taught to be bigoted against Muslims because people I respected told me to be so...when that was removed from the table, now I'm supposed to be bigoted just because other Americans may or may not feel that way? Are you even proof-reading this?I didn't move anything. You glossed over the distinction, then I pointed out your doing so.
What? Actually, to some degree, you're right...in the sense that when people, as a general majority, no longer need to worry about food, and clothing, and shelter...they start looking at other things to be worried about, like human rights. It's a concept of human society, not of base survival. Unfortunately for your narrow view of this, it doesn't explain how some of the wealthiest countries per capita in the world (Saudi Arabia, UAE) are some of the worst when it comes to civil rights, especially for women. I didn't say wealthiest per capita, and I didn't say that wealth necessarily led to rights. I said it was the active ingredient. There are (forty-three) active ingredients in cigarettes that cause cancer, it does not follow that everyone who smokes cigarettes has cancer. The counter case would be to find an impoverished society with a strong record of human rights.
I'm surprised to hear you claim they "invented" science, when we can go further back in history to various Greeks and Romans...even Egyptians, Phoenicians...hell, Sumerians...although I guess you could claim a lot of this was from the modern-day "Islamic" areas, they weren't Muslims at the time...None of what they did was science, only math or philosophy. The Islamic world was the first to do empirical science. Look up ibn Sina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna), al-Baghdadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Barak%C4%81t_al-Baghd%C4%81d%C4%AB), ibn Bajja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avempace). Why else do you think it was their words that were parroted in Newton's Laws, and not Aristotle's?
As far as "leading the world in women's rights"...I'm going to insist on some sort of citation. That, to me, is the one singular most horrific breach of human rights by "mainstream" Muslims. I'm not even counting the total loonies.Cited. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r2ctz)
In a way, yes. At the time that we laid down our freedoms, we weren't at all the wealthiest. Hell, we borrowed what...17 billion or some such from France? We were a colony on the east coast of a massive land area, the wealth of which hadn't been exploited yet. The freedoms laid down at that point ensured we would be able to fully exploit the wealth we eventually developed...not only for the "nobility", but for the commoner as well. This was a joint effort between our system of government, and the fact that we had boundless natural resources and the freedom to exploit them. It's quite shocking to me how you seem to really be clueless about how this all worked out, historically.Not at all, you simply confuse "freest" with "having the most freedoms promised but not actually implemented in any way". This isn't the first time you've made that error, and regrettably it won't be the last.
Seriously? What lies are those? I'm the one trying to point out the egregious human rights violations perpetrated by even "main-stream" Muslims, and you're the one falling all over yourself trying to make excuses for them.I don't excuse anyone. If you can't even see that, I can't help you.

[Thondalar]

I'm attacking your drinking problem, not you.

I don't have a drinking problem, I make it to my mouth almost every time.


I'm attacking your lack of information, your lack of education,...

Except you're not. Generally you would provide counter-points to specific points, if that were the case.


...and your pride in being wrong.

My...what? Education is an on-going thing...we never stop learning, and being proud to be wrong would be a very silly thing. I hate being wrong, but I'd imagine most of us do...that doesn't mean I'm below admitting when I'm wrong. I've done so several times on these forums.


You believe it's some kind of universal principle that Muslims are icky? The actual people?

What? Of course not. Where do you get that from?


Have you met a Muslim, just one? Did they kill you? Did they?

Well yeah. Several times. In fact, in my last post I shared a story of meeting some Muslims at my restaurant and ensuring their food met their religious requirements. Do you even read my posts, or do you just skim through to pick out whatever looks best to take out of context?


The fact that you're still wasting our time with your idiot rants tells me that single Muslim didn't kill you.

Pretty sure I've been responding directly to Latrin in this thread, until you gave me something else to respond to. If you don't want to read my "idiotic rants", that's on you. I would point out though that, generally, a "rant" would be a rambling, nearly nonsensical fount of words with no particular direction other than the overarching theme upon which they were first created...I rarely go more than 2 or 3 paragraphs between quotes, and you can clearly see where individual responses are directed at individual statements from others. I try very hard to not be obtuse.


Therefore you are logically incorrect, and indeed not all Muslim people are cranky.

Again, what? Where are you getting that I said that?


By contending otherwise, you display a complete lack of understanding of what logic is.

You're basing your opinion on something I didn't say. What sort of logic is that?


Logic is not some nebulous term where you just say "makes sense to me!" it's a strict set of rules that tells us about valid reasoning.

You don't say.


You clearly have not learned these rules.

How so? Can you provide specifics?


It's not about saying, I made up some shitty principle, so I'm just going to stick to it forever.

Can you quote me on saying that? I'd like to see it.


That's as stupid as an eight year old, saying "my daddy says that this political party is best, game over. Game over I say!"

I agree completely.


Most religions including Christianity and Islam are all about interpreting made up rules, based on something some dead men wrote down long before we were born.

Eh, sort of. We can see a regular theme across pretty much all of them...don't steal, don't murder, etc....I've always found Theology to be a supremely interesting topic of study, especially in a historical sense. The development of the polytheistic religions pretty much every civilization had starting out, morphing into the more modernly-popular monotheistic religions...the basic thread tying them all together is that, for the vast majority of them, they teach a manner of living copacetically with your fellow man. We can argue which came first, the religious rules or the societal rules, but they pretty much pair up well enough that I don't really think it matters.


Taken as a whole, these rules are insane.

If you're speaking strictly of the banalities associated with most religions...the pomp and circumstance, if you will...you're completely correct. It's a condition of human existence...our need for certain intangibles.


Luckily, people tend to pick and choose which of these ancient rules they wish to apply to their current modern life, and which one's they don't feel like applying.

Well, that sort of defeats the purpose of religion, doesn't it? If we can just re-write the rules on a whim, what is the point of having the rules to begin with? Not saying it doesn't happen, it obviously does, and it obviously has had an influence on "religion" as a whole over the generations. Judaism has a terrible, vengeful God, Christianity has a loving, forgiving God...even though it's supposedly the same God. Just one example.


The poor and uneducated are particularly susceptible to the influence of the religions leaders.

Well, duh. Rich people have the luxury of "finding their place in the Universe"...poor people just want to have something to look forward to that is better than what they have. Your life sucks now? Just be a good person, you'll live in the Kingdom of God forever, etc. etc.


It's in the church/mosque leader's personal benefit to keep the flock poor, fleece them of their tithe, and deflect attention against "outsiders." The outsider after all is the one who can ruin their little income/influence/political scheme.

I'm glad you recognize this, I'm not sure why you think I don't. I could say the same of any Social Activist group...what happens to the NAACP if all the colored people finally advance? Religion has always been the primary advocate of this, going back to polytheistic religions thousands of years ago...there's a drought and your crops and cattle are dying...what do you do? Sacrifice what little bit of crops and cattle you have to "appease the Gods" to insure a bounty next season. Perhaps a poor example directly, since the Church (or whatever they called it back then) didn't directly profit from it, but it lead quite directly to the tithe system. Your life sucks? Appease the Gods.


Islam as a religion has many problems in poor nations. The leaders keep the adherents in the dark, education is discouraged, outsiders/infidels are reviled.

I agree completely. The issue I have is that this is also the case in wealthy Islamic nations.


The crazy shit about Jihad by the Sword is emphasized. It's bad. Islam as a religion is mostly harmless in rich neighborhoods. They emphasize it's the religion of peace.

No, in media they emphasize this. You mentioned something earlier about my lack of education...I would implore you to do a little more research in this particular vein. There's a good reason I specifically stated wealthy, "mainstream" Muslim countries. I don't deny at all the "religion of peace" aspect, the issue is the standards of human rights required by that "peace".

We would have World Peace if everyone on the planet lived in little boxes and were never allowed out their entire lives.


Christianity is equally repulsive in poor areas. Adherents engage in all sorts of anti social behavior. A Christian man just beheaded a Muslim man. I'm running out of time, so just read all the way through this gem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism)

I never said only Muslims commit terrorist acts. I think I even referenced Timothy McVeigh in my post. I read all the way through both your post and your link...I somehow doubt you'll do the same for me, since you obviously haven't yet.


edit: fixed a broken quote

[Thondalar]

If what were that simple?

Explaining human behavior.


All I said was that sociologists use the standard deviation, thus there is a well-defined "normal" for humans.

"normal" for what? Which particular facet are you attempting to normalize here?


You specifically said you don't distrust people who play M:tG. Game, set, match.

No Muslims play M:tG?


Muslims have integrated quite well in the Western world: they've been part of the United States since before there was a United States.

Individuals of every background have integrated quite well into opposing societies at various times. There are exceptions to every rule, but it would be folly to base our assumptions on the minority. I'll re-state my initial query in a different manner...do you believe that "Western culture" isn't considered an offense by "mainstream" Islam? Do the majority of Imams in predominately Muslim cultures accept and support Western Civilization, especially when it comes to women's rights?


As a city dweller you have probably walked past a Muslim every day of your life: some good, some bad, most normal... just like every other demographic in the history of the world.

I wouldn't exactly call where I live a "city", but it is a fair bit more urban than where I was initially raised. You act like I don't know any Muslims. I'm trying hard to avoid the "I have black friends" folly, but you've sort of pressed the issue, so here it is. You have, on several occasions, questioned the how and why I've come to believe what I believe...and assumed many incorrect things in the process. I've based my opinions pretty strictly on successful people that I know IRL. Mostly white, sure...being born a white person, and the fact that most of our nation is white regardless, it just follows that most of the people I know are white. Numbers are kinda crazy that way. However, in the same way that most of my criticism of the "black community" has come from blacks I know, my criticism of the "Muslim community" has come from Muslims I know. The way I figure it, who would know better than people on the inside? I'm not lucky enough to be privy to every facet of human existence...I can only judge on what I personally experience, just like you, just like every person. In that respect, we're all sort of gimped...but yet, we all have opinions. I'd rather mine be influenced by people who may have a better personal experience than I.


Compared to what? Compared to the richest Christian nation (America), yes. Compared to the poorest Christian nations (e.g. some in sub-Saharan Africa), no. Compared to where they ought to be, yes... which I can say for every polity in the history of the world.

I think you got this backwards. I would also point out that most African "Christianity" wouldn't be recognizable to the Western world, and is sort of it's own faction, but even more split up than that, within itself. There are also tremendous societal differences that affect human rights even more than religion. That you can't recognize this is simply astounding to me.


I didn't move anything. You glossed over the distinction, then I pointed out your doing so.

I quoted you directly.


I didn't say wealthiest per capita, and I didn't say that wealth necessarily led to rights. I said it was the active ingredient. There are (forty-three) active ingredients in cigarettes that cause cancer, it does not follow that everyone who smokes cigarettes has cancer. The counter case would be to find an impoverished society with a strong record of human rights.

I said you were right...but it still doesn't explain how some of the wealthiest countries are also still terrible about civil rights. That indicates another factor you're not accounting for, and something I've often brought up with you. Much like your cigarette-carcinogen comparison, you can't point at any one thing and go "there it is!", which is something you do quite often.


None of what they did was science, only math or philosophy. The Islamic world was the first to do empirical science. Look up ibn Sina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna), al-Baghdadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Barak%C4%81t_al-Baghd%C4%81d%C4%AB), ibn Bajja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avempace). Why else do you think it was their words that were parroted in Newton's Laws, and not Aristotle's?

Is this even serious? I'm guessing Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Theophrastus, jeez, I could go on...these guys didn't use Scientific Theory to come to their conclusions about botany, astronomy, mechanics...way beyond just math. Again, I'm wondering if you even read your own links...the guys you linked were all primarily regarded as philosophers, who also did other things. The names I just posted were thousands of years before them, and were minors in philosophy, at best.


Cited. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r2ctz)

As it turns out, my "Institution" doesn't have full access to that link, though I do find it a bit humorous that it is billed in the summary as "This first full-length study of women and the Fatimids is a groundbreaking work investigating an unexplored area in the field of Islamic and medieval studies".

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but...if women's rights were so prevalent in the Muslim world, why did it take until 2006 to have the first study of them? Why was it "unexplored" before then? I'll have to do some more research, but I'm guessing this "groundbreaking" work is discounted by "mainstream" Muslim academics.


Not at all, you simply confuse "freest" with "having the most freedoms promised but not actually implemented in any way". This isn't the first time you've made that error, and regrettably it won't be the last.

That's not at all what that meant. How the hell did you come up with that?


I don't excuse anyone. If you can't even see that, I can't help you.

So, then, what lies are those?

[Gelston]

You ever been outside the western hemisphere Thondalar?

[Grey]

You guys spend way too much time trolling each other.

[Androidpk]

You ever been outside the western hemisphere Thondalar?

You ever been in a Turkish prison?

[SHAFT]

Explaining human behavior.



"normal" for what? Which particular facet are you attempting to normalize here?



No Muslims play M:tG?



Individuals of every background have integrated quite well into opposing societies at various times. There are exceptions to every rule, but it would be folly to base our assumptions on the minority. I'll re-state my initial query in a different manner...do you believe that "Western culture" isn't considered an offense by "mainstream" Islam? Do the majority of Imams in predominately Muslim cultures accept and support Western Civilization, especially when it comes to women's rights?



I wouldn't exactly call where I live a "city", but it is a fair bit more urban than where I was initially raised. You act like I don't know any Muslims. I'm trying hard to avoid the "I have black friends" folly, but you've sort of pressed the issue, so here it is. You have, on several occasions, questioned the how and why I've come to believe what I believe...and assumed many incorrect things in the process. I've based my opinions pretty strictly on successful people that I know IRL. Mostly white, sure...being born a white person, and the fact that most of our nation is white regardless, it just follows that most of the people I know are white. Numbers are kinda crazy that way. However, in the same way that most of my criticism of the "black community" has come from blacks I know, my criticism of the "Muslim community" has come from Muslims I know. The way I figure it, who would know better than people on the inside? I'm not lucky enough to be privy to every facet of human existence...I can only judge on what I personally experience, just like you, just like every person. In that respect, we're all sort of gimped...but yet, we all have opinions. I'd rather mine be influenced by people who may have a better personal experience than I.



I think you got this backwards. I would also point out that most African "Christianity" wouldn't be recognizable to the Western world, and is sort of it's own faction, but even more split up than that, within itself. There are also tremendous societal differences that affect human rights even more than religion. That you can't recognize this is simply astounding to me.



I quoted you directly.



I said you were right...but it still doesn't explain how some of the wealthiest countries are also still terrible about civil rights. That indicates another factor you're not accounting for, and something I've often brought up with you. Much like your cigarette-carcinogen comparison, you can't point at any one thing and go "there it is!", which is something you do quite often.



Is this even serious? I'm guessing Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Theophrastus, jeez, I could go on...these guys didn't use Scientific Theory to come to their conclusions about botany, astronomy, mechanics...way beyond just math. Again, I'm wondering if you even read your own links...the guys you linked were all primarily regarded as philosophers, who also did other things. The names I just posted were thousands of years before them, and were minors in philosophy, at best.



As it turns out, my "Institution" doesn't have full access to that link, though I do find it a bit humorous that it is billed in the summary as "This first full-length study of women and the Fatimids is a groundbreaking work investigating an unexplored area in the field of Islamic and medieval studies".

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but...if women's rights were so prevalent in the Muslim world, why did it take until 2006 to have the first study of them? Why was it "unexplored" before then? I'll have to do some more research, but I'm guessing this "groundbreaking" work is discounted by "mainstream" Muslim academics.



That's not at all what that meant. How the hell did you come up with that?



So, then, what lies are those?

I like magic the gathering.

[Grey]

If what were that simple? All I said was that sociologists use the standard deviation, thus there is a well-defined "normal" for humans.

Once again, you provide all kinds of fodder that you are not a real scientist.

[Thondalar]

Once again, you provide all kinds of fodder that you are not a real scientist.

Oh, I gave up on that line a while ago. Let him believe what he will, he does have a bachelor's, after all.

[Thondalar]

I like magic the gathering.

Do you still play? I've got some pristine cards from the late 90's I'm trying to sell...no black lotus or anything, but still some limited edition and whatnot. I'll give you a good price for the lot. PM me.

[Thondalar]

You ever been outside the western hemisphere Thondalar?

Once, why?

[Thondalar]

You guys spend way too much time trolling each other.

Except that I firmly believe I'm not trolling anyone, and I also believe Latrin isn't trolling anyone.

I can't really speak for anyone else.

[Back]

I'm attacking your drinking problem, not you.

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-06/8/16/enhanced/webdr08/enhanced-16336-1433794737-2.jpg

[JackWhisper]

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-06/8/16/enhanced/webdr08/enhanced-16336-1433794737-2.jpg

Yep. It's Tuesday.

[Ker_Thwap]

...really?



You can find evidence of violence against any group from any other group. Except maybe furries and people who play Magic: The Gathering. The point you missed here is that we're talking about two different kinds of "acceptance". All I was saying is being gay isn't normal. If it was, we wouldn't exist...we would have died out as a species long before we developed a scientific method to propagate our species without natural intercourse between a male and female of the species. That's just science. Science!

In the same way that you're more likely to attract things you normally wouldn't want to attract anyway with sugar instead of vinegar, you're more likely to attract a broader range of acceptance by not making such a spectacle of yourself and just being you. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but the bleating kid also attracts all the predators. Gay marriage is a perfect example. I'm all for LGBT couples living together and getting the same tax breaks as hetero married couples. I'd be even more happy if the Powers That Be didn't show any sort of preference to married couples of any sort. NOBODY should ever be FORCED to do ANYTHING they don't want to do, or don't approve of. If this maxim was enforced equally across all parties at all times in any given scenario, the world would be a better place.



Name one other situation, scenario, group, anything where we judge the whole by their most minority faction, ignoring the stance of the vast majority of said faction. (ok, BESIDES the Tea Party).



Seriously? I will always distrust Muslims, and I'm not even a Christian. Go ahead and bring up the Crusades to tell me how bad Christians are, and my distrust of modern-day Muslims is misplaced because Christians did evil shit too 800 years ago.

If Islamic groups hadn't bombed US embassies and US ships, hadn't flown planes into buildings, hadn't kidnapped and murdered little girls just for going to school, or thrown acid on little girls just for going to school, hadn't kidnapped and beheaded countless journalists and nationals, hadn't expressed numerous times across numerous media their distinct and eternal hatred for the West, and the US, and everything I believe in and love...yeah, I probably wouldn't give a shit. Here's a clue...I don't give a shit about blacks, or LGBT's, or Furries, or people who play Magic: The Gathering. Can you figure out what the difference is between all of those minority groups?

This is the rant I initially responded to. It lacks logic and it generalizes. I was giving you the opportunity to revise it, and you doubled down on trying to defend your illogical statements.

Logically: If some people are gay, does not equate to the species will die. If all are gay, does equate to the species probably would die off. What you said however is logically nonsense, as all people are not gay. In the theoretical universally gay universe, I'm not even convinced the species would die off, as gay scientists could use in vitro fertilization, or even cruder methods for that matter.

Logically: "I will always distrust Muslims," these are your words. Are you certain that you don't want to rephrase it as "I will always distrust some Muslims?" How about "I will always distrust poor Muslims raised under theocracies without education?" I was giving you the option to clarify, to modify, and you chose not to take it. Your lack of trust is illogical. As not all Muslims are untrustworthy.

In your next post responding to me, you babbled about your principles being unassailable. Then you said, well, not really, because you agreed with me.

I can only attribute this to drunken ranting. Some of your posts make sense, and some of them don't. You constantly contradict yourself. I don't have the memory, nor the inclination to go back and compare your wildly contrasting viewpoints between drunk Thondalar, sober Thondalar, tired Thondalar, happy Thondalar, or whatever else you are at the moment.

It's probably just easiest to put you into the Latrinsorm category, and not waste my time trying to debate you.

[Methais]

Yep. It's Tuesday.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlhOUyy4wbs

[Latrinsorm]

Explaining human behavior. "normal" for what? Which particular facet are you attempting to normalize here?That's not what normalize means. Think of it in terms of introvert vs. extrovert. Which of those is "normal"? Well, neither. They're the opposite extremes of a normal distribution, like tall vs. short, like smart vs. dumb. This is a very well defined mathematical concept, and one that is ubiquitous in all empirical sciences (physics or soft), so much so that a person fundamentally can't understand science without understanding the standard deviation. This isn't something you can reason your way into knowing, it's not something you can reason your way into disproving. It's just a fact: you must choose to learn, or remain in ignorance.
I think you got this backwards. I would also point out that most African "Christianity" wouldn't be recognizable to the Western world, and is sort of it's own faction, but even more split up than that, within itself. There are also tremendous societal differences that affect human rights even more than religion. That you can't recognize this is simply astounding to me.As an empiricist I do have trouble anticipating when people are blatantly hypocritical, yes. ⌐■_■
Is this even serious? I'm guessing Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Theophrastus, jeez, I could go on...these guys didn't use Scientific Theory to come to their conclusions about botany, astronomy, mechanics...way beyond just math. Again, I'm wondering if you even read your own links...the guys you linked were all primarily regarded as philosophers, who also did other things. The names I just posted were thousands of years before them, and were minors in philosophy, at best.I didn't say the Islamic world is primarily regarded as inventing science, I said they did. Same goes for the pre-Islamic world using only math and philosophy vs. being primarily regarded as only using those. You would apparently be surprised how often what is the case and what is primarily regarded as the case are not the same. People who had to actually get the truth (i.e. Newton) did their homework and went with the Islamic world. Note that again, Newton did not reason and ponder. He did his homework.
I said you were right...but it still doesn't explain how some of the wealthiest countries are also still terrible about civil rights. That indicates another factor you're not accounting for, and something I've often brought up with you. Much like your cigarette-carcinogen comparison, you can't point at any one thing and go "there it is!", which is something you do quite often....are you disputing that cigarettes cause cancer, or that carcinogens are specifically identifiable? The active ingredient does not mean "if INGREDIENT then RESULT", it means "if RESULT then INGREDIENT". It doesn't explain how some wealthy (as defined by you and not me, but whatever) countries have poor civil rights because it doesn't claim to. You're criticizing a screwdriver for not being a hammer.
That's not at all what that meant. How the hell did you come up with that?You believe we had all our freedoms with the signing of the Constitution. This is not correct, in the same way that a promise of a hamburger will not feed the hungry man.
So, then, what lies are those?Chiefly, that Muslims are (or could possibly be) in any way distinct from any other arbitrary grouping of humans. Muslim is no more a fundamental group than Christian or black or American. There are only humans. If you feed them, they smile. If you starve them, they scowl.
It's probably just easiest to put you into the Latrinsorm category, and not waste my time trying to debate you.Yeah! ...wait...

[Ker_Thwap]

Note that again, Newton did not reason and ponder. He did his homework.

Are you suggesting that the cartoon I saw of Newton sitting under an apple tree is historically incorrect?

[Latrinsorm]

I don't know anything about the cartoon you saw but I have very strong opinions about it anyway. It's a complete and total and complete lie made up by Islamophobes and... the Legion of Doom!!!

[Ker_Thwap]

I don't know anything about the cartoon you saw but I have very strong opinions about it anyway. It's a complete and total and complete lie made up by Islamophobes and... the Legion of Doom!!!

That's exactly what Islamaphobe Black Manta would say. Why do you hate Isaac Newton, the great American Hero, who singlehandedly invented gravity?!

[Thondalar]

This is the rant I initially responded to. It lacks logic and it generalizes. I was giving you the opportunity to revise it, and you doubled down on trying to defend your illogical statements.

I would counter that you simply didn't understand what I was saying. It happens quite often, I'm rather used to it. Let me demonstrate.


Logically: If some people are gay, does not equate to the species will die. If all are gay, does equate to the species probably would die off.

Ok, well, glad you understood that part of it. If you get that, I'm not sure why the rest would be so hard to digest.


What you said however is logically nonsense, as all people are not gay.

Er...what? Ok, now you lost me. I would refer you back to Latrin's graph on "normal"...I never once said all people are gay, nor did I say all people are not gay. I just said gay people aren't "normal", and if they were, our species would have most likely died out long before science developed a way for gay people to procreate...in the very least, we wouldn't have the current global population we do. Homo Sapiens is a pretty magnificent sample, even the worst of us, so I can't completely commit to any one thing wiping us out on our own turf, but....if homosexuality was "normal", it would certainly have a negative impact on the population. It boggles my mind that people aren't willing to concede this, for fear of being labeled.

This is wholly different from any sort of "attack" on the LGBT community...I've said, multiple times, that I'm all for it. I support gay marriage in the fullest. I support gay adoption. I support freedom in every form, until the point it interferes with someone else being free. I can't imagine too many scenarios where being LGBT would violate that.


In the theoretical universally gay universe, I'm not even convinced the species would die off, as gay scientists could use in vitro fertilization, or even cruder methods for that matter.

I covered this, in that these options are very, very recent to the human timescale.


Logically: "I will always distrust Muslims," these are your words. Are you certain that you don't want to rephrase it as "I will always distrust some Muslims?" How about "I will always distrust poor Muslims raised under theocracies without education?" I was giving you the option to clarify, to modify, and you chose not to take it. Your lack of trust is illogical. As not all Muslims are untrustworthy.

If it weren't for the fact that Sharia Law, as practiced in even wealthy Muslim nations, clashes so discordantly with even basic human rights I believe all people should have, regardless of gender, religion, or social status...you might have something. I've offered several times that it is only the most "fringe" of Muslim culture that does all the really bad stuff...the bombings, the kidnap and murder of journalists and school children...at the same time I proffer that "mainstream" Islam still doesn't live up to the standards of American freedom. Until this hurdle is conquered, I will always be distrustful.


In your next post responding to me, you babbled about your principles being unassailable.

While I don't recall using those exact words (this is where direct quotes come in handy), I would hope that my principles would always be assailable...the better to educate, for either side. An argument built on principle only fails if you're using the wrong principle to make your argument...

Modern political debate is so convoluted, because the major parties abandoned principle long ago. Personal freedom is great for Democrats when it comes to abortion, but terrible when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Personal Freedom is great for Republicans when it comes to the 2nd amendment, but terrible when it comes to the 4th amendment. They've spent so long fighting each other that they lost sight of the universal principles they originally fought for, and now just fight each other on individual topics just because.


Then you said, well, not really, because you agreed with me.

I do recall this part, and it's an issue I've had quite often, because I really try to see the logic in both arguments. The way I see it, if everything was as cut and dry as all of us would LIKE to believe, then we'd all believe the same thing and there would be no factions anywhere...not in our homes, our jobs, our religion, or our politics.

The fact that this isn't the case leads me to believe that there is logic to be found on all sides of any given argument...otherwise, why would we have arguments to begin with?

In this vein, I often question myself when I come to any conclusion...generally, it manifests itself in conceding certain parts of the argument of another in order to better illustrate why I've come to the ultimate conclusion I have, after considering their conclusion.


I can only attribute this to drunken ranting.

You could, indeed, but that would be doing both of us a disservice. As I pointed out earlier, rants generally involve going off on a tangent with no particular purpose...I try very hard to quote specific accusations/arguments and respond to them directly in the most succinct manner possible.


Some of your posts make sense, and some of them don't.

Is this a symptom of the author, or the reader? I find it humorous that you attack my perceived generalities, but can't come up with any specifics of your own.


You constantly contradict yourself.

Life is a contradiction. Again, I would be interested in specifics. My only assumption is you're missing the underlying principle in certain contextual things I've said at various times. I'd be more than happy to help you out with that.


I don't have the memory, nor the inclination to go back and compare your wildly contrasting viewpoints between drunk Thondalar, sober Thondalar, tired Thondalar, happy Thondalar, or whatever else you are at the moment.

So...you're basically admitting that you can't remember why I've said something that displeased you, and you're not willing to back up your statement, but...I said something that displeased you. Really?


It's probably just easiest to put you into the Latrinsorm category, and not waste my time trying to debate you.

Well, if that's how you truly feel...I guess I can't stop you.



edit: fixed a broken quote

[Thondalar]

That's not what normalize means. Think of it in terms of introvert vs. extrovert. Which of those is "normal"? Well, neither. They're the opposite extremes of a normal distribution, like tall vs. short, like smart vs. dumb. This is a very well defined mathematical concept, and one that is ubiquitous in all empirical sciences (physics or soft), so much so that a person fundamentally can't understand science without understanding the standard deviation. This isn't something you can reason your way into knowing, it's not something you can reason your way into disproving. It's just a fact: you must choose to learn, or remain in ignorance.

Ah, Latrin. I really do love you, man. I wish...wish beyond wishes...that everything wasn't so binary for you. You would have a much better understanding of the real world. Let me attempt to shine some light...you reference introvert vs. extrovert...tall vs. short....smart vs. dumb...where, on your chart, is a tall, dumb, extrovert, gay Hispanic growing up in a predominately Asian neighborhood, with an abusive father?


As an empiricist I do have trouble anticipating when people are blatantly hypocritical, yes. ⌐■_■

More specifically, as a strict empiricist you're absolutely clueless about social issues for which there is only incomplete empirical data.


I didn't say the Islamic world is primarily regarded as inventing science, I said they did.

Correct. Which, in a direct translation, would go something like "I, Latrin, say the Islamic world invented science".


Same goes for the pre-Islamic world using only math and philosophy vs. being primarily regarded as only using those. You would apparently be surprised how often what is the case and what is primarily regarded as the case are not the same. People who had to actually get the truth (i.e. Newton) did their homework and went with the Islamic world. Note that again, Newton did not reason and ponder. He did his homework.

Ok...I was on to something earlier, but then I read this and it blew my mind, almost literally.

So what you're saying is, even though we have documented, recorded historical evidence of "scientists" by any modern or historical definition of the word using science to come to scientific conclusions and advancing science thousands of years before Islam was even a religion...Muslims invented science because Latrin said they did? And the fact that Newton studied mathematicians before him, Muslim and not, means Muslims invented science?

I'm...huh. For the first time, I'm actually speechless. Well done, mate.


...are you disputing that cigarettes cause cancer,

I dispute that they always cause cancer.


...or that carcinogens are specifically identifiable?

Nah, we can do a chemical analysis and look at them. Can you quantify their individual effects?


The active ingredient does not mean "if INGREDIENT then RESULT", it means "if RESULT then INGREDIENT".

lolwhut? My point is that there is no one "ingredient" that says "this will always happen" regardless of other ingredients. That's what YOU tried to say.


It doesn't explain how some wealthy (as defined by you and not me, but whatever) countries have poor civil rights because it doesn't claim to. You're criticizing a screwdriver for not being a hammer.

Well, no. You specifically stated that poor countries have poor human rights records, and I agreed. That was never my argument to begin with.


You believe we had all our freedoms with the signing of the Constitution.

I believe we should have, at that point.


This is not correct, in the same way that a promise of a hamburger will not feed the hungry man.

Well no shit. If it was correct, suffrage and civil rights never would have happened. I could get in to where these things were necessary because we didn't follow the Constitution to begin with, and passed unconstitutional laws that eventually required such things to fix, but I think that horse has had enough beatings.


Chiefly, that Muslims are (or could possibly be) in any way distinct from any other arbitrary grouping of humans. Muslim is no more a fundamental group than Christian or black or American. There are only humans. If you feed them, they smile. If you starve them, they scowl.

Once they're all fed, that metric no longer applies. Try to catch up to the real world.

[Ker_Thwap]

Thondalar, you're a shitty communicator. That is why people don't understand you. You say that you don't trust Muslims, and that gays aren't normal. Then you surround those statements by "I'm not even Christian" and go on to defend the Christians. All of these things add context to your statements.

We can't understand you, because you specifically say things that are illogical, and then you say "but I meant them logically!" That's just not how it works. We can only judge you by the words you write in the common language we share.

Latrin is right, you don't even know what the word normal means. Sexual preference, being Muslim, being Christian, being shitty at debate; these are all single elements of a human being. Humans are complex creatures, there is more to a human than any single element. Face it, your "the race would die out" argument was really stupid. You're coming across as an insensitive little flower who is scared of certain people who are different from you, when you write stupid things when you're drunk.

As for the science thing. I'd go with Aristotle specifically as the father of logic (the early Greeks as a whole weren't great with actual science), then the Golden Age of Islam, then Al-Biruni specifically then the western Europeans got into the game, and then Bacon who worked out a better scientific method.

[Back]

We can't understand you, because you specifically say things that are illogical, and then you say "but I meant them logically!" That's just not how it works. We can only judge you by the words you write in the common language we share.

Speak for yourself from that high horse.

[Ker_Thwap]

Speak for yourself from that high horse.

Damnit, Back got me.

Queue the high horse meme.

[Grey]

I understood. We, you and the queen.

[Ker_Thwap]

I understood. We, you and the queen.

We are amused.

[Latrinsorm]

I proffer that "mainstream" Islam still doesn't live up to the standards of American freedom. Until this hurdle is conquered, I will always be distrustful.Do you distrust Africans?
Ah, Latrin. I really do love you, man. I wish...wish beyond wishes...that everything wasn't so binary for you. You would have a much better understanding of the real world. Let me attempt to shine some light...you reference introvert vs. extrovert...tall vs. short....smart vs. dumb...where, on your chart, is a tall, dumb, extrovert, gay Hispanic growing up in a predominately Asian neighborhood, with an abusive father?Seven-dimensional charts are difficult for three-dimensional humans to visualize, I know I can't manage it, but the short answer is on the fringe, where the fringe is defined as those areas distant (in any direction) from the seven-dimensional mean. Some of the categories you cite have skewed distributions instead of symmetrical or are multimodal, but the same principle applies. Standard deviation isn't some deviant philosophy I cooked up, I promise. :D
More specifically, as a strict empiricist you're absolutely clueless about social issues for which there is only incomplete empirical data.Empirical data is by definition incomplete. This is true for all sciences, yet all sciences prevail. This is the second hardest hurdle for rationalists to clear, but I have faith in you.
So what you're saying is, even though we have documented, recorded historical evidence of "scientists" by any modern or historical definition of the word using science to come to scientific conclusions and advancing science thousands of years before Islam was even a religion...Muslims invented science because Latrin said they did? And the fact that Newton studied mathematicians before him, Muslim and not, means Muslims invented science?Not any, just any that you agree with. The definition of science as fundamentally empirical, for example, begins with the Islamic world. Newton was an empiricist, and so he broke from European(/Greek) rationalism and followed(/copied) Islamic empiricism.
I dispute that they always cause cancer.That's the point of the analogy!!! I never said or implied that wealth always causes freedom, I explicitly used terminology that reflects the scenario described in my sweet logic table.
I believe we should have, at that point.If I ever make an argument linking a polity's wealth to when it should have been free, you have my blessing to bring up the United States as a counterpoint.
Once they're all fed, that metric no longer applies. Try to catch up to the real world.Your position is that there is no hunger in the real world, especially that part of the real world populated by however it is you're defining mainstream Muslims?

[Atlanteax]

Apple is all aboard on the politically correct bandwagon (probably Tim Cook's directive)

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/15/siri-shuts-down-anyone-who-tries-to-call-caitlyn-jenner-bruce/21209745/


Siri just got sassy in the best way possible. We now forgive the voice in our iPhones for dishing out the attitude when we ask her certain questions such as the result of zero divided by zero.

This is because the iPhone queen has officially asserted the proper way to address transgender Olympic medalist Caitlyn Jenner. While Jenner used to go by Bruce, she now refers to herself as Caitlyn.

Siri honors the former athlete's change by insisting that iPhone users refer to Jenner as Caitlyn. If you ask Siri any questions about "Bruce Jenner," she immediately corrects you, asserting that Jenner's name is Caitlyn.