I'm back...
-
Paul Watson wrote: And Anna will need to learn to grow a thick skin IMO, better from a smart guy like Jason than some inbred jerkoff. I prefer the term "asshole", thank you very much... ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I prefer the term "asshole", thank you very much... :-D Well then, in that case, how about a nice country melody[^] to celebrate what you are. :-) Regards, Alvaro
Well done is better than well said. -- Benjamin Franklin (I actually prefer medium-well.)
-
Jason Henderson wrote: but when someone makes a choice in life that you don't agree with, sometimes you need to let them learn on their own. I really cannot resist this. What do you foresee Anna learning? That her choice was wrong and misguided? No arguement here, just wondering. Jason Henderson wrote: Let's replace honest with vocal. LOL ok in that case it changes things quite drastically and I agree. Stay honest, but not always quite so vocal... *Paul repeats this 1000 times*
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: What do you foresee Anna learning? That her choice was wrong and misguided? No arguement here, just wondering. I was being more hypothetical than referring directly to AJM. Although I do think this will be a learning experience for AJM, I'm not sure what will be learned from it. Some people are able to learn from mistakes while others just learn to make more of them.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I prefer the term "asshole", thank you very much... :-D Well then, in that case, how about a nice country melody[^] to celebrate what you are. :-) Regards, Alvaro
Well done is better than well said. -- Benjamin Franklin (I actually prefer medium-well.)
-
I don't "reserve" spite for anybody in particular, and believe me - what I posted is severely edited and toned down from what I was originally going to post because even *I* considered it a little over the top. I observed my own etiquette, and I try not to say anything I will regret later. I am of the opinion that Andy doesn't look anything like a female - at all - not even close. Being honest isn't a "talent", but it's mighty damn scarce any more. So scare in fact, that it's considered rude and unacceptable to say anything that might even hint at being an honest statement. It takes a lot more effort to lie or be politically correct (which is a truth wrapped with a lie) than it does to be truthful, and being less than honest doesn't do anyone any good. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I don't "reserve" spite for anybody in particular, and believe me - what I posted is severely edited and toned down from what I was originally going to post because even *I* considered it a little over the top. If you think I will give you any credit at all for that, forget it. You are a spiteful creature without a thought for anyone's feelings. You are arrogant enough to believe you have the right to say what the hell you like to anyone you like regardless of the consequences. You lack empathy and you demonstrate culpable indifference to the effects your vitriol can have. I just hope nothing ever happens to finally tip you over the edge into becoming the mad axeman we all know you are capable of becoming. And yes, you can quote me on that. John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: ...being less than honest doesn't do anyone any good. If your opinion is asked for/appreciated - do you see the difference? "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I don't "reserve" spite for anybody in particular, and believe me - what I posted is severely edited and toned down from what I was originally going to post because even *I* considered it a little over the top. If you think I will give you any credit at all for that, forget it. You are a spiteful creature without a thought for anyone's feelings. You are arrogant enough to believe you have the right to say what the hell you like to anyone you like regardless of the consequences. You lack empathy and you demonstrate culpable indifference to the effects your vitriol can have. I just hope nothing ever happens to finally tip you over the edge into becoming the mad axeman we all know you are capable of becoming. And yes, you can quote me on that. John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: ...being less than honest doesn't do anyone any good. If your opinion is asked for/appreciated - do you see the difference? "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
phykell wrote: If you think I will give you any credit at all for that, forget it. I wasn't looking for "credit", I was merely stating a fact. phykell wrote: You are a spiteful creature without a thought for anyone's feelings. You forgot "vengeful". phykell wrote: You are arrogant enough to believe you have the right to say what the hell you like to anyone you like regardless of the consequences. Exactly. I have the freedom to say what I want, when I want, to whomever I want, as long as I don't infringe on their right to do the same. I concern myself with other people's feelings when they've demonstrated that it's worth my time. phykell wrote: You lack empathy and you demonstrate culpable indifference to the effects your vitriol can have. Oh give me a break. You think I care if someone that's already whacked out anyway thinks I'm mean-spirited, harsh, rude, or half-crazy myself? I'm not the one wallowing in self-pity and begging for acceptance and "tolerance" from anyone that cares to breathe in my direction. phykell wrote: I just hope nothing ever happens to finally tip you over the edge into becoming the mad axeman we all know you are capable of becoming. From the looks of things, I'm the LAST person you have to worry about where the deep end is concerned. Besides, how do you know I *haven't* gone over the edge already? ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
phykell wrote: If you think I will give you any credit at all for that, forget it. I wasn't looking for "credit", I was merely stating a fact. phykell wrote: You are a spiteful creature without a thought for anyone's feelings. You forgot "vengeful". phykell wrote: You are arrogant enough to believe you have the right to say what the hell you like to anyone you like regardless of the consequences. Exactly. I have the freedom to say what I want, when I want, to whomever I want, as long as I don't infringe on their right to do the same. I concern myself with other people's feelings when they've demonstrated that it's worth my time. phykell wrote: You lack empathy and you demonstrate culpable indifference to the effects your vitriol can have. Oh give me a break. You think I care if someone that's already whacked out anyway thinks I'm mean-spirited, harsh, rude, or half-crazy myself? I'm not the one wallowing in self-pity and begging for acceptance and "tolerance" from anyone that cares to breathe in my direction. phykell wrote: I just hope nothing ever happens to finally tip you over the edge into becoming the mad axeman we all know you are capable of becoming. From the looks of things, I'm the LAST person you have to worry about where the deep end is concerned. Besides, how do you know I *haven't* gone over the edge already? ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: You forgot "vengeful". I'm fighting a losing battle because you probably regard that as one of your virtues. John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Exactly. I have the freedom to say what I want, when I want, to whomever I want, as long as I don't infringe on their right to do the same. I concern myself with other people's feelings when they've demonstrated that it's worth my time. Hey, here's a suggestion. How about you concern yourself with other peoples' feelings UNLESS they've demonstrated that they're not worth your time. Look at it as a chance for enlightenment. You'll probably be surprised at how many more (meaning > zero) people will like you. John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Oh give me a break. You think I care if someone that's already whacked out anyway thinks I'm mean-spirited, harsh, rude, or half-crazy myself? I'm not the one wallowing in self-pity and begging for acceptance and "tolerance" from anyone that cares to breathe in my direction. No, I don't think you care at all, and that's just the problem. Just because you don't know a person doesn't mean you shouldn't care about them. Personally, I don't know whether Anna is "wallowing in self-pity" or not, but more to the point, you don't either. It's absolutely and painfully obvious that the only reason you added anything to this thread was to deliberately upset another human being. If this is the case, and I don't see how it can't be from the evidence, you are beneath contempt I'm afraid and I'm wasting my bandwidth. I just hope you have some good points - perhaps you're kind to animals or something... "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
I don't "reserve" spite for anybody in particular, and believe me - what I posted is severely edited and toned down from what I was originally going to post because even *I* considered it a little over the top. I observed my own etiquette, and I try not to say anything I will regret later. I am of the opinion that Andy doesn't look anything like a female - at all - not even close. Being honest isn't a "talent", but it's mighty damn scarce any more. So scare in fact, that it's considered rude and unacceptable to say anything that might even hint at being an honest statement. It takes a lot more effort to lie or be politically correct (which is a truth wrapped with a lie) than it does to be truthful, and being less than honest doesn't do anyone any good. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
Being honest isn't a "talent", but it's mighty damn scarce any more. Amen to that! While I don't agree that your original post was necessary, I do admire your honesty. Although I find a him becoming a her troubling myself (I should, I was born and raised in the sticks to parents that are intolerant of many things and thus have a whole vocabulary of offensive slang), I am a Christian man, and shall try my best not to pass judgement on Anna, or anybody for that matter, it is not my place to do so. Brad Jennings
-
Today is my first day back at work as me. Everybody's been great and I feel totally at ease (though I was pretty nervous when I arrived!). "Andy" is well and truly gone now. :) As you can imagine, Christmas was pretty strange this year (I transitioned on Christmas Day) and being offline with no phone or internet connection I had to be rather creative to keep myself busy. After getting bored earlier this week I managed to put my coding head on for a while, as a result of which I've got a new version of ResOrg[^] in the pipeline, with support for (at last!) multi-file conflict analysis. :cool: There's still a lot to do before I dare let it out the door, but so far it looks like a very useful update on the last version (1.4.2). Watch this space... Anna :rose: My cable modem and phone are being installed on Wednesday, so here's to broadband! :beer: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
While I do not agree with your life decision, I respect you as a fellow programmer. Welcome to CP Anna. Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone Mon (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
-
There's just some things that a makeover can't hide though - he looks like a guy wearing a dress. Okay, how about this for "constructive"... He should wear mens clothes, cut his hair, and stop wearing makeup. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
John for once just shut up. I'm fed up with your insults. :mad: Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Bite me, you dickhead frog. I actually posted that I did not want responses. "Trolling" is most definitely something I do not do. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
Please John Simmons, can we exercise a bit more diplomacy? You don't necessarily have to react so aggressively if someone has offended you. John, I also agree this Anna/Andy thing is not right. We are entitled to this opinion. But the expression of such opinions can be done in a civil manner.
-
I'm not going to talk about religion here - there are thousands of resources out there that cover all of it in depth. Stan Shannon wrote: What is the difference? A lot. Are you familiar with section 28 that was created by the Thatcher government to stop local governments from supporting GLBT individuals and groups? This was passed by a govenment, and at the time it very much put into words the beliefs of a large porition of this country. It's aim was to stop gays from "recruiting" heterosexuals. Most of the people who believed that was actually possible still do so today. If you educate people properly so they can make their own minds up than that is all that can be asked of them. The reason each generation is getting more and more tollerant (in astounding proportions) is because each generation is faced and educated with these issues more and more. Everybody out there knows at least one GLBT person - even if they don't realise that person is GLBT. Not everyone has the courage, or indeeds wants to, take their true selfs public (whether to their friends and family, or in her case all of her peers and us lot), but even from the limited number of CodeProject members I know more than just the name of I know for a fact we have three gay, one lesbian and one transexual in the top one hundred most active members alone - and you could probably name every one of them if I told you just their message sigs. The state should not have any differing views for GLBTs than heterosexuals - it shouldn't have anything to be intollerant (or more tollerant) towards.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
David Wulff wrote: If you educate people properly so they can make their own minds up than that is all that can be asked of them Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". A society which teaches that homosexuality is immoral and anti-homosexuality is the preferred norm is no less "moral" than one which teaches that homosexuality is normal and anti-homosexuality is perverse. In either case, people are being indoctrinated into a particular world view based on religious, faith based, sentiments. What really is at issue here is a self proclaimed intellectual elite deciding for the rest of us what is moral and what is not, and using the power of the state to force their views on society at large. Personnally, I don't like having morality forced upon me or my children by anyone, includeing well meaning, liberated new-agers. I am under no moral obligation to be tolerant of gays or anyone else who's behavior I find objectionable. I'll decide these issues for myself, thank you very much all the same. :rose: "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
While I do not agree with your life decision, I respect you as a fellow programmer. Welcome to CP Anna. Brad Jennings My latest nickname: Kidney Stone Mon (Nickname courtesy of my roommates)
Thank you Brad. :) Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
David Wulff wrote: If you educate people properly so they can make their own minds up than that is all that can be asked of them Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". A society which teaches that homosexuality is immoral and anti-homosexuality is the preferred norm is no less "moral" than one which teaches that homosexuality is normal and anti-homosexuality is perverse. In either case, people are being indoctrinated into a particular world view based on religious, faith based, sentiments. What really is at issue here is a self proclaimed intellectual elite deciding for the rest of us what is moral and what is not, and using the power of the state to force their views on society at large. Personnally, I don't like having morality forced upon me or my children by anyone, includeing well meaning, liberated new-agers. I am under no moral obligation to be tolerant of gays or anyone else who's behavior I find objectionable. I'll decide these issues for myself, thank you very much all the same. :rose: "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". Isn't that true of everything though? Even learning to read or write? When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. -- If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? Can you control your emotional, afectionate or sexual attraction? It's not a conscious descision you make - it's no different from a persons race in terms of the individual. And it is no different to what is commonly associated with apartheid and South Africa - a sizable proportion of your own community are being segregated through political, legal, social, and economic discrimination against nonheterosexuals rather than nonwhites. We're not talking fox hunting here, we are talking about how people are empowered to express their views and themselves - you don't have to agree with it itself to agree with the cause. Isn't that what freedom of speech and equality for all is about? :~ The suicide rated amongst even questioning teenagers is unaceptable for any society that bases itself on those two key principles, let alone the hundreds of thousands of others who have take their lives to escape the apartheid. Take a look at Marcus Wayman's death - and he wasn't even gay. (http://www.marcuswayman.org[^]). Then give me a :rose:. :(
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
Personally, anyone that has enough conviction to take on what Anna did deserves alot of credit. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it, but you should atleast recognize the strength that it took to achieve what she did. With all the potential losses that could have come from this (job/familly/freinds/etc...) she stuck with it and followed through. Cheers, and good luck is all I have to say. And to think that I still can't decide what kind of a tatoo I would want...
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Thanks Ray. I can honestly say that everyone I know has accepted that this is something I need to sort out for myself, and been understanding and supportive. I'm not particularly surprised that guys seem to have a harder time comprehending it. Maybe that's partly due to upbringing and the "macho" ehos, and maybe its because I'm leaving the "team"...I really don't know. One thing I do know though is that guys I don't know make me very nervous. There's a very real threat of violence and abuse out there for people in my position, and most of it comes from guys. What makes it worse is that threat would still be there even if I hadn't transitioned...all it takes is for someone to know. I have absolutely no time for bigots and if I ever meet one face to face he'll be in no doubt what I think of him. I'm not doing this for fun, but because I couldn't carry on living another way. I'm sick of hiding and anyone who can't accept what I need to do...well it's their problem. Thanks again. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Yes, but if you make a religion of being "tolerant" than what have you achieved? You can't be intolerant of intolerance and still be tolerant. You end up with a world just as intolerant as what you started with. Its just that the targets of intolerance have changed. Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? Forbidding intolerance doesn't mean to force to be tolerant, it's not boolean. There's also the "it's not your business" attitude.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, but one person's "education" is another's "indoctrination". Isn't that true of everything though? Even learning to read or write? When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. -- If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? Can you control your emotional, afectionate or sexual attraction? It's not a conscious descision you make - it's no different from a persons race in terms of the individual. And it is no different to what is commonly associated with apartheid and South Africa - a sizable proportion of your own community are being segregated through political, legal, social, and economic discrimination against nonheterosexuals rather than nonwhites. We're not talking fox hunting here, we are talking about how people are empowered to express their views and themselves - you don't have to agree with it itself to agree with the cause. Isn't that what freedom of speech and equality for all is about? :~ The suicide rated amongst even questioning teenagers is unaceptable for any society that bases itself on those two key principles, let alone the hundreds of thousands of others who have take their lives to escape the apartheid. Take a look at Marcus Wayman's death - and he wasn't even gay. (http://www.marcuswayman.org[^]). Then give me a :rose:. :(
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sorry, Dave, but I pretty much reject your arguments out of hand. David Wulff wrote: When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? David Wulff wrote: If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? I have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject of apartheid one way or the other. If what you were talking about is disallowing the state from acting in such a way, than I heartily concur. That is, I have no problem with the state's right to discriminate being infringed. It is a legal, not a moral issue. There is a big difference. However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. Teen suicide? I nearly did it once, over a girl. In the final analysis, I simply did not have a suicidal personality. Some people do. Marcus Wayman was at risk, and would have been at risk regardless of being accused of homosexuality. How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? It is a complex issue that needs real science and not political posturing. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Yes, but if you make a religion of being "tolerant" than what have you achieved? You can't be intolerant of intolerance and still be tolerant. You end up with a world just as intolerant as what you started with. Its just that the targets of intolerance have changed. Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan, I don't expect others to agree with what I know I have to do..or pretend it's anything "normal". I'm me, and no one else. I just ask for the freedom to live my life my way and not be persecuted or abused for doing so. Tolerance (at a personal level) makes this more likely. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Sorry, Dave, but I pretty much reject your arguments out of hand. David Wulff wrote: When you choose to live in a society you must choose to live by *their* rules not your own. Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? David Wulff wrote: If I said apartheid, would you say it was right or wrong, morally, ethically, or by any other set of guidelines *you* may follow? Now what about those people that don't follow those same guidelines, should they be ignored and allowed to continue segregating their own friends, family and communities based merely on, in this case, a persons continual emotional attraction? I have no moral or ethical opinion on the subject of apartheid one way or the other. If what you were talking about is disallowing the state from acting in such a way, than I heartily concur. That is, I have no problem with the state's right to discriminate being infringed. It is a legal, not a moral issue. There is a big difference. However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. Teen suicide? I nearly did it once, over a girl. In the final analysis, I simply did not have a suicidal personality. Some people do. Marcus Wayman was at risk, and would have been at risk regardless of being accused of homosexuality. How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? It is a complex issue that needs real science and not political posturing. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? I should have added to the end of that sentace "and if not it is your duty to yourself to change them". I don't agree with the cutting off of one's hand for stealing, but unless I am willing to contest it it will go on. As you say, there is no authorative guide, only what people choose form themselves. Stan Shannon wrote: However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. No, I am arguing that people should be given the *chance* to get all the information before deciding on a topic, and moreso in the smaller more traditional communities where ignorance breeds intollerance like a sewer. Whether on sexuality, race, class - it doesn't matter. Stan Shannon wrote: How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? Firstly, homosexuality has not been considered a mental or emotional disorder by the top medical and mental authorities in America since the seventies. I don't *think* you were hinting at that, but I'll state it for the record. Secondly, the cause of the problems is intollerance - moreso the subtle form than in-you-face. The cause is fear the like of which you will hopefully never know, no self esteem at all because you are constantly faced with the realisation that the people you know and love would hate you for something you cannot change, shame and a dispairation bred through a persons view that they are not worth the life they occupy, and in many cases severe physical harm through violence and and in some cases torture. You say you almost commited suicide over a girl - a laughably minor problem if you look at it in the third person - but doing so over yourself is a totally different thing altogether: you don't want to end it all to get away from the despair, you want to end it all to end yourself to stop the despair. I doubt even now you can put yourself into that mindset and truely understand it. I know this for an undisputable fact because I've met, have talked w
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Should people who are intolerant of GLBT be forced by the state to tolerate them? Where is the tolerance in that? Why not just have the state be intolerant of the GLBT's. What is the difference? Forbidding intolerance doesn't mean to force to be tolerant, it's not boolean. There's also the "it's not your business" attitude.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Absolutely! But that does not support either argument. The question is what are the rules and who gets to set them - a moral police force or the traditional, commonly held moral values of an established society? I should have added to the end of that sentace "and if not it is your duty to yourself to change them". I don't agree with the cutting off of one's hand for stealing, but unless I am willing to contest it it will go on. As you say, there is no authorative guide, only what people choose form themselves. Stan Shannon wrote: However, you are talking about just the opposite. You are argueing for a top down, state based moral authoritarianism, in preference to a grass roots, bottom up set of commonly accepted and traditional set of moral rules and standards of conduct. No, I am arguing that people should be given the *chance* to get all the information before deciding on a topic, and moreso in the smaller more traditional communities where ignorance breeds intollerance like a sewer. Whether on sexuality, race, class - it doesn't matter. Stan Shannon wrote: How do you know that what ever causes homosexuality also might cause general emotional instability and that results in a higher suicide rate? Firstly, homosexuality has not been considered a mental or emotional disorder by the top medical and mental authorities in America since the seventies. I don't *think* you were hinting at that, but I'll state it for the record. Secondly, the cause of the problems is intollerance - moreso the subtle form than in-you-face. The cause is fear the like of which you will hopefully never know, no self esteem at all because you are constantly faced with the realisation that the people you know and love would hate you for something you cannot change, shame and a dispairation bred through a persons view that they are not worth the life they occupy, and in many cases severe physical harm through violence and and in some cases torture. You say you almost commited suicide over a girl - a laughably minor problem if you look at it in the third person - but doing so over yourself is a totally different thing altogether: you don't want to end it all to get away from the despair, you want to end it all to end yourself to stop the despair. I doubt even now you can put yourself into that mindset and truely understand it. I know this for an undisputable fact because I've met, have talked w
David Wulff wrote: Care if I ask how you base your descision? Is it on experience, 'the law of the land', your religious beliefs? I'm only curious, I can't argue to change them. I am an instinctive heretic. Growing up in a small town on the Southern great plains - the buckle of the bible belt - I argued with one and all that humans were evolved from apes, and other heresies. I didn't beleive a word of the bible and still don't - although I now appreciate the importance of religion to human culture. I am also fairly well educated on issues which pertain to this discussion. I know, for example, that a gene, recessive or not, which minimizes the probability of a viable off spring will not last long in a gene pool. The fact that the "science" surrounding this issues ignores this basic, irrefutable, fact makes me highly suspicious of all of it. I think it is science in the service of a moral agenda and not in the service of furthering our understanding of anything. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
