Political correctness can kill

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Valkenar wrote:
The fact is that minimal is a word a lot of people use, but doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.
Clearly people within even a single political movement will disagree, Justin. This is why it takes a charismatic individual to herd the voting cats on election day. And it's why we have the expression about laws and sausages.

We can however cluster people together in terms of the relative degree to which they want social or economic security vs. social or economic liberty. I suspect that Ralph Nader, Jerry Falwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Joseph Stalin would be happier in separate tents. But each would have a unique and enthusiastic following of like-minded individuals.

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"Rand Paul says he believes life begins at conception. Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't."

Well, he either believes it, and he's a threat to access to medical care for women all over, or he's lying, and if he doesn't go along with it the anti-abortion wing will hold him responsible and his support from them (likely necessary) will lead to a short lived stay in Washington. And I don't "play" to hispanics with illegals living in their homes; I'm not running for office, I'm not making phony statements (and many hispanics are just concerned with how illegals are treated and you know, don't have a six pack of them in the attic). I don't "play" to my gay friends, either; I make statements in which I believe. Your willingness to get yer panties in a bind over a few newspeople playing the newspeople game with news from Paul and then to happily dismiss a rather extreme position here as merely dishonest politics on the basis of a hunch is, um, inconsistent. I think we should hold people to what they say, especially on cautiously prepared official websites. Call me crazy.

"Rand Paul does this by suggesting he'll get the federal government out of the abortion equation."

No, he said he would support a ban across the entire nation. This puts him to the right of Antonin Scalia, who, stare decisis be damned, would overturn Roe v Wade to return this issue to the states--not to decide it for them.

"However I also think we should avoid legislating morality on the federal level."

This distaste for legislating morality must explain why you support restricting the right of progressive churches to marry gay people :roll:

"But I don't like it when you tell my Christian friends how they should live or what they should believe."

Let's be clear here. All of these politics type threads are a series of opinions of different people telling others what their views are, and trying to defend them, ie show they are right. I do it. You do it. And I support the right of people to believe in a, say, evangelical or islamic diety, and practice marriage inequality, whether I think they're looney tunes or not; I don't go supporting legislation on a local, state, or federal level to prevent them from marrying consenting adults while claiming I don't like legislating morality and government intrusion in private or church affairs. C'mon.

And how you continually rebuke me for supporting marriage equality and keeping Rand Paul from banning abortion and possibly hormonal birth control then swing back to lecturing me about freedom and keeping my hands off others I really don't get.

Panther, your anarchist ideas are kinda interesting. But I and most people don't buy that pure libertarian philosophy will do it. For one, their support of a level playing field for straight and gay marriage will cause straight couples to become brain loving zombies, and fights over available brains will inevitably lead to divorce, and the end of straight marriage.
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

IJ wrote:
Well, he either believes it, and he's a threat to access to medical care for women all over....
How can you say that, Ian? Sometimes I have to wonder about your logic, and your penchant for presuming the beliefs of others.

If an individual happen to believe that life begins at conception, well then that's their business - and not yours!!! It isn't up to you to impugn others for beliefs that are largely subjective and philosophical. Meanwhile... that in no way means that said individual wants to take reproductive choices away from another individual.

My dear friend... were you aware that all (100 percent) of the sitting justices are either Catholic or Jewish? That would also include the most recent nominee. Are you familiar with Catholic dogma? And yet SCOTUS (for now) considers Rowe vs. Wade settled law. How could that be???
IJ wrote:
Bill Glasheen wrote:
However I also think we should avoid legislating morality on the federal level.
This distaste for legislating morality must explain why you support restricting the right of progressive churches to marry gay people :roll:
Nice try, Ian.

I understand how Jews, Christians, and Muslims can object to others redefining their thousands-of-years-old dogma in ways that suit themselves, and then asking for said "progressive" dogma to be enforced at a federal level. It would be like me taking up the offer of this SPAM I keep getting from organizations that want to offer me a PhD in martial arts. WTF is that??? It offends me. I have a PhD in biomedical engineering. Why do I want someone to create one in martial arts? I'd rather be offered a renshi, kyoshi, and hanshi. Apples and oranges.

I have no objection to same sex legal unions. Just call it a same sex legal union, create your own thing, give it a new word if you wish, and leave others to their heterosexual institutions.

Just to be clear... I often find myself defending the rights of others to have beliefs THAT I DON'T SHARE! That's absolutely true in this case - on many of the discussed issues. And to me, I'm sometimes shocked at your lack of empathy (tolerance) towards others and their beliefs. You're asking for YOUR views to be legislated at a federal level. I don't get that. If I was gay and I wanted to live happily, I'd seek out a political paradigm that allowed for my minority views in a pluralistic society. That means keeping social issues out of governmental jurisdiction.

I take it you'll never agree with me, Ian. What-ever... I don't lose sleep over it, and I still love you.

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"How can you say that, Ian? Sometimes I have to wonder about your logic, and your penchant for presuming the beliefs of others."

Let's make the process abundantly clear. Here we go:

"If an individual happen to believe that life begins at conception, well then that's their business - and not yours!!! It isn't up to you to impugn others for beliefs that are largely subjective and philosophical."

Right, politicians beliefs are none of my (our) business--I guess we should only focus on their hair color? Of course it's my business. It's my right to state that I disagree with him, for one; we discuss issues like this all the time (to clarify, I believe "human life" is continuous, whereas the point at which "a" human life begins is more subjective). Beyond that, of course it matters what he thinks about this--he's already said he would use the Constitution to ban abortion for the entire United States. I didn't impugn him for disagreeing with me, I do impugn him for using the Constitution for that purpose.

"My dear friend... were you aware that all (100 percent) of the sitting justices are either Catholic or Jewish? That would also include the most recent nominee. Are you familiar with Catholic dogma? And yet SCOTUS (for now) considers Rowe vs. Wade settled law. How could that be???"

1) some of them aren't "Catholic" beyond the cultural sense; as the administration put it, Sotomayor was "raised Catholic."

2) The SCOTUS view on Rowe v Wade is hanging by a thread, actually, and Scalia and Thomas would reverse it, I believe Roberts and Alito might as well but would need to refresh my memory on specific comments. It's widely felt this is a 5-4 margin.

3) some justices believe in stare decisis; as I already mentioned, not all do, eg, Scalia.

That's how.

It's worth noting here that their job is to intrepret existing law, like Roe; Rand Paul's job would be to make law. And he clearly said he opposes abortion rights and would use the law to forbid abortion. His views suggest he might also oppose any birth control that might cost us a fertilized egg. Note that abortion is a medical procedure, definitely medical care when required for health reasons; that includes some unfortunate but rare late term abortions. Thus, obviously, per his own admission, he would use law to threaten access to (abortive) medical care for women all over the USA.

Let me kow if I lost you anywhere along the way.

"I understand how Jews, Christians, and Muslims can object to others redefining their thousands-of-years-old dogma in ways that suit themselves, and then asking for said "progressive" dogma to be enforced at a federal level."

If you really believed in hands off libertarian government, you would see that no one is enforcing progressive dogma at the federal level. Merely, I seek to prevent conservative religious dogma at the federal level. If I got a gay marriage, it does not redefine an islamic marriage. If I had the right to a gay marriage, it does not obligate orthodox Jews to do a darned thing. Merely, it is the admission of the government that conservative religious groups cannot tell progressive religious groups how to live their lives. Are you, or are you not, a hands off libertarian?

Let's make another point here, right away: your major deal here is that marriage is a religious institution. Yet civil marriages are performed day in and day out all across the USA, from Massachusetts to Alabama. You have never once told me that you cared. People drunk off their arses get married to near strangers on a whim in Vegas; you've never once told me you think that should be outlawed. Both of these things are also deeply against Catholic ideology, yet they're ok. What's up with that? A completely a-religious wedding is ok, but then when two guys want to get married (in a freakin' Christian church that has welcomed them for years and heck, may even have a gay BISHOP), you're up in arms to forbid it? Hmmm.

"It would be like me taking up the offer of this SPAM I keep getting from organizations that want to offer me a PhD in martial arts."

No, not remotely. If you don't want a martial PhD, don't get one; if youi don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. You want to make it ILLEGAL for a dojo to offer a PhD in martial arts (assume for a minute they went through some accreditation process and the person had studied for a decade)? This isn't too far fetched--the BJJ people call their teachers PROFESSOR and they hand out purple and red belts. Is it unreasonable that Gracie Barra might want to annoint a PhD in BJJ to someone who's worked 8 hours a week or more most of it in direct combat for the last 30 years? Shall we elect Rand to write a Constitutional amendment to ban that merely because it offends us? Are you going to back me up when I write an amendment to ban smoking because it offends me?

"I have no objection to same sex legal unions. Just call it a same sex legal union, create your own thing, give it a new word if you wish, and leave others to their heterosexual institutions."

Leave you to your heterosexual institutions? Really, Bill? You think I want to legalize gay marriage then break down the door to your bedroom or church and... what? Do what to your institution? C'mon. Your heterosexual marriages are (ostensibly) ordained by God, how can I mess that up? And good of you to point out this is a "heterosexual" institution not a religious one--we're well aware that you haven't come out against atheist marriage. Case in point: me. You wouldn't ban me from marrying a woman, if I so chose. I dated two in high school, and a former BF is married, so this is quite possible. But the both of us are atheists, and yet, there we would be: married. What further proof do we need that the Catholic, Jewish, Islamic sensibilities we're talking about are actually just heterosexual sensibilities?? Mmmhmmm. Let an atheist communist "marry;" tell a god fearing christian couple who attend church weekly they have to get a "civil union" instead because marriage is a religious institution! Har!

"I don't get that. If I was gay and I wanted to live happily, I'd seek out a political paradigm that allowed for my minority views in a pluralistic society."

What if you were one of the few first Jews or Muslims in this country and the government didn't recognize your marriage? You'd be totally cool with a civil union? Really?

"That means keeping social issues out of governmental jurisdiction."

Well, as I've stated over and over, I WOULD excise the government from "marriage;" let churches decide (welcoming and exclusionary BOTH) who gets married, and the government would ignore those unions and offer civil unions without discrimination. UNTIL the USA is that enlightened, then I support equality. Is equality such an awful situation to be in?

"And to me, I'm sometimes shocked at your lack of empathy (tolerance) towards others and their beliefs."

You're misusing the word. What view am I intolerant of? Merely that traditional religions currently can control my entry into a government sanctioned marriage on equal footing with straight people. I may berate biblical literalism, for example, but I'm not interested in banning it. My intolerance is intolerance only of intolerance. I am only trying to ban a ban. And I can't believe that you, supposedly a libertarian, are "shocked" that I believe conservative religious people should not be able to control my life, and prevent me from having the same access to whatever government says are the benefits of marriage. Empathy and tolerance, in this case, means that THEY allow others to do their own thing and I follow suit; empathy and tolerance does not mean that they enforce discrimination and I acquiesce because I'm supposed to be nice in response.

Live and let live. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. And ask conservative religious people where their tolerance went on this issue.
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I hope you're having a good day, Ian. 8)

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

You too Bill. It's been stressful in the hospital. My marital status hasn't impacted my psychological well being thusfar. You may be interested in the following news clip from the Eastern Daily:

Pan Asian Martial Arts Committee calls for limiting traditional titles to Asians

May 20, 2010, Okinawa

In Futenma today, representatives from kung fu, karate, and judo agreed on measures to protect traditional martial arts, calling for restriction of traditional titles like sifu, sensei, or hanshi to ethnic asians. "I think we all know these are Asian arts. This is where the tradition began, it is part of our culture, and these words have significant meaning here, and need to be protected," said Mr. Chun, a kung fu master from Beijing who traveled to Okinawa to meet with traditional rivals. "Karate, Kung fu, and Tae kwon do agree: protect traditional martial arts from non-Asian influence."

Critics from the USA and Europe noted that the titles are often given out as honorifics to people that haven't earned them. "If the title is so important, how are they calling someone a karate master after 8 years of study as a favor or to keep the peace within a fractious organization?" asked Mr. Schmidt, a karate expert with 25 years of experience who says he can't use the title of sensei and won't be awarded any honorifics from his Asia based colleagues. "If you want to protect traditional martial arts, have high standards for titles, with no exceptions, and encourage everyone, regardless of color, to participate and further the arts."

But a TKD grandmaster, speaking for the committee, said that they actively support equality. "If non-Asians want to have combat sports, that's fine. We want them to get paid, we want them to work, provided they can patch together some protections in local jurisdictions or with some lawyer's help. White combat artists could form their own institutions, and maybe call each other "teach" or "professor." But we need to protect martial arts, and we don't want our treasured titles redefined--leave Asian institutions to the Asians," said Mr. Lee.

--AP
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

IJ wrote:
calling for restriction of traditional titles like sifu, sensei, or hanshi to ethnic asians.
Oh that's just lovely.

Some of our American senior seniors were practicing in Okinawa when some of the present senior seniors in Okinawa were running around the dojo in diapers. Heck... Jim Thompson was studying in Futenma for a decade, and remembers all these current senior seniors as his peers on the dojo floor.

I agree there's a problem. But there's nothing like a stupid solution to turn a situation from bad to outright absurd. You know me, Ian. Never the shrinking violet.

Fortunately I have faith that good people from many races will see through the racism. I was on Thompson Island (circa 1984) when Uechi Kanei - in a speech - said the future of Uechi Ryu was in America. Now that's a good and humble man. Even if he was wrong, it shows that right-minded thinking lives.

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

No worries Bill, that's merely a fictitious clip I made up to argue for marriage equality by analogy... I do apologize if my fabrication seemed too real. Makes me worry about how easy it is to write "news"!
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

The analogy of sexual preference to race has been used many times. Personally I don't see it. It's apples and coke bottles to me.

Why some sexual (as opposed to asexual) creatures are wired to express intimacy with like gender is a bit of a mystery to me. Don't get me wrong. I'm far from a prude on the matter. I'm all for creatures enjoying their sexual nature in any way that shows respect for others. On the other hand, a preference away from what would lead to sexual reproduction is in many ways a curious anomaly.

But as I am want to say, it is what it is. As a species we survive dramatic environmental change because of our genetic and behavioral heterogeneity. That however can still lead to individual suffering at any one point in time.

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Analogies show similarities between dissimilar issues. In this case, there are obvious differences: race is who you are, genetically, although this is fuzzy, and sexual orientation is the attraction you feel, expressed through behavior. But there are a bunch of similarities.

Neither is chosen
There appears to be some degree of inheritance for both
Both inspire feelings of "other" and conflict
Both may be hidden to varying degrees
Both have been subject to discrimination
Both are secondary characteristics--they don't change the way you do Seisan, or the way you feel about your significant other

I remember reading a piece called "Passing for white, passing for black" in anthropology, and thinking, this is exactly my experience. The author had vague ethnic features and she would be considered black by blacks but mistaken for white and even told racist jokes by whites. Should she laugh along at the job interview? Should she fail to disclose when asked about home life? Should she try to "talk more black?" Would people think she had a weird motivation if she "came out?" I couldn't have described my experience as a mistaken for straight person with any more clarity.

As for my "news item," the stories go:

There is an institution traditionally engaged in by heterosexuals that nonheterosexuals want to share in as well. The nonheterosexuals have the ability to get the institution perfectly--loving, caring, long term, child rearing, even church going unions. They do it better than some heterosexuals who get divorced a dozen times or marry like Britney Spears or who abuse the kids or you name it. The heterosexuals often think they can have something separate but equal or nearly so, and don't want their institution extended to cover the nonheterosexuals. It's a debate whether that is "tradition" or homophobia.

There is an institution traditionally engaged in by Asians that nonasians want to share in as well. The nonasians have the ability to get the institution perfectly--dedicated, expert, long term mastery of martial arts. They do it better than some Asians who use the titles too freely or for politics rather than skills. The asians often think they can do the martial arts and call their titles something else with the same implications, and don't want their titles extended to non-Asians. It's a debate whether that is "tradition" or racism.*

The situations aren't identical but they seem analogous to me. If they aren't, at least I'm fairly certain you know what it feels like for someone to challenge your access to an institution you value because of a characteristic you deem irrelevant to the tasks at hand. And certainly I can do the things we expect of married couples. A lot better than a lot of marriage candidates or married people have done themselves. Certainly there seems to be no, or at minimum no compelling, state justification for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, whereas if we really cared about religious histories, child rearing, or stability we would have religious tests for eligibility, require proof of fertility / child planning or adoption plans, and seriously restrict divorce.

*Disclaimer: I know of not one Asian on earth who actually feels this way, personally; it's a hypothetical example.

I was going to link the following piece as an example of how a largely Catholic nation can get past these issues, but it's not that interesting. Instead, take a peek at the graph at "residency issues" showing a world map of gay policies by color coded country. Is this company we want to keep?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain
--Ian
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"On the other hand, a preference away from what would lead to sexual reproduction is in many ways a curious anomaly."

True. Must be something. Either it's an emergent property of other beneficial characteristics, like an ability to love and not just mate that promotes the survival of offspring but sometimes gets directed at nonprocreating partners, or maybe it helps relatives who pass on your genes for you, say, by providing some ability to form a better consensus or do some child rearing. These are speculations I've read elsewhere.

"As a species we survive dramatic environmental change because of our genetic and behavioral heterogeneity. That however can still lead to individual suffering at any one point in time."

No doubt--but the only suffering I have ever felt due to my species' odd journey have related to the usual acne of the teen years, inflammation of my useless vestigial appendix, and a propensity to low back pain I believe was more culture, fitness, and posutre related than a design flaw. Suffering from same sex partners? The same heartache (and joy) we all risk; beyond that nothing more than verbal, legal, and physical attacks from disapproving but less "anomalous" members of my species.
--Ian
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

The thing that makes heterosexual unions unique, Ian, is that "I want to have your baby" thing. Women feel it towards some men, and vice versa. With the heterosexual union, you create a legal contract which protects both parents should there be offspring, and the children as well. It's sociobiology, pure and simple. It increases the likelihood that offspring will get raised safely and with some sense of mental health. It's a sound framework for the survival of a species.

And yes, kids from whole families grow up smarter and are less likely to end up in jail. Don't believe me? Go to any prison. Poll the people there, and ask them if they had a daddy at home when they grew up. Compare that number with the general population. I rest my case.

Can individuals procreate outside the "traditional" bonds of heterosexual marriage? Absolutely. Happens all the time. But it's complicated. Single moms are extremely likely to live in poverty. And we the taxpayers end up subsidizing this nontraditional mess. No thank you. A very good GOVERNMENT reason to support child rearing within the legal contract of marriage is to prevent this leech-like behavior of the irresponsible. You know the story... The child is innocent and didn't ask to be brought into the world. We can punish the parents but we can't punish the child. And the child has a right to grow up with mom. And the law won't let us castrate the fathers and fix the moms, sooo... Check please! Blblblblblbl!!!!!!!

Can heterosexual individuals marry without any expectation of having children? Sure. Happens all the time. But should there be an Oops!!!, there is some protection for the innocent offspring.

There is precedent in The Bible for nontraditional unions should there be problems. For instance if your wife didn't bear children, you could procreate with one of your slaves. Works for me! 8)

These days, we don't have slavery.

I have dear lesbian friends who have bonded as couples, and ordered themselves some sperm from a high class sperm bank. Pay extra money, and you even get to see the individual interviewed on tape. I just went out to lunch a month ago with Tara, her partner, and Tara's brand new baby boy. Very cute.

Personally I though Tara could have done better, but... <Sigh....>

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

You lay out a case, Bill, and then you shoot it down... if marriage is about procreation, ok, but then you assume that same sex couples don't want the same, when many do (why would the urge be any different?). You even give the example of your friend who procreated within her same sex marriage. She didn't have to use a slave, she used a sperm bank, because times have changed (but thanks, Bible, for the slave rape suggestion).

I'm not clear on why you let infertile heterosexuals marry.

I'm not clear on why you let heterosexuals with no plan to have kids marry (sure, there's protection for the kid if they goof, but if protection for the kid were the issue, you'd WANT gays to marry for the sake of the kids they have or will have).

I'm not sure why you won't let gays marry with the plan to adopt.

And I'm not sure why your argument matters; we may buy cars to commute to work, but we're also permitted to buy them to race or take on a pleasure drive. A ride in the country on sunday doesn't prevent your marriage from driving to work.

And again, if protecting kids were the goal, we'd encourage any couple who could have kids adopted or biologic to marry, straight or gay; we'd make divorce harder. For social stability, we would strongly prefer gays get married than tolerate a more hedonistic approach of lifelong bachelorhood. THAT'S the conservative approach to marriage.

Anyhoo, this is all not because of kids, religion, any of that; it's just what you're comfy with. And the comfy level is changing. I can wait; I can even go my whole life without it, knowing the kids will fix it.

I conclude by lightening the mood a bit. Have a good laugh with me courtesy of a weird Seattle newsletter:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv ... contagious
--Ian
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
Posts: 6069
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Contact:

Children. . .

Post by gmattson »

I'm not an expert on homosexual marriages, but from what I've read, they make as competent and carrying parents as your heterosexual couples.

Rather than wasting time worrying about couples having children, I would spend lots more energy on the problem of unwed mothers. This, I believe even Bill will admit, is not a problem for our homosexual population.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Wise point :) Always wise to focus on areas of agreement. And I am a huge believer in whatever birth control measures we can ethically and legally employ to: promote stable families for children to thrive in, allow both young mother and fathers to delay and control child birth so they can get an education and improve their socioeconomic position, and also limit the impact of our swelling population on the environment. But what best to do....
--Ian
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”