Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Dan,
I just try not to obscure my meaning with scarequotes. Scarequotes allow a
poster to present a position, then spin out from underneath it, when
challenged.

Chris

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>> Interesting. Here are your words (emphasis in brackets):
>>
>> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
>> understanding come on [for some thinking people, but not for those
>> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to
>> blasphemy.]"
>>
>> Can I come to a different conclusion, Dan? Sounds to me that you feel
>> Christians have problems with thinking?
>
> Looks to me as if your reading comprehension is at a rather superficial
> level. To be specific, it looks as if you don't quite understand the
> phrase "self-proclaimed", nor the reason for the scarequotes around
> "Christians", so you just mentally omitted them when you read what I
> wrote.
>
> There are two significant and critical differences between the following
> two assertions. One difference is in the scope of the applicability of
> the accusation. The other difference is that I made the first one, but
> not the second one:
>
> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to
> blasphemy."
>
> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for Christians,
> for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy."
>
> DS

Dan,
I just try not to obscure my meaning with scarequotes. Scarequotes allow a
poster to present a position, then spin out from underneath it, when
challenged.

Chris

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>> Interesting. Here are your words (emphasis in brackets):
>>
>> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
>> understanding come on [for some thinking people, but not for those
>> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to
>> blasphemy.]"
>>
>> Can I come to a different conclusion, Dan? Sounds to me that you feel
>> Christians have problems with thinking?
>
> Looks to me as if your reading comprehension is at a rather superficial
> level. To be specific, it looks as if you don't quite understand the
> phrase "self-proclaimed", nor the reason for the scarequotes around
> "Christians", so you just mentally omitted them when you read what I
> wrote.
>
> There are two significant and critical differences between the following
> two assertions. One difference is in the scope of the applicability of
> the accusation. The other difference is that I made the first one, but
> not the second one:
>
> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to
> blasphemy."
>
> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for Christians,
> for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy."
>
> DS

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
>
> Of course I do: Those who oppose gay marriage (or abortion, or gun rights,
> etc.) do not want to prevent the installation and hamper the machinations
> of activist judges. They simply want a different polarity to the activism
> and a different result from it.
>

Ever notice how they are never called activist judges when they try putting
the
10 commandments in their courtrooms?

Ted

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
>
> Of course I do: Those who oppose gay marriage (or abortion, or gun rights,
> etc.) do not want to prevent the installation and hamper the machinations
> of activist judges. They simply want a different polarity to the activism
> and a different result from it.
>

Ever notice how they are never called activist judges when they try putting
the
10 commandments in their courtrooms?

Ted

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>
> > I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an
> > individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is
> > gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him
> > straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?"
>
> A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.
> For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along
> the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is
> inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and
> a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and
> Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges."
>
> That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said
> just the other day:
>
> "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for
> the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a
> union of a man and a woman."
>
> Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy
> around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a
> century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either).
>

Uh, Dan, don't forget that Kerry didn't endorse gay marriage either.

Post-election, since the 2 major issues that caused the election to go
for Bush were the war and "moral values" (euphasim for gay marriage)
it seems apparent that the Democrats are going to be screwing all
the gays over and purging any hint of mention of gays from their
platforms as well. They won't be coming out and attacking them,
but they won't be saying boo in support of them either.

I think that it's pretty evident that if the Democrats had done this
early on during the primaries, that they would have won. The Dems
can count on the gay vote coming out in support of them all the
time, at least they can until the Republicans stop knocking gays.
(and it will be a cold day in hell when that happens) It wasn't
necessary for the Democrats to make any statements in support
of the gays whatsoever, all it did was make them lose the election.
It would have been much better to have totally and completely
ignored the issue.

The Republicans effectively used the gay issues as a means of
directing attention away from their failures, and the Democrats
fell into the trap of letting them get away with it. Next time they
won't.

Ted

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>
> > I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an
> > individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is
> > gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him
> > straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?"
>
> A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.
> For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along
> the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is
> inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and
> a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and
> Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges."
>
> That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said
> just the other day:
>
> "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for
> the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a
> union of a man and a woman."
>
> Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy
> around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a
> century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either).
>

Uh, Dan, don't forget that Kerry didn't endorse gay marriage either.

Post-election, since the 2 major issues that caused the election to go
for Bush were the war and "moral values" (euphasim for gay marriage)
it seems apparent that the Democrats are going to be screwing all
the gays over and purging any hint of mention of gays from their
platforms as well. They won't be coming out and attacking them,
but they won't be saying boo in support of them either.

I think that it's pretty evident that if the Democrats had done this
early on during the primaries, that they would have won. The Dems
can count on the gay vote coming out in support of them all the
time, at least they can until the Republicans stop knocking gays.
(and it will be a cold day in hell when that happens) It wasn't
necessary for the Democrats to make any statements in support
of the gays whatsoever, all it did was make them lose the election.
It would have been much better to have totally and completely
ignored the issue.

The Republicans effectively used the gay issues as a means of
directing attention away from their failures, and the Democrats
fell into the trap of letting them get away with it. Next time they
won't.

Ted

Wound Up wrote:

>>> That's up to you. I can write derisive hatred very well. I choose
>>> not to, because I don't think it's deserved, warranted, or appropriate.
>>>
>>> I will never understand it, but I know it's not a question of some
>>> "vile lifestyle choice". Believe me, the gay friends I've had all
>>> said "it would have been much easier to grow up, and know you were
>>> straight". Want to throw an insult at me? Well, I grew up (ironic
>>> term) in a more heterogeneous culture than a lot of people. I knew
>>> people from many different walks of life, and had friends from many
>>> of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think "heterogeneous" means what you think it means.
>
>
> I'm quite sure it does. Take a look-
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterogeneous

You're right, my bad.

Wound Up wrote:

>>> That's up to you. I can write derisive hatred very well. I choose
>>> not to, because I don't think it's deserved, warranted, or appropriate.
>>>
>>> I will never understand it, but I know it's not a question of some
>>> "vile lifestyle choice". Believe me, the gay friends I've had all
>>> said "it would have been much easier to grow up, and know you were
>>> straight". Want to throw an insult at me? Well, I grew up (ironic
>>> term) in a more heterogeneous culture than a lot of people. I knew
>>> people from many different walks of life, and had friends from many
>>> of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think "heterogeneous" means what you think it means.
>
>
> I'm quite sure it does. Take a look-
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterogeneous

You're right, my bad.

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern > wrote:

> > Looks to me as if your reading comprehension is at a rather
> > superficial level. To be specific, it looks as if you don't quite
> > understand the phrase "self-proclaimed", nor the reason for the
> > scarequotes around "Christians", so you just mentally omitted them
> > when you read what I wrote.

> I just try not to obscure my meaning with scarequotes. Scarequotes
> allow a poster to present a position, then spin out from underneath it,
> when challenged.

Well...no, but good for you for trying. Scarequotes emphasize the
difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely assume the
title for political expedience.

DS

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern > wrote:

> > Looks to me as if your reading comprehension is at a rather
> > superficial level. To be specific, it looks as if you don't quite
> > understand the phrase "self-proclaimed", nor the reason for the
> > scarequotes around "Christians", so you just mentally omitted them
> > when you read what I wrote.

> I just try not to obscure my meaning with scarequotes. Scarequotes
> allow a poster to present a position, then spin out from underneath it,
> when challenged.

Well...no, but good for you for trying. Scarequotes emphasize the
difference between bona fide Christians and those who merely assume the
title for political expedience.

DS