Barack Obama
- Thread starter Acorndeer
- Start date
- Status
nobuyuki
Member
Who split the thread? What a crappy place to split it. They even closed the split -- this thread's already off on a tangent and still is but splitting it at my post implies to me that I can't go down a certain path of conversation, and no explination was given.
What
the
Hell
Should I just go on talking and pretend like the split never happened?
Edit: I'm going to risk going against the grain because no one warned me to stop, they just deleted my words from this thread. Gender orientation is both a scientific/genetic thing you're born with, AND a social construct. The APA's definition deals only with the science and people try and use it to force it upon the social construct as well. They are two different things. That's why I don't agree with the argument -- because it's politically incorrect to go around asserting that someone's not REALLY a homosexual or REALLY a bisexual, or REALLY a heterosexual, simply because that's not their scientifically-associated gender orientation. If the person chooses to identify themselves as one of those things as a social matter, people tend to only be forgiving of "false" homosexuals, and much less forgiving of people (such as bisexuals) who identify themselves as heterosexual by regular people and real homosexuals alike. By confusing the science with the social construct, double standards are created. Yes, some people CHOOSE what they want to be despite their natural gender orientation but then try to use the natural gender orientation argument to confuse this issue -- and the catch 22 is that it's politically incorrect to argue otherwise only if that person CHOSE to be "homosexual" (but isn't by the scientific definition).
My point here is that such a distinction does exist, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and it neither helps to try and use the science as a shield nor to try and ignore the socially-constructed aspect of gender orientation for political purposes. People should be informed (as you informed me) of both the official scientific opinion and given an explanation to the disparity in society's real-life labeling system, rather than encouraging people to not consider that to some people choice is involved, because currently we can't really criticize those people for muddying up the water and serving as poor examples for helping promote the alternate gender orientation agenda due to their own personal confusion.
Finally.... If the moderators want to split off the tangent they should do a less shitty job at picking the place where the thread started going off on it. Otherwise, without a proper explanation, the split made little sense and just seems like "yet another arbitrary decision" which only serves to piss off people who believe in fair and even moderation.
What
the
Hell
Should I just go on talking and pretend like the split never happened?
Edit: I'm going to risk going against the grain because no one warned me to stop, they just deleted my words from this thread. Gender orientation is both a scientific/genetic thing you're born with, AND a social construct. The APA's definition deals only with the science and people try and use it to force it upon the social construct as well. They are two different things. That's why I don't agree with the argument -- because it's politically incorrect to go around asserting that someone's not REALLY a homosexual or REALLY a bisexual, or REALLY a heterosexual, simply because that's not their scientifically-associated gender orientation. If the person chooses to identify themselves as one of those things as a social matter, people tend to only be forgiving of "false" homosexuals, and much less forgiving of people (such as bisexuals) who identify themselves as heterosexual by regular people and real homosexuals alike. By confusing the science with the social construct, double standards are created. Yes, some people CHOOSE what they want to be despite their natural gender orientation but then try to use the natural gender orientation argument to confuse this issue -- and the catch 22 is that it's politically incorrect to argue otherwise only if that person CHOSE to be "homosexual" (but isn't by the scientific definition).
My point here is that such a distinction does exist, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, and it neither helps to try and use the science as a shield nor to try and ignore the socially-constructed aspect of gender orientation for political purposes. People should be informed (as you informed me) of both the official scientific opinion and given an explanation to the disparity in society's real-life labeling system, rather than encouraging people to not consider that to some people choice is involved, because currently we can't really criticize those people for muddying up the water and serving as poor examples for helping promote the alternate gender orientation agenda due to their own personal confusion.
Finally.... If the moderators want to split off the tangent they should do a less shitty job at picking the place where the thread started going off on it. Otherwise, without a proper explanation, the split made little sense and just seems like "yet another arbitrary decision" which only serves to piss off people who believe in fair and even moderation.
The habit of naming split thread as "[split] old topic" also does not help. Because hey, considering topics are split (supposedly) for no longer having anything to DO with the original topic... MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST CUT THAT OUT.
ANYWAY.
Presumably the whole "sexual orientation is immutable" in regards to free will is somewhat like, I dunno, hair colour. Not being able to change your hair colour via pure force of will doesn't really limit your free will, there. But hey, if you don't like your hair would could always dye it. mmm, similies.
But I personally think it'd be more like... I guess it's possible that I could decide to start, I don't know, lying and sucking up to people for attention & sycophants, because there's that potential for that in me, but I'm sure not going to because that's abhorrent to my current personality.
But in REALITY it's probably something like "you can be genetically biased towards a certain sexual orientation, but there's a degree of choice and things are probably locked down at a young age".
What? What is this about Barack Obama? STOP BEING OFFTOPIC GUYS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GAYS >:E
[EDIT]: oh right, and
Sure, if you're going by the theory that sexual orientation is an inherent trait as opposed to a hobby (or whatever), then there would be some difference between the former and the latter. But I think it's silly to call that difference, like, "real" vs "confused" or whatever. There are some people who are predisposed towards, I dunno, being able to program, or draw, or whatever. That doesn't mean the people who, uh, earned those skills (not exactly a perfect analouge to GAYS but whatever) as opposed to having the inborn traits are fake or confused.
...although clearly there is some kind of "college lesbian" effect in which people who are totally uninterested in a certain behavour (for example, gay sex) nevertheless fake interest in that because attention whore/peer pressure/whatever else. But those people are stupid and should be ignored.
ANYWAY.
Presumably the whole "sexual orientation is immutable" in regards to free will is somewhat like, I dunno, hair colour. Not being able to change your hair colour via pure force of will doesn't really limit your free will, there. But hey, if you don't like your hair would could always dye it. mmm, similies.
But I personally think it'd be more like... I guess it's possible that I could decide to start, I don't know, lying and sucking up to people for attention & sycophants, because there's that potential for that in me, but I'm sure not going to because that's abhorrent to my current personality.
But in REALITY it's probably something like "you can be genetically biased towards a certain sexual orientation, but there's a degree of choice and things are probably locked down at a young age".
What? What is this about Barack Obama? STOP BEING OFFTOPIC GUYS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GAYS >:E
[EDIT]: oh right, and
Nobuyuki said:
Sure, if you're going by the theory that sexual orientation is an inherent trait as opposed to a hobby (or whatever), then there would be some difference between the former and the latter. But I think it's silly to call that difference, like, "real" vs "confused" or whatever. There are some people who are predisposed towards, I dunno, being able to program, or draw, or whatever. That doesn't mean the people who, uh, earned those skills (not exactly a perfect analouge to GAYS but whatever) as opposed to having the inborn traits are fake or confused.
...although clearly there is some kind of "college lesbian" effect in which people who are totally uninterested in a certain behavour (for example, gay sex) nevertheless fake interest in that because attention whore/peer pressure/whatever else. But those people are stupid and should be ignored.
nobuyuki
Member
They can't be ignored cause like I said they attach theirselves to key issues and make themselves big ad hominem targets for every person with a conflicting opinion :B
"oh look, she's only pretending! Obviously if it's a choice to some people then why try and promote a new paradigm in society? Assimilate like the rest of us"
Edit: Oh yeah. Yeah, it's seriously off-topic, but the split was not only locked (to prevent further discussion?) but also SPLIT AT THE WRONG PLACE -- if it was supposed to split off the tangent... it failed horribly
"oh look, she's only pretending! Obviously if it's a choice to some people then why try and promote a new paradigm in society? Assimilate like the rest of us"
Edit: Oh yeah. Yeah, it's seriously off-topic, but the split was not only locked (to prevent further discussion?) but also SPLIT AT THE WRONG PLACE -- if it was supposed to split off the tangent... it failed horribly
nobuyuki said:
I'd say the proper response to that would be, um, "that person is a moron and in no way represents the average $subgroup. Also: AD HOMINEM." and if they continue to try to use stupid fallicies, then just declare them a moron too and move on.
(after a certain level there is really no point in continuing discourse with certain people: they will continue using stupid arguments and no logic and they will keep talking and talking and talking and acting like they can change reality by 'winning' an argument. So I just say "Okay!" and leave, because it is, as they say, a WASTE of my TALENTS)
Arshes Nei
Masticates in Public
Rot-Fuchs said:
Just a moment here, but it is related. EVERYTHING is politics, including how you act on this forum and so forth. The behavior is the same. You work connections and ways to get hits, friends etc. High School also describes it. But this "I hate politics" well guess what about every thread and behavior you commit to in any community is basically politics.
Just because there may not be a government official involved doesn't detract from this argument, because I'm referring to the behavior of the community itself.
This is why Barack Obama being brought in to this ridiculous terminology of "fursecution" is just stunning. Fursecution isn't a real problem. Only way for change is if people's politics change.
darkdoomer
inkbunny.net supporter
what the point between furries and politics already ?
no,i dont understeand.
for my part, i need to improve my sniper skills for May 7th. ( yes, i live in france. )
no,i dont understeand.
for my part, i need to improve my sniper skills for May 7th. ( yes, i live in france. )
Surgat
Where is your mod now?
nobuyuki said:
I don't think anyone would disagree that what people identify as/call themselves/think of themselves as is at least partly a matter of choice, or that it can change over time. I don't see why it's relevant.
Your whole "social construction" argument seems to be a sophisticated sounding way of stating that since people can call themselves any gender orientation they choose, regardless of which gender they are attracted, prefer, or regardless of whether or not they have no preference, then they are responsible for any result of their identification. In other words, because they can re-enter the closet and identify as straight, they choose to be oppressed.
Earlier said:
This has already been refuted:
Dave Hyena said:
You say that saying gender orientation is not a choice, and that saying people can be mistaken about their orientation is "politically incorrect" because people should be able to identify as whatever they want [see: the first two quoted paragraphs]. However, when homophobes demand that everybody identifies as straight it's just fine? It's wrong for people to have to be identified by their gender orientation as recognized by science only, but having to keep their preferences secret for fear of legal and social repercussions isn't really wrong/oppressive?
nobuyuki said:
Agreed. The original topic was kind of silly anyways.
Surgat said:
Hmm.. I think it was kinda silly too ^_^ but it was not made to be the groundbreaking political discussion to be rooted in this forums history to begin with.
Now that we're talking about sexual orientation and politics we indeed have lot deeper and more easier to relate issue at our hands.
I am glad how my OP ended up spawning more interesting and fruitful discussion
And I shall donate to this topic, want it or not XD
My personal experience of sexual orientation is that feelings you have for certain people are there and they are aquired trough either interaction or physical appearance, in ideal cases, both. Not by moral codes and ethich, it is not a choice that you make, nothing you're really born with, morelike it is a natural way to feel for ones who are close to you or in idol position to you.
Admiration, love, respect, lust, trust all those don't happen just by choice and you're not born to feel those for specified people in your life, opinions and feelings change. So may sexual orientation change with time or with the people you come in contact with, for example I didn't know my homosexual side until I met gay people who were kind, smart and also sexually willing, it took me a while to adapt to this situation but i do not regret it any.
As kid I was kinda girly boy and always been artistic and "emotional" type, I in one of the summercamps at the age of 14 had my first sexual intercourse and it was with male, after that, I lived on many years still as "straight" and thought it was only girls who got my hormones to kick in. But later on my life I came in terms with reality, so was my opinion changed ^^
Now, I may look like butch male, with all the muscle and hair I have, but inside I am still "yender artist" though now with wisdom of I can take even negative feedback and hard times in civilized manner.
I am known to jump to conclusions, and before giving up on my mind, I must of course defend it until my points are proven wrong.
As is the case with Barack Obama, I like him, I find him a capable leader and very charmant man, I hope he can change some attitudes with his example, bit like Jesus concept did and does to people.
Of course nobody grows a tree out of solid rock, and it takes a fertile ground from a seed of change to sprout. I just like to think that there's fertile ground for that in all of us.
foxyfennec
New Member
The whole concept of "furry" being put out there as an issue, like race and gender, is totally ridiculous. I have a hard time believing ANYONE running for president would "think of the furries"
LTIO-540-D2J
New Member
RE: Barack Obama a leader?
Okay, I agree that Sen. Obama is a nice guy. I'd even grant that he's articulate. But I just can't see him as a leader- he's served less than half his term in Congress, and what legislative accomplishments can he point out? The man is a political cipher. I can't name anything that he stands for, except 'being nice to everyone'. I would say that 'being nice' and 'saying nice things that sound good to most people' are not good indicators of leadership- I sort of see an inverse correlation there.
Sen. Obama recently compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, and I think that highlights the difference between a great leader and Obama- Lincoln was steadfast in his determination to see the Union preserved, and continued a tremendously upopular and bloody war. One hundred and fifty years later, the wisdom of his decision is obvious Roosevelt made an unpopular decision to end our isolationism and enter WWII. Sixty years later, no one will argue that our involvement in defeating Fascism.
Sen. Obama has said very little to indicate to me that he has the sort of will or determination needed to be an effective leader along these lines- his recent comment about 'wasted' lives seems to me to indicate he believes that if something is too hard to do quickly or easily, we should just quit.
Okay, I agree that Sen. Obama is a nice guy. I'd even grant that he's articulate. But I just can't see him as a leader- he's served less than half his term in Congress, and what legislative accomplishments can he point out? The man is a political cipher. I can't name anything that he stands for, except 'being nice to everyone'. I would say that 'being nice' and 'saying nice things that sound good to most people' are not good indicators of leadership- I sort of see an inverse correlation there.
Sen. Obama recently compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, and I think that highlights the difference between a great leader and Obama- Lincoln was steadfast in his determination to see the Union preserved, and continued a tremendously upopular and bloody war. One hundred and fifty years later, the wisdom of his decision is obvious Roosevelt made an unpopular decision to end our isolationism and enter WWII. Sixty years later, no one will argue that our involvement in defeating Fascism.
Sen. Obama has said very little to indicate to me that he has the sort of will or determination needed to be an effective leader along these lines- his recent comment about 'wasted' lives seems to me to indicate he believes that if something is too hard to do quickly or easily, we should just quit.
nobuyuki
Member
Surgat said:
No, when homophobes demand that, it's not just fine. In fact, it's unreasonable. That should have been obvious -- I would hope you didn't think I believed that? To clarify, yes it is wrong for people to be identified by gender orientation strictly on a scientific basis (cause it's insensitive to the social reality on both sides of the issue), but it is also wrong to give out negative social and legal repercussions to someone based on gender orientation -- I never implied otherwise. I hope you didn't miss my point, though.
LTIO-540-D2J said:
Look at his record as an illinois state senator.... or does that only count to guys who voted for him before? Honestly, almost everyone in illinois thinks obama is great. In 2004 he won 70% of the vote vs. Keyes' 27%. Does that count as a landslide? He was even less well-known then than he is now, so I don't think you can say he was groomed by the media or some big magic machine in the sky to become a senator. We voted for him because he was charismatic and had a plan for the state to bring home the bacon, so to speak (hopefully that doesn't mean pork barrel projects). Mostly what he has going for him now is what he always had going for him, and that is his charisma and pretty much clean slate compared to just about every other politician in washington. Most politicians have their hands dirty with impropriety (real or percieved) -- the only dirt the right wing spin machine has been able to pull on obama is that his middle name is hussein and his last name kinda sounds like "osama". woo, scary stuff! I suppose doing drugs as a teenager (as he admitted in his 1995 memoir) counts as "could be bad" too but our current president's a DUI offender and a coke fiend to boot so drugs never really stopped moral objectionists from voting for somebody.
The complete -lack- of political dirt on this guy IS rather unusual, and I can see why it might even scare you just a little bit, but that's no reason not to vote for him. If you can't figure out where he stands, try his bid for nomination speech (which I linked earlier in this thread) -- that has a lot of key issues he wants to see action on (and in what direction) at capitol hill. If that's too, how do I put it, straightforward? for you, you can always look into his upbringing and see how that could temper his political style. He's very different from many of the other candidates you see at this level, working his way from the bottom up out of the city rather than someone from the country or even the suburbs. Honestly though, try the video and you'll see a pretty ambitious platform, ranging on topics from the war to alternative fuel to broadband saturation.
Or you can try checking out one of his podcasts, which he used to do a couple years ago (and I think still does to this day) -- recently also appealing to the youtube crowd with video broadcast messages. They used to include stuff regarding his views on certain agendas like Net Neutrality -- agendas that are important to someone like me, cause legislation for stuff like this will directly effect my livelihood and that of many people doing business on the web. Check out obama.senate.gov for mostly dry political stuff, and for the exciting presidential hopeful stuff and social networking experiment (the stuff most of the non-political science majors types will enjoy more), go to www.barackobama.com. It's really bleeding edge stuff this guy's campaign is doing to try and get popular support from the ground up online.
Edit: P.S. Full disclosure -- I am an illinois resident and I voted for Barack Obama in 2004. Been pro-obama since before most people even knew who he was :B
Edit2: The obama keyes debates can be found HERE. You can hear the candidates answer the questions and see how you feel about it, should you want to hear what obama sounds like debating.
LTIO-540-D2J
New Member
RE: Barack Obama a leader?
*grins* No I don't. Words mean things, and I chose this phrase very carefully.
I heard part of that speech, and that IS what sets off alarms. I hear a political outlook/agenda that I don't agree with. I strongly disagree with gun control, universal health care, and protectionist policies, three things he's publicly advocated. Furthermore, with his meteoric rise and the waves of adulation rolling in from all directions, yet very little real political capital I suspect that there is a good possibility that he will have to make many, many political concessions that will nullify or modify beyond recognition his (in my opinion, at least) already nebulous stances. I mean, already he's being cast as "too white" by some political players, and I suspect that's an effort to bend him to someone else's agenda.
I don't think his political career is THAT different- there's lots of politicians of all stripes who have come up from the absolute bottom. Sen. Zell Miller started out dirt poor- his family home was built from rocks hand-dredged from a streambed. Condoleeza Rice's parents were sharecroppers.
Surgat said:
*grins* No I don't. Words mean things, and I chose this phrase very carefully.
noboyuki said:
I heard part of that speech, and that IS what sets off alarms. I hear a political outlook/agenda that I don't agree with. I strongly disagree with gun control, universal health care, and protectionist policies, three things he's publicly advocated. Furthermore, with his meteoric rise and the waves of adulation rolling in from all directions, yet very little real political capital I suspect that there is a good possibility that he will have to make many, many political concessions that will nullify or modify beyond recognition his (in my opinion, at least) already nebulous stances. I mean, already he's being cast as "too white" by some political players, and I suspect that's an effort to bend him to someone else's agenda.
I don't think his political career is THAT different- there's lots of politicians of all stripes who have come up from the absolute bottom. Sen. Zell Miller started out dirt poor- his family home was built from rocks hand-dredged from a streambed. Condoleeza Rice's parents were sharecroppers.
Arshes Nei
Masticates in Public
nobuyuki said:
Great, because I always look to Illinois as a progressive state. :roll:
Unknowns winning elections is not unheard of, and it makes for a rather poor argument. Just because you think they're great and it makes you happy, what other policies have really changed? Talk is cheap.
That's all I get from Obama, talk talk talk. No political record is fine, because I'm actually tired of greedy politicians, but at the same time, I'm not exactly impressed by Obama either. I certainly don't think he's the second coming of Christ, but he is a better alternative than the old party people, like Clinton and so forth.
LTIO-540-D2J
New Member
Yes, yes he was. Your image-manipulation skills are strong- you should consider sending your resume to Reuters, Al-Manar, Al-Jazeera, and Al-Fars. However, instead of the hot dog, Reuters recommends something with a little more punch to it.nobuyuki said:
As for your critical thinking skills: Lay off Zell Miller. The man is one of the last decent democrats (small 'd' democrat). Do you know why he spoke at the RNC? It's because ideologically, the Republican Party is where the Democratic Party was 30 years ago, while the Democrats have lurched far to the left, leaving behind their principles in search of political power.
Nebulous? If you believe that, try losing the affected post-ironic cynicism and read a small book Sen. Miller wrote, called "Everything I Need To Know I Learned In The Marines". It's concise and to the point. The man has been a Marine, a Governor, and a Senator. He has a solid, proven record as a leader. He has earned our consideration.
I'm trying to stay civil on this, but it really bugs me when people who deserve respect are treated shabbily by the uninformed, while those who haven't proved their worth are lauded and fawned over.
nobuyuki
Member
hi, posting on my pda here. plz excuse poor formatting.
1. zell miller's definately true to his convictions, but is he true to that of the party? Locally I'm sure he's popular but I dont give much credance to dixiecrats.
2. a person cant prove themselves if theyre being precluded the chance. Obama's impressed illinois, and he's served well for us, now its a question of whether the nation thinks he'll serve them as well.
3. did my 3yr old photoshop upset you? Lol. It was a silly ff8 reference, definately not news worthy.
4. this is a stupid offtopic question but are you a sockpuppet? your original objection to obama smacked of parroting. mind the astroturf
1. zell miller's definately true to his convictions, but is he true to that of the party? Locally I'm sure he's popular but I dont give much credance to dixiecrats.
2. a person cant prove themselves if theyre being precluded the chance. Obama's impressed illinois, and he's served well for us, now its a question of whether the nation thinks he'll serve them as well.
3. did my 3yr old photoshop upset you? Lol. It was a silly ff8 reference, definately not news worthy.
4. this is a stupid offtopic question but are you a sockpuppet? your original objection to obama smacked of parroting. mind the astroturf
- Status