Obama vs. Beantown
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
NAOS
Well-Known Member
what exactly is my bias? maybe that sexuality is both biologically and socially constructed? If acknowledging the social dimensions in the construction of behavior and morphology is a bias then I guess you got me pegged. Good one.
Trust me, I don't have a God complex... that has been sorted out relatively well for me: there is no transcendental God.
In the course of this conversation we have not waded into the waters of things that I haven't studied pretty thoroughly... so I'm not sure what contradiction you are seeing.
Flat earth people were using bad results. If you don't want me to use results maybe I can claim to have received a divination... better?
I'll file your claim under the VAGUE-AND-SOFT critiques section of my professional development folder.
The problem, Sage - Dark - etc., is two-fold:
1. Beantown is clearly locked into his position on this issue. You are beating a dead horse. He is not going to change his mind, and the acknowledgment of correctness that you seek will never come. Your work has zero payoff potential.
2. The argument is mostly just a tangent of the original discussion. All of the back and forth about whether or not homosexuals can or will reproduce, or whether homosexual relationships impact evolution, is off point. Ultimately, that doesn't matter. The main thrust of Bean's assertion is, if I am understanding it correctly, that heterosexual relationships are special because, biologically speaking, they are the foundation for propagation of almost every species. All of the peripheral arguing is, IMO, unimportant. And even if Bean is WAY off the mark regarding homosexual relationships, it doesn't automatically nullify his entire case. If he believes heterosexual relationships are special, that's all he needs. No matter how much science you throw at it, there is no way of quantifying "specialness". And ultimately, how important is one random guy's opinion to you?
That's my .02
1. Beantown is clearly locked into his position on this issue. You are beating a dead horse. He is not going to change his mind, and the acknowledgment of correctness that you seek will never come. Your work has zero payoff potential.
2. The argument is mostly just a tangent of the original discussion. All of the back and forth about whether or not homosexuals can or will reproduce, or whether homosexual relationships impact evolution, is off point. Ultimately, that doesn't matter. The main thrust of Bean's assertion is, if I am understanding it correctly, that heterosexual relationships are special because, biologically speaking, they are the foundation for propagation of almost every species. All of the peripheral arguing is, IMO, unimportant. And even if Bean is WAY off the mark regarding homosexual relationships, it doesn't automatically nullify his entire case. If he believes heterosexual relationships are special, that's all he needs. No matter how much science you throw at it, there is no way of quantifying "specialness". And ultimately, how important is one random guy's opinion to you?
That's my .02
Hopper
Banned
You're makin sum good points, here, Bronc, but I think ya might be a little off on that "zero payoff" bidnizz, eh? Everybuddy and his brutha round this here joint wanna takes they shot at Beaner because they figure:
1. The crowd don't like Beaner, and will approve of they abuse of him, and
2. He's easy pickins, and they aint likely to git they sorry *** whupped.
Ya thinks dat aint no payoff? Pilin on, it ROCKS, doncha knowz!?
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
hopper.
if i paid you $50 will you leave the board for 6 months?
i hate you.
i hope you get a computer virus.
if i paid you $50 will you leave the board for 6 months?
i hate you.
i hope you get a computer virus.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Makes sense that Darkwing Duck would attract more kiddies for him than "Sharpshooter." Perv, I tell ya.
Bronco makes some good points. Though most of this has been hashed and rehashed numerous times. But Bean has stated multiple times that he does support the idea of civil unions for partners of the same sex, hence my question - and it's not just for Bean, but for anybody who thinks "civil unions" are OK but "marriages" aren't.
and it wasn't me Hopper, I'd reached my limit early in the day
TheMulletMutilator
Member
What does it matter what the worst President in our nation's history believes? Obama has me wishing for the days of Jimmy Carter.
prodigal punk
Member
This easily qualifies as one of the most misguided posts in JazzFanz history. People aren't "pilin' on" Bean because its the cool thing to do, they are doing it because he is ignorant. You and franklin can try and play the role of protectors of poor Bean, but that doesn't change the fact that he gets what is thrown at him by completely ignoring the facts that are laid before him. old_sage has given him some pretty stark and irrefutable evidence that what he claims is false and Bean completely ignores it- he doesn't even acknowledge these things were stated. Your attempt to turn him into the victim does nothing but make it easier to lump you into the same category. Any way you spin it some people feel it is wrong to allow the type of ignorance that Bean has demonstrated to go unchecked. Do they think they will change his mind? Probably not. If he was open to new ideas he probably wouldn't have the stance he has, in the first place.
I am confident that Sage has been arguing for the sole purpose of establishing correctness. I don't think he has been "piling on" at all.
Bean's biggest mistake has been the compulsion to explain his position. As I stated before, I believe the crux of his belief is that heterosexual relationships are special. This is, more than likely, based heavily (if not solely) on his religion. But, he feels the the need to explain his faith in a biological context. This hasn't gone so well. He would be better off to state "This is what I believe, that's it."
I am still trying to figure out what is so damned dangerous about Bean believing as he does. It certainly isn't any worse than automatically categorizing someone as IGNORANT or CLOSE-MINDED, just because they don't happen to agree with you (I am stating this generally, BTW. It is not aimed at anyone in particular.)
As long as I'm rambling:
MOE: I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I think the ideal solution would to be for the gov't to only recognize civil unions - gay or straight. Everyone gets the same rights, benefits, responsibilities, etc. Let churches have their "marriages". Then if you're hit on by a stranger, you can say "Sorry, I'm unionized."
in all fairness to the English language, sometimes (for me at least) it is not so much the ideas that Beantown expresses as it is the awkward way he has of expressing them.
and I'm not talking about situations where a word or two is misspelled, or a word is used in the wrong context, or the wrong (pardon the expression) homonym is used, but sentences that are constructed in a way that makes it difficult to discern what is really being said. Bean really only seems to have this problem when he is trying to discuss particular issues relating to evolution and homosexuality, so perhaps it's just such an emotional issue for him that he gets his words mixed up.
That may sound to you like I'm "pilin' it on" Beantown just because he's "easy pickins", I don't know. But I'm not, and I give Beantown credit to realize that's not at all what I'm doing.
And I am still waiting for a response to my earlier question - even if it's just "I'm not sure" it'd be something.
edit: it took me a while to compose my post, and now I notice that Bronco's posted a response - - anybody else miss the function on the old board where it warned you that a new post had been made?
and in response to Bronco, I would say I agree, as long as "marriage" is used only in sense to describe the ceremony that may be performed, and not in any sort of a legal sense.
and I'm not talking about situations where a word or two is misspelled, or a word is used in the wrong context, or the wrong (pardon the expression) homonym is used, but sentences that are constructed in a way that makes it difficult to discern what is really being said. Bean really only seems to have this problem when he is trying to discuss particular issues relating to evolution and homosexuality, so perhaps it's just such an emotional issue for him that he gets his words mixed up.
That may sound to you like I'm "pilin' it on" Beantown just because he's "easy pickins", I don't know. But I'm not, and I give Beantown credit to realize that's not at all what I'm doing.
And I am still waiting for a response to my earlier question - even if it's just "I'm not sure" it'd be something.
edit: it took me a while to compose my post, and now I notice that Bronco's posted a response - - anybody else miss the function on the old board where it warned you that a new post had been made?
and in response to Bronco, I would say I agree, as long as "marriage" is used only in sense to describe the ceremony that may be performed, and not in any sort of a legal sense.