Disagreeing with Dan

Do you have any idea whatsoever the weight of that confession? Sisyphus, stay, until I get you bigger goddamn rock to push up the hill!

Yes, I do: are you saying you think the reaction should be more supportive at this huge impending surprise? Look, if you're at the point that your son is making a show called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", I would solemnly hope that, as a parent, you may have the faintest hint about the impending announcement. I would hope that the talk would be a calm validation of an expectation, but dullards are welcome to be surprised, of course.

Your standard is a little like "teach her to sing pretty songs". Okay, what constitutes pretty?

That's kind of an absurd tangent. Are you really comparing a parent's responsibility to ensure their children meet or exceed standards in education in mathematics and English to "teach pretty songs"?

What is the perspective of moral imperative? These definitions differ. What is the perspective on competitive perception?

Good lord. "Do unto others", the Golden Rule, that sort of thing. Frankly, that should be near-universal, if I am really being encouraged to consult around for their meaning before continuing with my child's personal syllabus.
 
Funny... I'm a two-time vet. I did two deployments to Iraq.

Yes it was meant sarcastically--pointing out how ridiculous it is to think that getting the kid interested in guns/war will change his sexual orientation. Even more absurd than assuming because he likes to put on makeup and dress as a girl he must be gay--perhaps he will grow up to be a heterosexual cross-dresser.

In any case, what's important is to help the child find his own interests and his own identity and not try to force him to be something he's. He has plenty of time to worry about sexuality and gender roles when he gets older.
 
Yes it was meant sarcastically--pointing out how ridiculous it is to think that getting the kid interested in guns/war will change his sexual orientation. Even more absurd than assuming because he likes to put on makeup and dress as a girl he must be gay--perhaps he will grow up to be a heterosexual cross-dresser.

Yes I know it was meant as sarcasm. I was just adding on to what he said. lol :D
 
Puddin' pie

GeoffP said:

Yes, I do:

Then why do you minimize and ridicule it?

are you saying you think the reaction should be more supportive at this huge impending surprise?

I would hope my daughter doesn't have to wrangle about anything if that's what she needs to tell me.

Look, if you're at the point that your son is making a show called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", I would solemnly hope that, as a parent, you may have the faintest hint about the impending announcement.

In Carson's case, his mother's response was, "Honey, did you think we didn't know?"

Which brings up the flip-side. People do agonize over wasted anguish. ("I can't believe I worried so much ... how stupid am I?")

For claiming to understand the weight of the burden, you're curiously unsympathetic, even hostile. It's not like saying, "Mom, my favorite color is blue, not red."

That's kind of an absurd tangent. Are you really comparing a parent's responsibility to ensure their children meet or exceed standards in education in mathematics and English to "teach pretty songs"?

Oh come now, you're smarter than that.

Good lord. "Do unto others", the Golden Rule, that sort of thing. Frankly, that should be near-universal, if I am really being encouraged to consult around for their meaning before continuing with my child's personal syllabus.

In other words, we're back to interpretation. Which is fine with me. That's all I was after.

• • •​

So I was checking into a Savage Love podcast (#49, Sept. 18, 2007) because it had a bit about coming out, but that's only of mild interest. In the meantime, I heard one of the funniest things I've encountered in a while:

"As for pudding in your vagina? I'm not a doctor, but that just sounds like a bad idea. You might get a ... UTI or something, but it probably isn't that bad. I mean, if you're packing pudding up into your vaginal canal, I would say that just sounds like a bad idea. But if you're just getting pudding on your vagina because you're throwing pies around, he can't hit you in the crotch with a pie hard enough to get it into your uterus, or anything."​

I have to admit, that one's heavy. "Honey, can I smack you in the cooch with a puddin' pie?"

Probably makes confessing homosexuality easier. "Well, Mom, it's not like we're spanking each other with pies."
 
Do you have any idea whatsoever the weight of that confession?

I think it all comes down to the reasons why people have children in the first place.

If people have children because "everybody does", or for themselves to feel "normal", or that the children should "fulfill their life", or so that they have "something to live for" - then surely such parents will have many problems with their children, possible "non-standard" sexual orientiation being just one of them.
 
Yes it was meant sarcastically--pointing out how ridiculous it is to think that getting the kid interested in guns/war will change his sexual orientation. Even more absurd than assuming because he likes to put on makeup and dress as a girl he must be gay--perhaps he will grow up to be a heterosexual cross-dresser.

Children are, by nature, curious, they'll try all sorts of things.
And the human psyche tends to be generally inclined to deem the forbidden fruit the sweetest, regardless what that fruit might be - make-up, drugs, guns, money, whatever.

It would be ironic if it wouldn't be so sad - but many parents, by virtue of forbidding something, make that even more appealing. And then kids end up in all sorts of trouble.
 
Then why do you minimize and ridicule it?

Guh. Americans. Only in your distorted personal view is it being treated in either way. Failure to dial up Jerry Springer is now an underreaction.

I would hope my daughter doesn't have to wrangle about anything if that's what she needs to tell me.

I thought you said it was you doing the wrangling.

In Carson's case, his mother's response was, "Honey, did you think we didn't know?"

Which brings up the flip-side. People do agonize over wasted anguish. ("I can't believe I worried so much ... how stupid am I?")

Correct. Wasted anguish.

For claiming to understand the weight of the burden, you're curiously unsympathetic, even hostile. It's not like saying, "Mom, my favorite color is blue, not red."

I am acutely hostile to the notion of handwringing with unspecified motivation over an uncontrollable predestination.


Oh come now, you're smarter than that.

Oh, lord: you made that comparison. It's false, though.
 
GeoffP said:

Only in your distorted personal view is it being treated in either way.

Whatever you say, Geoff. ("No gay woman was traumatized because dad got her Barbie instead of dumbbells and pants with an elastic waistband.")

I thought you said it was you doing the wrangling.

Should I say, "Only in your distorted personal view"?

Correct. Wasted anguish.

And your point?

I am acutely hostile to the notion of handwringing with unspecified motivation over an uncontrollable predestination.

Then why did you lie? ("Yes, I do ....")

Oh, lord: you made that comparison. It's false, though.

You're the one who called it a tangent. Are you simply illiterate, or were you just aiming to be a prig?

Guh. Americans.

Hatemonger.
 
I just finished reading this. Frankly, I was more terrified by the guy who (allegedly) had sex with Larry Craig.
 
Greenberg said:

I think it all comes down to the reasons why people have children in the first place.

If people have children because "everybody does", or for themselves to feel "normal", or that the children should "fulfill their life", or so that they have "something to live for" - then surely such parents will have many problems with their children, possible "non-standard" sexual orientiation being just one of them.

I'll raise a glass.

Maybe it should be a different topic, but, in your opinion, estimate, or according to your best speculation, what do you think that ratio is? How many people reproduce for such reasons? Part of me says, "More than I would think," but if reality>speculation, I don't know what that means to me because I haven't figured out what the speculative number equals.
 
Whatever you say, Geoff. ("No gay woman was traumatized because dad got her Barbie instead of dumbbells and pants with an elastic waistband.")

No, Tiassa: I give your absurd teenage angst all the respect it is due. Which is to say: none.

Should I say, "Only in your distorted personal view"?

I fail to see what's held you back so far; you're not usually so reticient in mudslinging.

And your point?

Wasted anguish. Like the post says. Don't suddenly pretend to illiteracy. You seem to be anguished about your daughter being gay, or not being gay, and anguished about the anguish, and so on. Good God. Is it possible for you to overreact further? Grow up, for the love of something.

Then why did you lie? ("Yes, I do ....")

...I haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to. I stated I was hostile to pointless handwringing, which is to say, absurdity. You have somehow construed this as a lie. "Yes, I do" refers to my remark on your question "Do you have any idea whatsoever the weight of that confession?" I am unable and unwilling to make this clearer for you in any way.

You're the one who called it a tangent. Are you simply illiterate, or were you just aiming to be a prig?

You compared the teaching of "purdy songs singing" to instruction in the essentials of civilization. This strikes me as a tangent.

Hatemonger.

I find it amusing that you don't seem to see - even given your own shrill reaction - that you're overreacting. You are.

Disclaimer: No Americans were harmed in the making of this post.
 
I'll raise a glass.

No you won't. You'll half-raise it, then put it down, then pick it up again, then drop it in a grand mal attack of adolescent angst, and flee the building.

And call Jerry Springer. Need a quarter, Mac?
 
Guh. Illiterates.

GeoffP said:

No, Tiassa: I give your absurd teenage angst all the respect it is due. Which is to say: none.

As you see fit.

I fail to see what's held you back so far; you're not usually so reticient in mudslinging.

Misguided sympathy. I keep engaging you, hoping to find a respectable human being somewhere in there.

Wasted anguish. Like the post says. Don't suddenly pretend to illiteracy. You seem to be anguished about your daughter being gay, or not being gay, and anguished about the anguish, and so on. Good God. Is it possible for you to overreact further? Grow up, for the love of something.

Is it possible for you to go with what's written instead of writing a whole new script?

I haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to. I stated I was hostile to pointless handwringing, which is to say, absurdity. You have somehow construed this as a lie. "Yes, I do" refers to my remark on your question "Do you have any idea whatsoever the weight of that confession?" I am unable and unwilling to make this clearer for you in any way.

Well, the thing is that you don't appear to have a clue about the weight of that confession. Now, maybe you're didn't lie. Maybe you really think it's something so petty as to deserve your ridicule. In which case we come back to a different point. Bear that in mind.

You compared the teaching of "purdy songs singing" to instruction in the essentials of civilization. This strikes me as a tangent

In other words, a comparison of the vagaries of a standard is tangential?

I find it amusing that you don't seem to see - even given your own shrill reaction - that you're overreacting. You are.

Remember that different point above? The one I said to bear in mind? That point reinforces the one to which you so poorly responded.

Slamming an entire nation in order to cover for your own ignorance and corruption is a hateful act, Geoff. And you reinforced your hatred. You reinforced that you were hostile to something of your own invention, and have used that invention to repeatedly demean what is, in fact, a powerful and often traumatic experience for many, many people.

Disclaimer: No Americans were harmed in the making of this post.

That's some consolation. Shame you couldn't do anything to save your dignity, though.
 
I dunno.

The first thing I thought when reading the savage love link was, Sounds to me like this boy is crazy about girls. The kid isnt attracted to men. Hes hugely attracted to girls.

I had a friend go thru this, sure the kid was gonna be gay (we will love him anyways). Hes 23 now and not gay, never had a homosexual experience and would laugh at anyone who suggested he might have homo or bi sexual desires.

He is and always was nutzo crazy over girls.

Too bad no-one suggested to auntie this may be the case with her nephew and have her work on dad before the kid is driven out of the house because of dads insecurity... 99% sure a 5 year old is gay.. bah.
 
Good point, Milkweed. And it's easy enough, once I went and looked up Zac Ephron, to understand why a little boy would think an effeminate heartthrob is "cute".

Milkweed said:

99% sure a 5 year old is gay.. bah

Yeah. That's what struck me. Colloquially? Sure. But colloquialism is a shaky foundation when considering how much of a fight to put up over shaping a child's outlook and conscience, isn't it?

I mean, sure, homophobes and insecure hets will do this. Liberals and conservatives. Christians, Muslims, Jews ... everybody does it. And when people try to address the general concept, they're told to stop worrying about every little thing. Yet when a specific issue arises, it seems pretty obvious to me. The gay question is a pretty big one given the current state of American society. It seems colloquialism should not be the foundation of the answer to that question. Or, at least, so says me.
 
Well, well. It seems that while Tiassa can hand out the insidious little slanders, he can't really deal with fair return on his investment. To wit:

Tiassa said:
Dear GeoffP,

You have received an infraction at SciForums.com.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
-------
Just giving your post the respect it deserves.
-------

This infraction is worth 5 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
[post]1594761[/post]
I'll raise a glass.

No you won't. You'll half-raise it, then put it down, then pick it up again, then drop it in a grand mal attack of adolescent angst, and flee the building.

And call Jerry Springer. Need a quarter, Mac?

All the best,
SciForums.com

My response:

Wow. That was incredibly biased. I'll keep this in mind from now on, Tiassa.

As I recall, you insulted me several times in that thread, including "illiterate" and "prig". Now, I can only assume you meant them in a negative way. Will you be infracting yourself?

One can only wonder. I'll respond to his post now.
 
As you see fit.

Ah, but "prig" and "illiterate" are not worth a 5 point infraction. I see. Another word comes to mind: hypocrisy.

Misguided sympathy. I keep engaging you, hoping to find a respectable human being somewhere in there.

So because I don't indulge my little psyche in hand-wringing over an issue I cannot control, I am not respectable. I see. The definition of respectability now has been changed to adolescent nit-picking. I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

Is it possible for you to go with what's written instead of writing a whole new script?

It sort of depends whether or not a self-righteous something has the temerity to attack my education while ignoring the words on the screen in front of him.

Well, the thing is that you don't appear to have a clue about the weight of that confession. Now, maybe you're didn't lie. Maybe you really think it's something so petty as to deserve your ridicule. In which case we come back to a different point. Bear that in mind.

"Now maybe you didn't lie" - good God. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, Tiassa. Do bear that in mind. It's chief weapons appear at present to be intolerance and pithiness. Or perhaps you could read my actual posts and respond to them instead of working yourself up into a lather about what you would like to pretend my character constitutes? I remind you of what was actually written:

I haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to. I stated I was hostile to pointless handwringing, which is to say, absurdity. You have somehow construed this as a lie. "Yes, I do" refers to my remark on your question "Do you have any idea whatsoever the weight of that confession?" I am unable and unwilling to make this clearer for you in any way.

In what possible congruence of form and function can this be a "lie", O great immoderator?

In other words, a comparison of the vagaries of a standard is tangential?

It is tangential in that it is meaningless. A meaningless comparison. The importance of teaching a basic triune education is not reeeally comparable to your straw example. I see you were farsighted enough not to worry about such pedestrian issues, however.

Slamming an entire nation in order to cover for your own ignorance and corruption is a hateful act, Geoff. And you reinforced your hatred.

...yes, my hatred for Americans must indeed be profound and deep. Because I point out that you tend sometimes to emotionality. :rolleyes: God knows, making that point - in spite of my actual position on Americans, which is really quite flattering - it must be absolute evidence of my hatred and partiality. Of course! And Australians too! Ah, but wait: they don't infract me, even after the dwarf-tossing comments.

You reinforced that you were hostile to something of your own invention, and have used that invention to repeatedly demean what is, in fact, a powerful and often traumatic experience for many, many people.

...:confused: Are you, perchance, insane? I have now apparently invented emotional overthink, which you yourself obliquely admitted to. And then I have demeaned it. Amazing.

That's some consolation. Shame you couldn't do anything to save your dignity, though.

My dignity.

I see. So my dignity is compromised by being insulted by you, and responding in kind, and then being infracted for dealing in kind. Well, I suppose you could be right. I should have had more sense than to respond to a baiter who hides behind his ill-deserved title.

You are no longer worth my time, pedant. Sorry about the damage to your crust of an ego but you really should backfill around that thing. Any old dent seems to inflame it. Maybe it's just not justified in occupying the space it presently fills.

Geoff
 
(Insert title here)

GeoffP said:

So because I don't indulge my little psyche in hand-wringing over an issue I cannot control, I am not respectable.

No. It's that you go out of your way to indulge your psyche in hostility.

It sort of depends whether or not a self-righteous something has the temerity to attack my education while ignoring the words on the screen in front of him.

You're the one who can't figure out the obvious when it's written in front of you.

"Now maybe you didn't lie" - good God. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, Tiassa. Do bear that in mind. It's chief weapons appear at present to be intolerance and pithiness. Or perhaps you could read my actual posts and respond to them instead of working yourself up into a lather about what you would like to pretend my character constitutes? I remind you of what was actually written ....

.... In what possible congruence of form and function can this be a "lie", O great immoderator?

Because it's clear you haven't a clue about the weight of said confession. The statement is not true. But it's true one cannot make the leap to the notion that your statement of what is not true constitutes a lie. It could just be your ignorance.

It is tangential in that it is meaningless. A meaningless comparison. The importance of teaching a basic triune education is not reeeally comparable to your straw example. I see you were farsighted enough not to worry about such pedestrian issues, however.

Ah. So the specifics of raising children are meaningless?

yes, my hatred for Americans must indeed be profound and deep. Because I point out that you tend sometimes to emotionality.

Strangely, those two statements have nothing to do with one another. You treat the closeted gay as if their worry is extraneous, as if it originates entirely internally, and then get disgusted at "Americans" because I think you're wrong.

God knows, making that point - in spite of my actual position on Americans, which is really quite flattering - it must be absolute evidence of my hatred and partiality.

Fine. I believe you. Whatever you say.

Are you, perchance, insane?

Are you, perchance, retarded? You object to extraneous hand-wringing. Great. What does that have to do with anything?

My dignity.

I see. So my dignity is compromised by being insulted by you, and responding in kind, and then being infracted for dealing in kind

No, Geoff. You injured your own dignity by demeaning other people.

You are no longer worth my time, pedant.

Noted. Shall I hold you to it? Oh, right. Never mind.
 
Dear me. I'm afraid I had to return, since Tiassa is now using his amazingly well protected powers of ultra-moderation (in the Ethics subsection, no less) to accuse me roundaboutly of homophobia. Witness if you will:

No. It's that you go out of your way to indulge your psyche in hostility.

When termed "retarded" or "illiterate" by a person whose major claim to fame appears to be a pitiful grasp of argumentation then yes, I admit my gorge rises. What was the other term of good debate you used? Ah yes: "prig".

You're the one who can't figure out the obvious when it's written in front of you.

"No, you are!" Oh, well done, Tiassa. Which school was it you graduated from again?

Because it's clear you haven't a clue about the weight of said confession. The statement is not true. But it's true one cannot make the leap to the notion that your statement of what is not true constitutes a lie.

Tiassa has finally grasped that the truth or untruth - my evil "lie" here again :rolleyes: - of a statement, and specifically my statement, has nothing to do with the weight of said statement. He realizes suddenly that a lie is a
deliberate
omission; an untrue statement may simply be incorrect. Now, as I was stating a personal position, there is little reason in the common discourse to term a lie. It is a position which which Tiassa happens to disagree with, which makes his ego cringe and causes him to lash out, apparently. Ironically, Tiassa did earlier accuse of "lying", which ironically might actually itself be a lie, since he would actually have to be particularly ignorant to think that a statement of position was a lie, or that I was misrepresenting myself.

I assume you see how that works now, Tiassa? I don't have time to reteach you everything you never learned about liberal arts.

Ah. So the specifics of raising children are meaningless?

This is most amusing. I have referred to literature, mathematics and morality, which I - in my obvious ignorance - had thought specific enough; this tangent pops up again and again without any definition of why Tiassa thinks it so critically important to the central issue of whether or not one should have a frothing freakout at the determination of one's child's sexuality. Lately, he's attempting to inject society into the issue:

Strangely, those two statements have nothing to do with one another. You treat the closeted gay as if their worry is extraneous

No. We are dealing with unnecessary parental angst, not unnecessary societal angst. Please stay on topic.

, as if it originates entirely internally

This was the entire geist of your synthesis - the parental response. What school did you go to again?

and then get disgusted at "Americans" because I think you're wrong.

Is this your usual method of argumentation? Try to reduce the other side to some banal accusation? Well done. Whine though you may, I believe different nationalities have different national moods. There is nothing net wrong with the American one; I find Americans prone to discussion of their problems, rather than discretion of their problems. I believe this manifests itself to some degree in the sort of pointless angst you're describing. Or, as Sam put it: there are more important things to worry about.

Fine. I believe you. Whatever you say.

:yawn: That was possibly the most clever thing anyone's ever said on here. I hope they're not paying you for this "moderator" gig.

Are you, perchance, retarded? You object to extraneous hand-wringing. Great. What does that have to do with anything?

"Retarded"? Personal attacks from Tiassa? My, my. Well, I won't bother to report you. The report would pass through you and - I quite correctly imagine - promptly be vetoed by you. Tiassa, I hope you realize how painful and inappropriate it is for you to use the phrase "retarded"? There are many mentally disabled people out there who, I think, would be quite offended. Honestly, I had hoped for better. Not expected, mind.

The hand-wringing has been extensively defined above. Namely: yours. You routinely assume a maudlin puddle of a parent is the best response to such a major issue? Or is this a stance you instead personally assume from time to time?

No, Geoff. You injured your own dignity by demeaning other people.

Demeaning other people? I'm most interested. Who have I demeaned, precisely? Does your ill-formed ego count as a personality? This, of course, from the moderator too frightened to take off his mod hat.

Noted. Shall I hold you to it? Oh, right. Never mind.

No idea what you were attempting to convey here; please don't bother to explain yourself. Your skillz at argumentation remind me of a fellow with a Go-Bot for an avatar.
 
Back
Top