Toa Nidhiki05

If they responded with logical fallacies, you won. In an actual debate, you would likely win because of that. There is no need to call anyone bigots at that point.

I'm going to go ahead and lock this because there is not going to be constructive output here, which is a shame.

-TN05

Ladies, gentlemen, let's bring it down.

 

Do you want B6 to smite this entry, too?

At the moment, I think discussion here is going respectfully and fine. If this even gets close to getting out of hand I will lock and possibly delete this post entirely.

 

 

except calling a bigoted person a bigot is not just petty name-calling or an insult. it's the same as calling a liar a liar or a thief a thief.

 

if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

Let's say you are correct. What does it accomplish? You aren't going to change someone's mind by insulting them.

 

-TN05

Some people's minds cannot be changed. Thus, public shaming is an acceptable or even desirable alternative. Their views are hateful, poison introduced into the body of the nation. We do not balk from calling a sickness a sickness, and what is bigotry but a sickness in the heart of a nation?

 

It is a label, an accurate one. One I shall apply. They may not see it as bigotry, but it is. There is a reason racists today are so very hesitant to state their views in a public forum, they know the shame and anger that it will call down on them. I don't care if I change a bigots mind, my primary objective is to shut him up. Trying to change their minds is normally an exercise in futility anyhow.

If you have the superior argument, they will go away. The reason racists have to keep their beliefs relatively private is not that racism is publicly unacceptable, it is because there are simply no reasonable or factual arguments that support it. The goal of the civil rights movement was not to silence racists, it was to advance civil rights politically - and it worked.

-TN05

except calling a bigoted person a bigot is not just petty name-calling or an insult. it's the same as calling a liar a liar or a thief a thief.

 

if the shoe fits, wear it.

Let's say you are correct. What does it accomplish? You aren't going to change someone's mind by insulting them.

-TN05

Well, maybe when part of the forum stops being disturbing, bigoted....

I'm not a big fan of the word 'bigot':

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Look, I have no issue with someone saying something is wrong... But you aren't going to convince anyone that you are correct by calling them a bigot. If you have the superior side, there should be no need for name-calling.

-TN05

Glad you all liked this. This picture was just too great to pass up.

 

 

I am with you. I am so so so confused right now, I would believe just about anything. ;-;

 

That's why they want you to believe!

 

But how do I know you are not working for them, and that they sent you out on this mission to make people believe that they want you believe that you will believe just about anything, as it plays another part in their plan which involved massively confusing everyone so they can take advantage of is and make you unknowingly do their bidding, while you are believing that your actions are actually defying their orders!

You don't.

I am with you. I am so so so confused right now, I would believe just about anything. ;-;

That's why they want you to believe!

That sounds like a fine idea... You'd just better hope it isn't taken literally.

-TN05

Hmm, how about you keep it at first, and see if you can use it to get infinite prize money! >=D

But do know that if you sell it, you're most likely going to spend the next 80-or-so years regretting it. Money (and the things-that-seem-important-now-but-not-so-much-later you buy with it) are nothing compared to it's sheer emotional value. I mean, you would've had that totally awesome card, and you just...... sold it?

Given how many video games I have sold and regretted selling, I know that feeling. I'm leaning towards keeping it, at least for now, because it is pretty fun to use.

Is it one of those things that just increases in value over time? 'Cause if so, you should definitely keep it and then you can always sell it later.

Unless a Madden 13 UT card is limited-edition, it won't increase in value. I'm pretty sure this one is limited edition since it is themed towards the college basketball tournament, but I'm not sure how many they released. Normally the auction block makes these things worth a lot early and they decrease in value as more pop up for auction.

Perhaps I'm more monetarily driven than my fellow commenters, but selling it seems like a good bet. Unless you're honestly attached to it and will honestly regret getting rid of it... well, if I had a chance to get 60+ grand, I'd take it.

Well my original idea was to auction it for at least 60,000 coins and use the money to get two tight ends with a 99 rating, which would cost about 30,000 at least. I'd have some coins left over to do whatever with, but I'd lose a rare card.

i have no idea how you got to gender roles in a blog post about marriage equality dude

The post that sparked this whole thing was Fisher94's, which was about gender roles.

and this is your argument against same sex marriage??? some animals act differently than others so i should restrict peoples rights??

 

 

I thought this was a discussion on gender roles (or lack thereof), not same-sex marriage. I've never once made an argument here for or against same-sex marriage.

Regardless I echo Ryuujin here. Can we calm down here a bit?

 

Really, I don't think we'd be having a conversation on gender roles in animals if, well, animals didn't have basic gender roles. You can argue it is a social construct, an evolutionary construct, a religious construct, or whatnot, but there are basic roles. In science, however, rules aren't necessarily 100% correct all the time (especially in chemistry, which is proving to be rife with them).

So what you mean is that animals are sometimes typical of established gender roles but not always and that we should carry over these gender roles - or not, if they don't apply - to humanity, and gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there's no way that they could handle one of them going out to work and one staying home to look after their kid because they're both men and are programmed to only survive the gender roles that may - or may not - be established already.

 

That WOULD explain why transgender people spontaneously combust once they've changed their gender. Their brains can't handle going against the programming they do - or don't - have.

No. There are observed gender roles in particular species of animals. Humans are a species of animal. Therefore, there just might be gender roles in humans.

One could go further and say that particular groups of species often have similar biological and behavioral traits (both evolutionists and creationists agree with this, for different reasons). Therefore, members of that group of species might have similar traits. Obviously there are going to be exceptions to this, just like there are exceptions to nature like the Platypus or the Echidna, but exceptions are not the rule. You can take that whatever way you want.

 

So really, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not too knowledgeable on transgenderism in general.

So I'm wrong for admitting I don't know everything?

Really, I don't think we'd be having a conversation on gender roles in animals if, well, animals didn't have basic gender roles. You can argue it is a social construct, an evolutionary construct, a religious construct, or whatnot, but there are basic roles. In science, however, rules aren't necessarily 100% correct all the time (especially in chemistry, which is proving to be rife with them).

im male to female transgender, what biological gender roles define me?

Well, I've said that "There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, of course, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other, but they can work out outside of the standard role."

So really, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not too knowledgeable on transgenderism in general. I do know there are biological examples of transgenderism, however, like the clownfish (I've heard this is somewhat common in fish in general) so it isn't unprecedented among other species.

 

 

 

There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this rule. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other.

 

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

 

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not).

 

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

 

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

Tyrranosaurs have a brief and violent mating ritual, where the larger, more powerful female will sometimes attack the male afterwards, and will not hesitate to kill him if he remains on her territory. She then raises the eggs she produces, guarding them vigilantly, and feeds her young until they reach the point, which is fairly soon, that she can leave them to their own defenses. After this, she may become one of the biggest threats to her own young.

 

If we're talking biological gender roles, reptiles kinda throw a chink into your armor there. Females tend to be larger and more aggressive, and not even all mammals conform to your view; lionesses are the "breadwinners" of their prides.

 

Don't try to take the middleman position, because that IS the "no-action" side; to say each has their merits is aiding in the institutional oppression of the groups that ARE affected, and panders to people who AREN'T.

To recount what I said, I said that "there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender". To some degree, there is a similarity between gender roles in 'species groups' like mammals or reptiles. They may differ, even drastically, from group-to-group, but within the species or group itself there are indeed distinct traits.

I don't have 'no position' - my position is that I support civil unions and I support the right of people to live their life whatever way they want, without government intrusion. I also support the right of states to determine what benefits they will provide as part of their own tax codes as well as for legal purposes. If that comes off as being 'in the middle', it pretty much is. Obviously this whole conversation isn't going anywhere, though, so I'm not going to continue here.

 

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

 

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

 

* So? In our society, culture and species the female can go out, get food, supply food and protect (re: Mothers have jobs). And in a lot of families, this is how things work and there has been no collapse of civilization or water turning into lava because what someone perceives "as the natural order of things" has been usurped. (Also, there are exceptions like you said, why can't humanity be one?). Fathers can raise kids just fine, we have formula and bottles for that formula babies can drink (and babie food, look at the booming business of Gerber's), animals don't have these things so... again, why are we taking cues from animals? My point being: A father can provide what a mother can provide and a mother can provide what a father can provide; one is not better than the other, and neither come with a stipulation from the natural realm of things as "only females can do this, and only males can do this, or you'll all die."

 

So... what does it matter, anyway? Why should this argument dictate whether or not I have potential to be a good mother-figure in a same-sex family?

 

* Yet no one said anything else you mentioned, so it doesn't apply here.

I never said gay people can't be decent parents (I have no opinion on the matter). My comment was related to the idea that there are no differences between the genders. There are differences, for better or for worse.

My point is general - there may not be any people that can use religious arguments against same-sex marriage/relationships/whatever here because the rules forbid it, but there are plenty of people who do so outside of here. I think both sides have a general mistrust of each other, and to, relate to a comment here, we need more replies like Sumiki's - comments that, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, are well-written, well-thought-out and that relies entirely on factual arguments. The case, for either side, can be made without questioning the intent or targeting the person, and that's really all I'm saying.

 

There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this rule. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other.

 

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

 

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not).

Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender.

My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

 

 

what in the hootenanny is you wallabies talkin about

 

flaredrick, gay people arent gonna make anybody else gay, they're just askin to be able to marry just like anyone else. the very notion that somebody will try to forcibly change another's orientation is just sickening (that also goes for straight folks trying to make gay people straight)

 

and fishers thats just dumb. im not gonna sugar coat that either, its just dumb. everybody is different and we all want our own things in relationships. to say that all women want one thing in a relationship and all men want another is actually rather sexist if you ask me. what i expect in a relationship and what another girl expects is gonna be different and to say that we want the same thing because were women or that two guys want the same thing just because theyre men is... yeah, that's sexism.

so now your comment about why you don't support equal marriage is based upon a sexist belief?

 

ok

 

*drops mic and walks out all swagalicious like*

You can disagree, but I don't think, regardless of how you act, a father can be a mother or vice versa. Now, can a family survive without a father or a mother)? Sure, it happens all the time. I'm not going to say anything further on the matter, because there really isn't any need to. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think that maybe if we all stopped yelling at each other and saying 'sinner' or 'bigot', maybe there can be a bit of understanding.

 

And further, you are not going to change anyone's mind by insulting them or applying pejorative labels to them. Period. It paints a very, very poor image of your side and it does not make people on the other side want to join yours. If you have a winning argument, use it - you shouldn't have to resort to insults if you are obviously correct. You can't claim to support 'love' while yelling at the other person, it simply does not work.

 

I don't see any yelling from Emkay, though I see quite a bit of condescension from you, and your "no-action" attitude is passive discrimination that helps enforce a society that oppresses the individuals affected by these issues.

I don't have a 'no-action' attitude, I just think you can present your case a lot better if you don't insult the person you are talking to. If I was condescending, I apologize - that wasn't my intent at all. What I took issue with was the use of 'dumb' and 'sexist' - I think if you have the superior case, there should be no need to attack their person or their belief. A superior case can stand on its own.

* I don't even understand how a mother is so vastly different from the father, to begin with. I mean, I know mothers who watch sports and drink beer, who go to work and are the breadwinners of their family. I know mothers who teach their kids sports, who teach their kids how to catch a ball, who push for their kids to involve themselves with these activities. Every mother is a mother, but every mother isn't the same to begin with (so how this is even an archetype I don't know). Additionally, I've seen fathers nurture their kids, kiss their booboos, bake and cook and teach their kids how to do these things. I know fathers who stay at home, who clean, who cook, who do the laundry, who have that glass of wine at night and watch TV for a little while. I know fathers who are protective of their kids (in the "Don't do x, y, z, honey... but both parents do that so I don't even understand the point anymore).

 

Some fathers can fill the "traditional" mother role, and vice-versa. It's really not so gender-dependent and I don't understand why everyone claims it is.

 

* I would like to add, Emkay did not insult Fishers from where I see it (maybe other staff would disagree, I don't speak for all of us). Emkay called the presented idea "dumb" and explained why... Em didn't call Fishers "dumb" and use cuss words, or inflammatory statements really. Everything's written in all lower caps, and while short and curt (and not flowery and long), it gets a point across nicely. And it's a bit of a red herring to take out this (what could be construed as an insult) and make a big deal out of that, while ignoring all of the valid points Emkay made.

There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, of course, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other, but they can work out outside of the standard role.

I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

what in the hootenanny is you wallabies talkin about

 

flaredrick, gay people arent gonna make anybody else gay, they're just askin to be able to marry just like anyone else. the very notion that somebody will try to forcibly change another's orientation is just sickening (that also goes for straight folks trying to make gay people straight)

 

and fishers thats just dumb. im not gonna sugar coat that either, its just dumb. everybody is different and we all want our own things in relationships. to say that all women want one thing in a relationship and all men want another is actually rather sexist if you ask me. what i expect in a relationship and what another girl expects is gonna be different and to say that we want the same thing because were women or that two guys want the same thing just because theyre men is... yeah, that's sexism.

so now your comment about why you don't support equal marriage is based upon a sexist belief?

 

ok

 

*drops mic and walks out all swagalicious like*

You can disagree, but I don't think, regardless of how you act, a father can be a mother or vice versa. Now, can a family survive without a father or a mother)? Sure, it happens all the time. I'm not going to say anything further on the matter, because there really isn't any need to. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think that maybe if we all stopped yelling at each other and saying 'sinner' or 'bigot', maybe there can be a bit of understanding.

And further, you are not going to change anyone's mind by insulting them or applying pejorative labels to them. Period. It paints a very, very poor image of your side and it does not make people on the other side want to join yours. If you have a winning argument, use it - you shouldn't have to resort to insults if you are obviously correct. You can't claim to support 'love' while yelling at the other person, it simply does not work.

I GAVE YOU MY LOVE

BUT YOU DON'T CARE

I got that for GameCube on my birthday... I had beaten it by the next morning. I have to say the GameBoy version is much, much better than the console version - it is a decent platformer on that one.

I have an autographed marshall Faulk trading card

Ooh, nice - I have a ton of cards but none are really special or autographed.

At least we won the superbowl.

We would have won if the Patriots hadn't cheated.

"NFC South Lil Tigers"

 

Sorry, cant help but poke at divisional rivals. c:

Haha... unfortunately for you guys, we got to the NFC Championship game in two years - it took ya'll twenty years just to get a winning season, and another twenty to win the Super Bowl.

Might I suggest Lawrence Taylor for a linebacker. He's kind of the best.

Hopefully he is in the key packs - they contain a random Legendary player, of which LT is one (I think). It takes quite a bit of offline grinding to unlock key packs, however, and you don't know what you've worked for until you get it.