Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Thanks.
-
Footnote...
Custard can be "consistent", that doesn't mean that it is meaningful.
My argument took informed consent from a position of equality as its basis and should anyone think that that is something self-evident that simply needed articulating, that is not the case at all. The word "rape" comes from a root meaning "to steal", ie. the victim was not the woman violated, but the father or husband whose property was taken from him. The experience of the woman was not recognised. Until as late as the early 1980s, in England IIRC, a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife because, logically, consistently, he could not steal his own property. Others here will know a lot more about the law regarding rape in various countries...
In any case, the requirement for consent as the basis for legitimacy in a relationship is something of an historical novelty.
-
Well Craig was funnier.
But if we must... I'd like to thank my director, Steven, the make-up people, the planet Saturn and its rings...
-
Scalia, a basic lesson. For what it's worth - logic and good faith demand that one does not misrepresent one's opponents' arguments, otherwise you are arguing in bad faith and have no cause for complaint when your own claims are dismissed and your character is questioned.
No-one argued for incest, necrophilia or bestiality and your claim on that regard is dishonest, stupid and offensive.
The "non-arbitrary" aspect is knowing, informed consent. Cadavers, animals, children, mineral formations and packs of corn flakes are not capable of the kind of cognition required. That is the defining line. The old "slippery slope of sin" argument is false and your use of it is indicates either naivete or dishonesty.
We are not having a "logical" argument with you because you yourself are not employing logic or honesty.
You have no right to complain of being treated rudely here when you yourself waded in and immediately indulged in insulting misrepresentations and then had the gall to complain that we don't love you enough.
Show some courtesy and good faith or bugger off to The Standard or Kiwiblog.
-
Sez who? You? And could you give a reason. It better be good.
Actually, I don't think that I have to offer a "good" reason :)
By "religion", I meant the faith itself, a person's spirituality, not the organisation. By "respect", I mean that one should offer personal respect for a person who is presumably intelligent who sincerely believes something other than what one believes personally. I do not mean to demand formal, legal, constitutional etc recognition. As far as the institutions and their representatives are concerned, then of course paedophile priests should be pursed and prosecuted, and the Vatican, in covering up these crimes and protecting the perpetrators across the world and for decades (centuries...) has itself committed a crime against humanity. We can throw the Inquisition in as well, but that is an entirely different argument - again, I'm referring only to personal spirituality.
And ironically, it's not something I feel much of myself.
I hope that clarifies things - I don't think that we're actually in disagreement.
-
Insomniacally… I have to disagree with Idiot/Savant’s earlier points or implications that if established religions do not acknowledge same-sex relationships, then one should simply decide to abandon them. Religions, whatever one may think of them (and I am an agnostic myself), are not simply brands or franchises like utility companies. Religion is a matter of faith, and faith is not determined by reductionist cost-benefit analysis. I have a lot of sympathy for people like Craig who need the acknowledgement of the organisation that represents their faith. To repeat, the organisation represents the faith, and however vile and corrupt it maybe in its practice, it is still not the faith in itself and that deserves some respect.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Kumara Republic,
FWIW, you’ve put your finger on what is the essential issue: consent.
Consent is by definition informed, without coercion or obligation and between equals in power and cogniscance. A dog cannot consent because it is not an equal in cognition or power, so the comparison is absurd and a red herring.
What interests me about Scalia’s childish bleating – in a clinical sense anyway – is the complete lack of awareness that consent is always intrinsic to any true relationship. They ignore the implicit but obvious assumption of informed consent made by everyone who has discussed non-monogamous, non-heterosexual relationships because their argument (which is by no means original), stupidly or naively, depends on the assumption that it is necessary for there to be some explicit legalistic declaration of the legitimacy of a relationship. It seems that they simply cannot conceive of a relationship in which both or all parties acknowledge one another’s consent on equal terms and do not factor this into their “reasoning”.
This implies that Scalia could not think of their potential partner having any valid subjectivity at all except in narrow, legalistic terms sanctioned by the state. I could take that further, and I’d leave it to Scalia to provide the straw to make an excellent set of scarecrows, but really, I agree with Sacha – the ennui is overwhelming.
Nighty-night.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Steve Parks,
Well, there’s “polyamory”, but that only refers to one’s orientation, not the definition of the state of an actual relationship matrix as (potentially) recognised by law. “Polygamy” refers only to having multiple wives, while “polyandry” denotes multiple husbands. I’m afraid that my grasp of classical languages is insufficient to find a term/archaeo-neologism for plural marriage, unless it’s “plural marriage”.
Does anyone have any other ideas?
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Sacha,
This one looks like fun! Let's poke it and see what happens!
-
Detachment:
“Hmmm, I seem to be holding a knife, there’s a dead body at my feet and I’m covered in blood. Hmmm. I must be a serial killer, which is rather interesting… I feel that it is absolutely necessary that I take a sample, date it and file it away in an exquisitely crafted box hidden in my apartment’s air conditioning system. Again. Thankfully I have evolved a suitable strategy for dealing with this that requires me to kill only those who deserve death. I suppose that on one level this might be quite horrifying and I’ll have to think about that at some time and see if it is in fact horrifying.”
A wee bit more pertinently, yes, dealing with people is like sticking one's head inside a pinball machine most of the time.