Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7019)

miceelf 09-07-2011 04:44 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225019)
I don't see it. One is arguing a political matter, the other is a disgusting creep slandering the person so that his children can't use the Internet. The reason people avoided doing things like this in the past is that it would get you punched in the face. In the feminized world, the snarky jerk is king.

Really, Sulla? If I said that allowing you to get married would be exaclty like allowing pedophilia and bestiality, that would just be a political matter and not worthy of a punch in the face? If I said that your taste in women was the reason for the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandals, you would think that was just political speech?

whburgess 09-07-2011 04:49 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 225016)
To each his own, I suppose, but I'm not really bothered by the vulgar google-bombing of a politician, particularly one as loathsome as Rick Santorum. I don't think it comes anywhere near the level of accusing your political opponents of treason, attacking the widows of the victims of terrorist attacks, or the like.

I've never read Treason or any of Coulter's other books. However, I don't think it should be out of bounds at all to accuse people of betraying their country.

And the widows of 9/11 politicized their victim status. I think they deserved to be 'attacked' for it. I think Coulter's use of the word 'enjoy' was not appropriate, and it distracted from the point she was making, which was a very good point.

BornAgainDemocrat 09-07-2011 04:53 PM

Re: What is marriage for?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225017)
the original, divinely stated purpose of marriage was companionship.

So you think this is a theological issue at bottom? I don't. For those who are interested in informing themselves about some of the historical facts, here is a nice piece on the tradition of marriage in England. (Love, sex, and companionship are part of the mix, you will be happy to see, just as they were with me and my girlfriends back before I was married!) The best parts are toward the bottom so don't stop reading.

Meanwhile, I think some apologies are in order miceelf when it comes to casual accusations of ignorance. I've thought about this a lot.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 04:53 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225021)
Really, Sulla? If I said that allowing you to get married would be exaclty like allowing pedophilia and bestiality, that would just be a political matter and not worthy of a punch in the face? If I said that your taste in women was the reason for the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandals, you would think that was just political speech?

Of course it was, since he wasn't saying that gays were like bestialists. He said that the argument doesn't stop at homosexuality. I make the exact same argument with more sensitivity, regarding polygamy. There is no reason other than prevailing moral attitudes to allow for gay marriage, but not allow for polygamy. If the nebulous concept of "love and attraction" are the guiding principle of these contracts; they're meaningless.

So what is the counterargument?

While Santorum is ill advised in his choice of alternative lifestyles, and probably deliberately provocative, it isn't in an attempt to malign gays. Its an attempt to scare people into seeing where the slippery slope leads.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 05:09 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225022)
However, I don't think it should be out of bounds at all to accuse people of betraying their country.

Agreed. Because there's a difference between what is permissible vs. what one personally condones.

Don Zeko 09-07-2011 05:20 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225022)
And the widows of 9/11 politicized their victim status. I think they deserved to be 'attacked' for it. I think Coulter's use of the word 'enjoy' was not appropriate, and it distracted from the point she was making, which was a very good point.

It would have been one thing to say that you disagreed with the political point they were making, or even to complain about how they used their particular status to increase their credibility. But come on, man, read what Coulter said:

Quote:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.
Enjoying their husbands' death? Seriously, how is that not beyond the pale?

sugarkang 09-07-2011 05:28 PM

Re: What is marriage for?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 225024)

Meanwhile, I think some apologies are in order miceelf when it comes to casual accusations of ignorance. I've thought about this a lot.

I think you guys are having a heated, but interesting debate. However, I don't see a casual accusation of ignorance.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 05:40 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 225027)
Enjoying their husbands' death? Seriously, how is that not beyond the pale?

In related news:

Tiger Woods’ alpha mistress, Rachel Uchitel, said the 9/11 death of her former fiance, investment banker James Andrew O’Grady, was meant to be. “I believe Andy was meant to die because he was too good,” she tells Page Six Magazine, in The Post on Thursday. “I’m almost happy it ended the way it did because I’ve learned so many lessons from him. It would have been tragic if we got into fights and then divorced.” Had O’Grady lived, Uchitel — who went on to reportedly make $500,000 a year working as a VIP hostess at Tao Las Vegas and at New York’s The Griffin, where she met Woods — believes her life would have been much different. “I would be a fat housewife with three kids in Sands Point, LI,” she tells the magazine. The toned and tanned Uchitel recently sold her Park Avenue apartment and plans to move to San Francisco with her boyfriend, Matt Hahn. The two are talking about children. “I never wanted them … but I know how much I love my dogs, and I think I’d make a good mother to my own kids.”

Perhaps this more of a mixed bag than you think. I would hardly think of this woman as the grieving widow. She seems morally repugnant.

whburgess 09-07-2011 05:56 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 225027)
It would have been one thing to say that you disagreed with the political point they were making, or even to complain about how they used their particular status to increase their credibility. But come on, man, read what Coulter said:

Enjoying their husbands' death? Seriously, how is that not beyond the pale?

I said it was not appropriate to have used the word 'enjoy'. It was 'beyond the pale'. She should have gone with "I've never seen someone take so much advantage of a loved one's death to advance their political agenda before". That was the important point she was making. She should have just ignored all the fun benefits bestowed on the widows by those politically exploiting them.

db63 09-07-2011 06:05 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Douthat is kind of a tragic figure. He appears to me as someone who wants to be well remembered by History. His take on gay marriage, however, will forever earn him a place of infamy (in my opinion correctly) in the histories of the future. He is fighting a losing, and incredibly offensive, battle--to what end, I don't know nor understand.

uncle ebeneezer 09-07-2011 06:08 PM

Re: Shorter Diavlog
 
Quote:

Standing ovation ensues.
With erections (just for added effect!)

Can't wait to watch this one.

basman 09-07-2011 06:34 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
I think this an intelligent and interesting exchange and most of the comments sensible and sensitive considering that the moral issues can be thorny.

I took the central issue to be, as WHBurgess acutely noted, whether, as I’d encapsulate it, to insist on sexual fidelity as a normative basis for marriage.

In the discussion of this issue Douthat argued for fidelity as an overarching norm and Savage for a kind ground or bottom up perspective-marriage being what any particular people decide for themselves it should be, with, generally, any lawful choice being as good as any other. I felt at times their perspectives made them speak past each other.

I can't see how Douthat isn't right; and I can't conceive of what kind of social cornerstone institution marriage would be without that prescriptive starting point. But to me, equally clearly, human drives and impulses being what they are, and sexual monotony being what it is—familiarity breeding breeding’s diminishment, tensions and problems and issues and dilemmas will inexorably arise. I think Savage strong, and Douthat not so much, about not being imperious or narrow in the judgments we make about people in committed relationships, and the case made horribly painful by kids, wrestling with their desires.

As a final comment, I think the final foot fetish example is a non starter for illuminating some general theme about marriage. A kink is a deviance of some kind, a more remote one off kind of thing. It cannot stand, I'd argue, as a ground on which to build general understandings about marriage and the accommodations needed to be made within it. Nor, for that matter, does the relatively remote example, of the sick spouse unable to meet his or her partner's sexual needs. That is part of a more general problem I had with some Savage’s lines of argument. His instances don’t support meaningfully telling conclusions about the nature of marriage. Rather, I think, they support the specific ways his instances find resolution.

I’d be happy to be convinced otherwise.

Itzik Basman

sugarkang 09-07-2011 06:59 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by basman (Post 225033)
It cannot stand, I'd argue, as a ground on which to build general understandings about marriage and the accommodations needed to be made within it. Nor, for that matter, does the relatively remote example, of the sick spouse unable to meet his or her partner's sexual needs.

John Edwards

However, it will be impossible to talk about that issue as separated from all the others involved. As life spans increase, and there's no reason to think they won't, Dan's argument gains more relevance. Don't worry, though. Monogamy is founded on jealousy. I don't expect humans to conquer that impulse any time soon.

whburgess 09-07-2011 06:59 PM

Since we're talking about Anne Coulter
 
Here is a recent clip of her that I wish all Republicans would take to heart.

Take away lines:

It's true that liberals will call even smart Republicans 'stupid, but that doesn't mean that when liberals call you stupid, that means you're smart.

and

We used to all love Sarah Palin, conservatives like me, for her enemies. I'm starting to dislike her because of her fans

Mattfugazi 09-07-2011 07:20 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
bhtv booker??? BHTV BOOKER??????

A little credit here please. I expect to get my due in Commenter Court, hopefully by the adorable Aryeh!!!

basman 09-07-2011 07:32 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 225035)
John Edwards

However, it will be impossible to talk about that issue as separated from all the others involved. As life spans increase, and there's no reason to think they won't, Dan's argument gains more relevance. Don't worry, though. Monogamy is founded on jealousy. I don't expect humans to conquer that impulse any time soon.

A couple of points Sir:

1. I don't see how John Edwards, lower than a snake's belly as he is, answers my point. He did what he did and whatever one should do in that kind of a situation, wife terminally ill with cancer and with a relatively short time to live as these things go, he's the putrid, debased, evil example of what not to do. I don't see anything illuminating about marriage or its inherent difficulties raised by "John Edwards." What am I missing?

2. As life spans increase, Savage's argument gets less relevant not more. You get over 65 or so and up from there, even if as I like delusionally to think of 65 as the new 39, you're thinking about a glass of warm milk, a nice movie on TCM, maybe checking up on your grandkids and like that. You'd rather go out to pick up a pizza than some strange.

Itzik Basman

miceelf 09-07-2011 07:36 PM

Re: What is marriage for?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 225024)
Meanwhile, I think some apologies are in order miceelf when it comes to casual accusations of ignorance. I've thought about this a lot.

I apologize. I didn't realize that you had thought a lot before you reached a conclusion that makes no sense, and ignores how marriage has usually been conducted.

best of luck.

miceelf 09-07-2011 07:41 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225025)
While Santorum is ill advised in his choice of alternative lifestyles, and probably deliberately provocative, it isn't in an attempt to malign gays. Its an attempt to scare people into seeing where the slippery slope leads.

If he had chosen polygamy, things would have gone very differently. He specifically chose examples that aren't remotely like consensual gay relationships between adult human beings.

and, yes, he didn't technically say that homosexuality was like bestiality or pedophilia. He merely said that one couldn't support one without inevitably having to support the others, because (implicitly) there's no moral difference between them.
I say implicitly, but's it is the only conclusion from what he said. Kind of like the dude on this thread who implied the same thing.
It's a pretty common trope that one has to accept bestiality and pedophilia if one accepts homosexuality. One can pretend there's no implied equivalence there. Or not.

miceelf 09-07-2011 07:46 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by basman (Post 225033)
As a final comment, I think the final foot fetish example is a non starter for illuminating some general theme about marriage. A kink is a deviance of some kind, a more remote one off kind of thing. It cannot stand, I'd argue, as a ground on which to build general understandings about marriage and the accommodations needed to be made within it. Nor, for that matter, does the relatively remote example, of the sick spouse unable to meet his or her partner's sexual needs. That is part of a more general problem I had with some Savage’s lines of argument. His instances don’t support meaningfully telling conclusions about the nature of marriage. Rather, I think, they support the specific ways his instances find resolution.


THanks for bringing us back to the actual discussion. I thought about the foot fetish thing as well, as well. ANd I found it pretty unconvincing, probably the least convincing thing from Dan. To see whether I was missing something, I repeated, as best I could, the example for my wife's benefit, to get her (predictably different than my) take. She kept interrupting me with things like "Wait, didn't they know about this before they got married?"

Peter Twieg 09-07-2011 07:48 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Advice to those who haven't watched this yet: Just give it 10 minutes to get the idea, then pass on the next 50 minutes of Ross and Dan going in circles on the main issue.

unhandyandy 09-07-2011 07:48 PM

Re: Social Norms
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 224999)
I don't think there is much else we can do to empower women. I think they're empowered.

I know women who would disagree. Women's wages still don't match men's, and women are still hugely underrepresented in some professions like the sciences.

Quote:

I say women would be especially pressured because I think they are less likely to dissatisfied with monogamy. If it became the norm to not be sexually monogamous in a marriage, there would be less women in ratio to men who would be happy about this.
So that would give them the power to bargain for more congenial terms. I don't see where the pressure comes in.

Quote:

No registry needed; punditing is sufficient. Popular entertainment, news, marketing, media probably influence the norm more then anything for most people. I think the church, and tradition, which used to do this, is not very influential in relation to those anymore.
Right, opiners will opine and the people will decide in the free market of ideas. As far as that goes I think Ross has already lost.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 07:53 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by basman (Post 225039)
A couple of points Sir:

1. I don't see how John Edwards, lower than a snake's belly as he is, answers my point. He did what he did and whatever one should do in that kind of a situation, wife terminally ill with cancer and with a relatively short time to live as these things go, he's the putrid, debased, evil example of what not to do. I don't see anything illuminating about marriage or its inherent difficulties raised by "John Edwards." What am I missing?

You're just proving my point. The fact that you hate him so much will color the way you think about his allegedly illegal misallocation of money. Do we need to talk about Anthony Weiner again?

Quote:

2. As life spans increase, Savage's argument gets less relevant not more. You get over 65 or so and up from there, even if as I like delusionally to think of 65 as the new 39, you're thinking about a glass of warm milk, a nice movie on TCM, maybe checking up on your grandkids and like that. You'd rather go out to pick up a pizza than some strange.
I think you have an image of older people as decrepit, asexual beings. Real life says otherwise:
1. Japan has a booming pornography industry for the elderly.
2. Being delusional is an important part of reality.

eeeeeeeli 09-07-2011 08:14 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanized (Post 224957)
Define our own standards. Like choose your own adventure. This in no way will end badly.

Gay Marriage
Open Marriage
Man-Boy Marriage
Human-Animal Marriage

And the decline of the West continues. Thanks Dan.

Totally. Thinking for yourself is much too dangerous. If someone hasn't told it to me, or I didn't read it in a book with really fancy script, I just say, "No thank you, sir!"

miceelf 09-07-2011 08:49 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 225045)
1. Japan has a booming pornography industry for the elderly.

This is purely anecdotal, but possibly relevant. In my experience, there's a direct and inverse relationship between the consumption of porn, and actual, real life sex.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 09:10 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225049)
This is purely anecdotal, but possibly relevant. In my experience, there's a direct and inverse relationship between the consumption of porn, and actual, real life sex.

Oh, I don't know if they're having actual sex. But there's no doubt that the elderly want to.

miceelf 09-07-2011 09:15 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 225050)
Oh, I don't know if they're having actual sex. But there's no doubt that the elderly want to.

"I've fallen and I can't get down"?

bjkeefe 09-07-2011 09:21 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sirfith (Post 224974)
I was mocking Bob Wright's outrage over Ann Coulter referring to John Edwards as a F*g....

We can agree on this one point, sir. It never fails to amaze me that Bob draws the line at Ann Coulter, while having on Ann Althouse, Michael Behe, Jerome Corsi, Richard Land, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirfith (Post 224974)
If Dan Savage wants to be tasteless and savagely wave his Bloody Fecal matter covered fist ...

I am thinking, especially given that the second syllable of your name could be seen as a lisping version of the clenched hand to which you refer, that the word curious might well apply here.

bkjazfan 09-07-2011 09:33 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Bring Dan Savage back and pair him with another person in his line of work. Ross Douthat came off as awkward in this diavlog. My suggestion: Amy Alkon, the Advice Goddess.

Ocean 09-07-2011 09:48 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
I found myself agreeing with Dan's advocacy for having people have more realistic expectations about marriage, taking into account shortcomings that are rather common. And it's especially important to be prepared for the eventuality.

However, the same realism and preparedness applies to other aspects of married life, not just sexual exclusivity. The same honesty and thought that Dan advocates, should apply to a whole sort of other issues that are at least as important as sex. It seemed that the focus on sex was fine, since that's Dan's topic, but there could have been some disclaimer that the same principles apply to other aspects of a relationship.

On the other hand, I could also see Ross' point in terms of holding up an ideal of marriage, a model to work towards. That's fine, although not all people honestly want to work towards that model, and still they should be prepared about what to do if and when it fails.

Dan wants people to enter their committed relationships with more honesty and being more realistic. Unfortunately, another aspect of reality is that most people enter these commitments with very good intentions. And not everybody is able to anticipate how a relationship will evolve over time, how events are going to shape each of the individuals and what balance will be found in the future. I don't think it's possible to anticipate every possible eventuality. At most what would be desirable is that people be, again, more realistic about what to expect, and perhaps learn how to resolve conflicts in mutually acceptable ways. Having some formal, basic education about relationships, marriage and parenting seems to be a good place to start when people are reaching an age when they're considering starting a family. Marriage, viewed as a relationship that involves sharing one's life in most practical aspects, supposed to last decades, and include the possibility of raising one's children, deserves some attention that it clearly doesn't get. People are expected to manage such commitments with the stories that they see in the movies or in romantic fiction, and at best tested through dating or other (failed) relationships.

The fetish story seemed a weak point in Dan's argument. Yes, sure, it can go in various ways. Wife agrees to cooperate. Wife gives permission to seek satisfaction elsewhere. Husband decides to forget about it. But, most fetishes don't erupt abruptly after twenty years of marriage, so the whole hypothetical is shaky.

The dynamics of sex in a mature couple is not separate from the rest of the relationship. Talking about sex as a separate issue makes sense when someone is troubleshooting, but not so much as a general topic. Even the fetish story will depend heavily on how the rest of the relationship is going. If the whole relationship is suffering, it will have a greater impact on the woman's interest in sex than the man's. That's why it isn't as simple as the woman giving the man a pass to go elsewhere. It's likely that gay (male) relationships are naturally more likely to be understanding of extramarital sex, because men tend to see sex as a limited activity, separate from other emotional ties. Women, who see sex tied to all kinds of other aspects of their relationship may be unable to understand that. All this being of course, stereotypical roles for men and women. There's a significant departure from that stereotype, as revealed by changes in the dynamics of sex.

Lastly, throughout the conversation I couldn't avoid thinking that these were topics that I used to be more interested in when I was in my teens or early twenties. Not that they've lost relevance, but somehow, these problems seem to belong to a group of issues that are more about understanding human nature and problem solving and not so much about theorizing.

JonIrenicus 09-07-2011 09:57 PM

Re: Social Norms
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by unhandyandy (Post 225044)
I know women who would disagree. Women's wages still don't match men's, and women are still hugely underrepresented in some professions like the sciences.

....

Just a quick point on this, just because women are underrepresented in some profession does not mean there is some outside societal/cultural force causing that.

Equal opportunity and career options does not imply equal results in terms of job interest and choice of careers. If it turns out to be the case that women just happen to choose the sciences less than other fields, is that some horrible result that needs to be normalized by society?

Not all results need to be normalized, not all differential results are the product of some malicious societal forces.

JonIrenicus 09-07-2011 10:04 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 224955)
... Promiscuity seems to be such an important facet of the gay community that now some seek to promote it to married couples. ...


Promiscuity is exaggerated in the gay male community because its all MEN. It's just the natural dynamic between male male interactions.


I am not with Dan though in extending more radical acceptance of non monogamy in marriage, I pretty much stop at allowing gays to marry.

I take that view with the full knowledge that is it probably the case that fewer gay men might be interested in the institution if it does not promote a more monogomish lifestyle, that's OK with me. Not looking for equal numbers of gays to marry, just looking for the opportunity for those who want to go along with that type of program to have the chance to take part in marriage.

JonIrenicus 09-07-2011 10:16 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 225015)
I don't agree with a sweeping charge against all liberals, but I think Dan was unnecessarily "in your face" about it. Sometimes, the proper response in politics is to spit fire, but I think that's inappropriate when a person is attempting to have a civil conversation. Ross is a good, decent guy and I think Dan went a bit too far, even if I tend to agree with Dan for the most part.

What I don't understand is why we're litigating gay marriages. The diavlog was about monogamy. It still appears I'm the only that agrees with Dan on this point.


When Dan deals with social conservatives, he is usually dealing with their most troglodyte-esque spokespeople. One of the reasons this was a good pairing is that Ross is NOT that type of social conservative, the types of slack jawed arguments you hear flying out of some of their mouths just does not leave Ross's because he is smart enough to know better.

Dan did try to goad Ross, but Ross was not the type to overreact, so it was fine. Dan brought himself back down when the rhetoric did not make Ross go batsh*t. The plus side to Dan' rhetoric is that it is incredibly satisfying when he does encounter a socially conservative troglodyte, because some beliefs are so stupid and wrong those people DESERVE to be verbally abused, just a little.

I know, not very nice of me, but there it is.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 10:20 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 225059)
Dan did try to goad Ross, but Ross was not the type to overreact, so it was fine. Dan brought himself back down when the rhetoric did not make Ross go batsh*t. The plus side to Dan' rhetoric is that it is incredibly satisfying when he does encounter a socially conservative troglodyte, because some beliefs are so stupid and wrong those people DESERVE to be verbally abused, just a little.

It is cute when Dan Savage waxes on about how he would like to rape Rick Santorum. Some people just deserve that.


....As long as they're conservatives. They're less than people, and so deserve little or no respect. They're lucky they're not processed in the basement.

JonIrenicus 09-07-2011 10:25 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225060)
It is cute when Dan Savage waxes on about how he would like to rape Rick Santorum. Some people just deserve that.


....As long as they're conservatives. They're less than people, and so deserve little or no respect. They're lucky they're not processed in the basement.



It's not that people are conservative, it's that the beliefs held are stupid to the point where ridicule is deserved. Granted, even if it IS deserved a better man would not go down that path.


I'm not always a better man, sometimes, when someone mouths off some idiot belief about homosexual desires being a choice, I want the stupid verbally slapped out of them, and not gently. There is a catharsis there, the catharsis of a flawed individual, which is what I am.

basman 09-07-2011 10:38 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 225045)
You're just proving my point. The fact that you hate him so much will color the way you think about his allegedly illegal misallocation of money. Do we need to talk about Anthony Weiner again?

I think you have an image of older people as decrepit, asexual beings. Real life says otherwise:
1. Japan has a booming pornography industry for the elderly.
2. Being delusional is an important part of reality.

A strong my demonstration by you Mr. Kang, I don’t feel I know you well enough to call you Sugar, apart from it being weird were I to do it, of non sequitur and generally not making a lot of sense.

I have an aversion to Edwards and think he acted execrably in virtually all significant recent respects, sure. So what? Does it necessarily follow that I can’t think about him with relative objectivity? Hardly! But, more fundamentally, I don’t have a clue as to what your point is. Do tell, if you want to; explain it to me like I’m a 4 year old, brick by brick and I’ll tell you what I think as best I can. But, for now, on this, I’m in totally in the dark.

I’m the guy on the brink of turning 65. Most of my friends range around my age and older. I know whereof I speak, unfortunately. I exaggerated my comments for humor’s sake: true that. Of course I recognize that our sex drive continues into old age. But I’m not being—as Douthat would say—"binary" about it.

But, another but, if you don’t think the passions cool and the ardor diminishes over our older years, you have a discernable gap in your grasp of reality. Check out what segment of the population experiences the highest incidence of divorce. It’s not people with gray hair, if any hair at all.

So the logic is that if in fact passions cool and ardor diminishes as we age, then Savage’s argument gets correlatively increasingly inapplicable, pornography for older Japanese dudes notwithstanding.

Delusion is part of reality. I can’t disagree with that: but, again, so what? What specific part of any argument does your firm grasp of the obvious here relate to?

Itzik Basman

AemJeff 09-07-2011 10:58 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225030)
I said it was not appropriate to have used the word 'enjoy'. It was 'beyond the pale'. She should have gone with "I've never seen someone take so much advantage of a loved one's death to advance their political agenda before". That was the important point she was making. She should have just ignored all the fun benefits bestowed on the widows by those politically exploiting them.

I'd say the fact of their husbands' deaths was their political point. Coulter was offended because their political point wasn't the same as her political point; so she (typically) said something ugly, untrue, unnecessary and which should have been enough for her to be excluded from polite conversation forever. There was never any point for her except fetid opportunism.

AemJeff 09-07-2011 11:00 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by db63 (Post 225031)
Douthat is kind of a tragic figure. He appears to me as someone who wants to be well remembered by History. His take on gay marriage, however, will forever earn him a place of infamy (in my opinion correctly) in the histories of the future. He is fighting a losing, and incredibly offensive, battle--to what end, I don't know nor understand.

The guy who caused "Chunky Reese Witherspoon" to enter the lexicon really ought to know that there are certain topics on which it's in his interest to be silent.

Mattfugazi 09-07-2011 11:07 PM

Re: Social Norms
 
I largely agree that we should not complain about people following their own bliss and naturally sorting themselves into fields of study. EXCEPT for the fact that we may be missing some lowhanging fruit by assuming that young people who are not white, Asian, and male will never be as culturally uninterested in math and science. Most economists agree we need more inventive thinking and intelligent young people to go into the sciences and engineering to keep our productivity and economy growing. If there are girls out there in America's schools who have the innate talent and interest that you rightly assert are necessary, but who just don't see these fields as welcoming to them, a little nudging in the form of outreach, scholarships (if from private donors, not the government which should never discriminate against boys), and maybe single-sex afterschool tutoring could really increase the talent pool from which we're drawing. We need all the technically innovative thinking we can get these days-- it seems to be the only path an advanced economy can take to increasing prosperity.

eeeeeeeli 09-07-2011 11:16 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 225061)
It's not that people are conservative, it's that the beliefs held are stupid to the point where ridicule is deserved. Granted, even if it IS deserved a better man would not go down that path.


I'm not always a better man, sometimes, when someone mouths off some idiot belief about homosexual desires being a choice, I want the stupid verbally slapped out of them, and not gently. There is a catharsis there, the catharsis of a flawed individual, which is what I am.

I agree with this, but maybe for different, more utilitarian reasons. First, there is simple efficacy: sometimes going off on someone is good public policy, in terms of getting things done. It's I suppose like terrorism, in that eggs get broken. But unlike terrorism, these aren't lives but feelings. The effect is actually to just shut down debate that should not happen. For instance, whether or not Jews have horns on their head. Those debates don't need to happen. And those idiots need to be verbally slapped.

But back to catharsis. To the extent that an oppressed group (as well as their friends and loved ones), is coming out of a a period of such pain and disenfranchisement, and into power and voice, I think that such a catharsis - meted out as it is at the expense of civility - can have greater benefits not only for the individual but for the collective. Humans do some really dirty shit, and letting some of that anger out seems healthy. Maybe it isn't the "best way" to operate, but if it doesn't happen, maybe we're worse off.

Creative destruction?

whburgess 09-08-2011 12:08 AM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225049)
This is purely anecdotal, but possibly relevant. In my experience, there's a direct and inverse relationship between the consumption of porn, and actual, real life sex.

Unless you're married to a woman who likes porn.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.