The gay marriage debate in the US these days
Posted by: ErikL on 15 February 2004
Isn't it just a civil rights issue, or am I missing something?
I don't understand all the fuss.
I don't understand all the fuss.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Thomas
Thank you.
This sounds like you're telling me I can't oppose something unless it has a direct effect upon me.
quote:
It doesn't at all.
Thank you.
quote:
but don't expect anyone to restrict themselves if you cannot show that they're restricting you
This sounds like you're telling me I can't oppose something unless it has a direct effect upon me.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Thomas
It is becoming repetitive, yes. However, you have stated this again and I will say again, I am not convinced by the reasons put forward. I have agreed that gay couples could have the same rights as married couples, the ONLY thing they don't get is the actual marriage itself. Why can this not be viewed as a compromise?
quote:
we/they have produced reasons exhaustively.
It is becoming repetitive, yes. However, you have stated this again and I will say again, I am not convinced by the reasons put forward. I have agreed that gay couples could have the same rights as married couples, the ONLY thing they don't get is the actual marriage itself. Why can this not be viewed as a compromise?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Simon Perry
Q. Why do I have to have a reason to oppose a change to a law?
Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?
They have.
Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?
They have.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
Here are some quotations from your posts on page 2 - before the one where Matthew said, "*that* BrianD":
Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite.
So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own.
What insult prompted this - other than the fact that almost everyoner else had a different opinion from yours?
I am in the camp of believing that man/man and woman/woman is wrong. That's it. That they should go one step further and be married is ridiculous to me.
You described an idea you disagreed with as "ridiculous". Fair enough - it's not the most offensive remark in the world - but you later took great exception to having your own argument described as "absurd". You cannot have it both ways.
I do have an issue. And despite what everybody else on here appears to be suggesting, I am entitled to have an issue with this...
Nobody suggested otherwise.
...I assume many of you on here won't agree that I'm entitled to this view merely because you don't agree with it. Hypocritical springs to mind.
A wild assumpion with no factual basis, followed by an accusation of collective hypocrisy.
What do you expect after this?
Here are some quotations from your posts on page 2 - before the one where Matthew said, "*that* BrianD":
Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite.
So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own.
What insult prompted this - other than the fact that almost everyoner else had a different opinion from yours?
I am in the camp of believing that man/man and woman/woman is wrong. That's it. That they should go one step further and be married is ridiculous to me.
You described an idea you disagreed with as "ridiculous". Fair enough - it's not the most offensive remark in the world - but you later took great exception to having your own argument described as "absurd". You cannot have it both ways.
I do have an issue. And despite what everybody else on here appears to be suggesting, I am entitled to have an issue with this...
Nobody suggested otherwise.
...I assume many of you on here won't agree that I'm entitled to this view merely because you don't agree with it. Hypocritical springs to mind.
A wild assumpion with no factual basis, followed by an accusation of collective hypocrisy.
What do you expect after this?
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Thomas K
This sounds like you're telling me I can't oppose something unless it has a direct effect upon me.
No. Apart from the fact that the word "you" in the sentence you quoted should be a collective you (inclusive of third parties), you can take the statement at face value.
No. Apart from the fact that the word "you" in the sentence you quoted should be a collective you (inclusive of third parties), you can take the statement at face value.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
"Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite."
What's wrong with this? It was true, it wasn't an insult toward anybody, let alone any one individual.
"So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own."
Again, what's wrong with this? The issue of tolerance had been brought up in the thread and it seemed that nobody wanted to tolerate a different one. Again, not aimed toward any one individual.
Jeremy, the posts from everybody on the thread was along the lines of my opinion didn't count because it was different. If you can't see that, then that's your problem. I am bound to become defensive in those circumstances and that's what is clear in my posts. If you prefer to be judgemental of me and imagine some other motive, then that's your problem. Perhaps you wouldn't become defensive in those circumstances, although I'd doubt you'd manage it.
The PERSONAL stuff began with Matthew's post. If you can't see that, then that is also your problem. Frankly, I'm not that bothered. I know you tear apart every post I make and look for anything to pick up on and question, you were doing it for 12 months before I left the last time. I have no idea what I've done to you, but it's about time you grew up and dropped it.
"Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite."
What's wrong with this? It was true, it wasn't an insult toward anybody, let alone any one individual.
"So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own."
Again, what's wrong with this? The issue of tolerance had been brought up in the thread and it seemed that nobody wanted to tolerate a different one. Again, not aimed toward any one individual.
Jeremy, the posts from everybody on the thread was along the lines of my opinion didn't count because it was different. If you can't see that, then that's your problem. I am bound to become defensive in those circumstances and that's what is clear in my posts. If you prefer to be judgemental of me and imagine some other motive, then that's your problem. Perhaps you wouldn't become defensive in those circumstances, although I'd doubt you'd manage it.
The PERSONAL stuff began with Matthew's post. If you can't see that, then that is also your problem. Frankly, I'm not that bothered. I know you tear apart every post I make and look for anything to pick up on and question, you were doing it for 12 months before I left the last time. I have no idea what I've done to you, but it's about time you grew up and dropped it.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
quote:I did not say or imply that there was anything wrong with it.
"Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite."
What's wrong with this? It was true, it wasn't an insult toward anybody, let alone any one individual.
quote:Please humour me and find one quotation from before you posted your "you people" remark that justifies the accusation.
"So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own."
Again, what's wrong with this? The issue of tolerance had been brought up in the thread and it seemed that nobody wanted to tolerate a different one.
quote:The OFFENSIVE stuff began with your posts - particularly your accusation of hypocrisy, which I quoted in my last post.
The PERSONAL stuff began with Matthew's post.
quote:I think this speaks for itself.
I have no idea what I've done to you, but it's about time you grew up and dropped it.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
No it, didn't. The first comment YOU may have taken offence at was mine, but the first personal snipe was fired by Matthew. Had he not done that later comments in my posts would not have appeared. You don't see this because it was not directed toward you and you have no issue with it. Try putting yourself in my position reading that post and you just might begin to grasp what I'm talking about. The reason it began with Matthews comment was because I found it extremely annoying. I considered that he was negatively influencing forum members who have never seen a post from me.
You make me laugh. So I'm to believe that you read old posts in the thread and extracted the comment in question because you think it was a perfectly harmless and legitimate comment for me to make? You are starting to annoy me now, Jeremy. You are moving back to your old habits of pretending to appear unable to understand context. You know exactly what I meant when I said, "what's wrong with this then". Everybody else will know what I mean too.
I'm surprised you acknowledge your problem. However, it's a pleasant surprise. The sooner you get on with correcting it the better. I'm sure you'll agree.
quote:
The OFFENSIVE stuff began with your posts
No it, didn't. The first comment YOU may have taken offence at was mine, but the first personal snipe was fired by Matthew. Had he not done that later comments in my posts would not have appeared. You don't see this because it was not directed toward you and you have no issue with it. Try putting yourself in my position reading that post and you just might begin to grasp what I'm talking about. The reason it began with Matthews comment was because I found it extremely annoying. I considered that he was negatively influencing forum members who have never seen a post from me.
quote:
I did not say or imply that there was anything wrong with it.
You make me laugh. So I'm to believe that you read old posts in the thread and extracted the comment in question because you think it was a perfectly harmless and legitimate comment for me to make? You are starting to annoy me now, Jeremy. You are moving back to your old habits of pretending to appear unable to understand context. You know exactly what I meant when I said, "what's wrong with this then". Everybody else will know what I mean too.
quote:
I think this speaks for itself
I'm surprised you acknowledge your problem. However, it's a pleasant surprise. The sooner you get on with correcting it the better. I'm sure you'll agree.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by ErikL
Fellas, let's just move on. 
Anyway, I can't imagine seeing the joy in these newly married couples in San Francisco the past week and not thinking "how wonderful". I mean, happy is happy, right?
Ludwig, Zen'd out
Anyway, I can't imagine seeing the joy in these newly married couples in San Francisco the past week and not thinking "how wonderful". I mean, happy is happy, right?
Ludwig, Zen'd out
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by JeremyD
Oh. My turn, is it?
It's a bit rich to quote part of my quotation of your quotation out of context and then accuse me of pretending not to understand context.
Since you have failed to provide the quotation that I asked for I can only assume that you acknowledge that no such quotation exists and that you have no justification for your paranoid accusations.
Good night.
quote:I thought you meant "what's wrong with this then?". I was obviously mistaken.
Originally posted by BrianD:
You know exactly what I meant when I said, "what's wrong with this then". Everybody else will know what I mean too.
It's a bit rich to quote part of my quotation of your quotation out of context and then accuse me of pretending not to understand context.
Since you have failed to provide the quotation that I asked for I can only assume that you acknowledge that no such quotation exists and that you have no justification for your paranoid accusations.
Good night.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Former member
Right.
Both of you to your rooms right now before I stop your pocket money. Brian - go and support your football team and Jeremy, don't you have some exams to study for?
nick.lees at btinternet.com
Both of you to your rooms right now before I stop your pocket money. Brian - go and support your football team and Jeremy, don't you have some exams to study for?
nick.lees at btinternet.com
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by matthewr
BrianD said "The hassle began on page 2 on 17th Feb at 0919 with the post from Matthew Robinson when he said..."
Ok lets examine what I said at that point with the benefit of hindsight, which was "Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now".
As subsequently became apparent, what I meant by that was that I recognised BrianD as someone who had a particular style of debate and that recognising BrianD and his debating style made sense of much of what had been previously confusing discussions.
Specifically it was my view that it was best to talk to Brian in simple one fact sentences arranged in bullet points. And that if one didn't adopt this approach then, based on previous experience, we would be in for multiple pages of tedious, confusing, poorly argued, circular sophistry mixed with an element of BrianD's bizarre personal persecution fantaisies.
Doh!
Matthew
Ok lets examine what I said at that point with the benefit of hindsight, which was "Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now".
As subsequently became apparent, what I meant by that was that I recognised BrianD as someone who had a particular style of debate and that recognising BrianD and his debating style made sense of much of what had been previously confusing discussions.
Specifically it was my view that it was best to talk to Brian in simple one fact sentences arranged in bullet points. And that if one didn't adopt this approach then, based on previous experience, we would be in for multiple pages of tedious, confusing, poorly argued, circular sophistry mixed with an element of BrianD's bizarre personal persecution fantaisies.
Doh!
Matthew
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by Johns Naim
BrianD said:
As I mentioned Brian, I am not trying to pick a fight with you, merely expressing my opinion, which fact I stated, as to your seeming insensitivity towards Throbnorths feelings, based upon your post. I cannot say that this IS who you are, as clearly in this instance you are, like all of us, mere text on a page - you may be a totally different person in real life, and I respect and understand that. My comments/opinion per se, was directed at your public statements, NOT YOU PERSONALLY, as I DONT KNOW YOU.
Again, In My Humble Opinion, your comments in your reply to throbnorth:
in part lead to me to form my opinion of your insensitivity towards him, and I responded by making my post, and expressing the opinion I have. Obviously, I can't read your mind, and somehow deduce that you meant something else entirely, I can only 'interpret' things as they appear to be with the written word. One of the disadvantages of thoughts and feelings expressed in text on internet forums etc, where one doesn't hear the vocal inflections etc which convey so much of the meaning, and hence 2 + 2 can often appear to equal 6 as it were.
I do hope that your sensitivity does extend to others, as well as yourself, and that your comments about meeting face to face are more to do with hearing/understanding comments made and opinions expressed, in a more complete way than mere text can convey, and not some veiled hint at discussing matters with s hidden agenda on your behalf of my "getting a good kicking" which you initiated firstly in comments as regards Matthew, and now, perhaps erroneously, I feel are possibly directed towards me.
If indeed this is some sort of veiled and/or insinuated comment directed towards me, as to what you might like to do if we were face to face, I wonder how you can be so sensitive to yourself, whilst seemingly quite willing to dish it out several times fold, even to the extent of expressing such thoughts?
IMHO, you are indeed a complex person, and this thread has been discussing a reasonably complex, or at least contentious issue, and tempers will always flare.
Rest assured, again I bear you no ill will; I accept your right to your opinion, as I hope that you respect mine, and other than taking umbridge with your written views/remarks/comments/opinions/writing style etc, I have no axe to grind as it were, with you whatsoever.
I'd like to think it was mutual.
Best Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
quote:
For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.
As I mentioned Brian, I am not trying to pick a fight with you, merely expressing my opinion, which fact I stated, as to your seeming insensitivity towards Throbnorths feelings, based upon your post. I cannot say that this IS who you are, as clearly in this instance you are, like all of us, mere text on a page - you may be a totally different person in real life, and I respect and understand that. My comments/opinion per se, was directed at your public statements, NOT YOU PERSONALLY, as I DONT KNOW YOU.
Again, In My Humble Opinion, your comments in your reply to throbnorth:
quote:
Seriously, I'm sitting here with pint glass in hand and I almost dropped it in laughter. God, what a stupid thing to say. You have no idea.
in part lead to me to form my opinion of your insensitivity towards him, and I responded by making my post, and expressing the opinion I have. Obviously, I can't read your mind, and somehow deduce that you meant something else entirely, I can only 'interpret' things as they appear to be with the written word. One of the disadvantages of thoughts and feelings expressed in text on internet forums etc, where one doesn't hear the vocal inflections etc which convey so much of the meaning, and hence 2 + 2 can often appear to equal 6 as it were.
I do hope that your sensitivity does extend to others, as well as yourself, and that your comments about meeting face to face are more to do with hearing/understanding comments made and opinions expressed, in a more complete way than mere text can convey, and not some veiled hint at discussing matters with s hidden agenda on your behalf of my "getting a good kicking" which you initiated firstly in comments as regards Matthew, and now, perhaps erroneously, I feel are possibly directed towards me.
If indeed this is some sort of veiled and/or insinuated comment directed towards me, as to what you might like to do if we were face to face, I wonder how you can be so sensitive to yourself, whilst seemingly quite willing to dish it out several times fold, even to the extent of expressing such thoughts?
IMHO, you are indeed a complex person, and this thread has been discussing a reasonably complex, or at least contentious issue, and tempers will always flare.
Rest assured, again I bear you no ill will; I accept your right to your opinion, as I hope that you respect mine, and other than taking umbridge with your written views/remarks/comments/opinions/writing style etc, I have no axe to grind as it were, with you whatsoever.
I'd like to think it was mutual.
Best Regards to All
John...
Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Ludwig
Fine by me. Having now been unable to refrain from following posts after the one from Ludwig, it appears that Matthew and Jeremy cannot move on.
Matthew, don't you realise how insulting your posts are? You're so arrogant it's unbelievable. How you can go on about my 'style' is absolutely amazing. I go back to what I said to you earlier, there is clearly no way at all that you would speak to a person face to face in the manner you post to them on a forum. No way at all.
God. I'm taking the bait again. Listen, Matthew. If other people don't recognise the condescending manner in virtually every post you make when you DON'T AGREE WITH SOMEBODY, I would be amazed. Over the years of reading this forum this is one of the main things that always strikes me as obvious. You can rattle on all you like about my style, hoping to discredit me in this petty manner, but I'm sure people on here are intelligent enough to realise what you are doing, even those who don't agree with me. At least some will be.
Jeremy, how come you see fit to bang on and on at me yet totally ignore this kind of personal tripe from Matthew? Do you bow to the superiority that Matthew clearly attempts to assume over everybody else on this forum?
There are over 6000 members of this forum, how come many don't post? How many have thought about it, but then decided not to because of the tone of some of you people? Might it be they are afraid to post lest they incur the wrath of the half dozen or so regulars who jump down anyone's throat who posts an opposing view to their own?
[This message was edited by BrianD on FRIDAY 20 February 2004 at 09:54.]
quote:
Fellas, let's just move on
Fine by me. Having now been unable to refrain from following posts after the one from Ludwig, it appears that Matthew and Jeremy cannot move on.
quote:
Specifically it was my view that it was best to talk to Brian in simple one fact sentences arranged in bullet points. And that if one didn't adopt this approach then, based on previous experience, we would be in for multiple pages of tedious, confusing, poorly argued, circular sophistry mixed with an element of BrianD's bizarre personal persecution fantaisies.
Matthew, don't you realise how insulting your posts are? You're so arrogant it's unbelievable. How you can go on about my 'style' is absolutely amazing. I go back to what I said to you earlier, there is clearly no way at all that you would speak to a person face to face in the manner you post to them on a forum. No way at all.
God. I'm taking the bait again. Listen, Matthew. If other people don't recognise the condescending manner in virtually every post you make when you DON'T AGREE WITH SOMEBODY, I would be amazed. Over the years of reading this forum this is one of the main things that always strikes me as obvious. You can rattle on all you like about my style, hoping to discredit me in this petty manner, but I'm sure people on here are intelligent enough to realise what you are doing, even those who don't agree with me. At least some will be.
Jeremy, how come you see fit to bang on and on at me yet totally ignore this kind of personal tripe from Matthew? Do you bow to the superiority that Matthew clearly attempts to assume over everybody else on this forum?
There are over 6000 members of this forum, how come many don't post? How many have thought about it, but then decided not to because of the tone of some of you people? Might it be they are afraid to post lest they incur the wrath of the half dozen or so regulars who jump down anyone's throat who posts an opposing view to their own?
[This message was edited by BrianD on FRIDAY 20 February 2004 at 09:54.]
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
One last try...
On Page 2 (before Matthew's "*that* BrianD" remark) you accused other contributors collectively of:
1. being intolerant of your view
2. thinking you were not entitled to your opinion
3. being hypocritical.
(I quoted from the relevant posts on page 9).
If you truly believe that your accusations are justified then why have you repeatedly ignored my request to provide even one quotation from Page 1 or 2 that justifies your accusations?
By asking the question I have given you an opportunity to demonstrate that I am mistaken, and that you have a vaild reason for your accusations. Quite frankly, I cannot see why you would not want provide a quotation - unless you knew that you could not. It's up to you.
One last try...
On Page 2 (before Matthew's "*that* BrianD" remark) you accused other contributors collectively of:
1. being intolerant of your view
2. thinking you were not entitled to your opinion
3. being hypocritical.
(I quoted from the relevant posts on page 9).
If you truly believe that your accusations are justified then why have you repeatedly ignored my request to provide even one quotation from Page 1 or 2 that justifies your accusations?
By asking the question I have given you an opportunity to demonstrate that I am mistaken, and that you have a vaild reason for your accusations. Quite frankly, I cannot see why you would not want provide a quotation - unless you knew that you could not. It's up to you.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
It is just so frustrating trying to get something through to you once you've already formed a viewpoint of somebody.
What you are highlighting are DEFENSIVE posts from me because I was in a situation where it was obvious I was a LONE voice. These were not PERSONAL insults aimed toward, or trying to discredit any single individual. There is a difference. I do credit you with being intelligent. For gooodness sake think about what I'm saying and try to put yourself in my position as each post went by. These are ENTIRELY different to the personal shite that Matthew comes out with and are totally different to the initial comment from Matthew that started the whole thing.
Almost every post made me think some thought I was not entitled to an opinion.
quote:
On Page 2 (before Matthew's "*that* BrianD" remark) you accused other contributors collectively of:
1. being intolerant of your view
2. thinking you were not entitled to your opinion
3. being hypocritical.
It is just so frustrating trying to get something through to you once you've already formed a viewpoint of somebody.
What you are highlighting are DEFENSIVE posts from me because I was in a situation where it was obvious I was a LONE voice. These were not PERSONAL insults aimed toward, or trying to discredit any single individual. There is a difference. I do credit you with being intelligent. For gooodness sake think about what I'm saying and try to put yourself in my position as each post went by. These are ENTIRELY different to the personal shite that Matthew comes out with and are totally different to the initial comment from Matthew that started the whole thing.
Almost every post made me think some thought I was not entitled to an opinion.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
Your feeling defensive may be an explanation for your accusation but it is not a justification. I have invited you to provide that justification by quoting from a relevant post but your only reply to this so far has been:
[This message was edited by JeremyD on FRIDAY 20 February 2004 at 13:10.]
quote:What you quoted is not a viewpoint. It is an undeniable statement of fact, which can be verified by anyone who chooses to read page two.
"On Page 2 (before Matthew's "*that* BrianD" remark) you accused other contributors collectively of:
1. being intolerant of your view
2. thinking you were not entitled to your opinion
3. being hypocritical."
It is just so frustrating trying to get something through to you once you've already formed a viewpoint of somebody.
quote:I appreciate that you felt defensive because you were a lone voice. It is understandable that you might feel that way.
What you are highlighting are DEFENSIVE posts from me because I was in a situation where it was obvious I was a LONE voice.
quote:There is certainly a difference. However, would you not feel irritated, if not offended, if you were accused, even collectively, of being intolerant of someone's view, of thinking they were not entitled to their opinion and of being hypocritical? Would you not be tempted to respond in perhaps not the most polite way?
These were not PERSONAL insults aimed toward, or trying to discredit any single individual. There is a difference.
Your feeling defensive may be an explanation for your accusation but it is not a justification. I have invited you to provide that justification by quoting from a relevant post but your only reply to this so far has been:
quote:Please, Brian, just quote from one post from page one or two and explain how it made you feel that way. Otherwise I cannot see how I will ever understand your point of view.
Almost every post made me think some thought I was not entitled to an opinion.
[This message was edited by JeremyD on FRIDAY 20 February 2004 at 13:10.]
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
Once again you choose to PRETEND that you don't know what I mean. Does everything have to be written down absolutely literally for you to understand what someone means? Are you suggesting that over the last few years on this forum that you haven't formed a viewpoint about me that is impossible for me to shift? That is what I'm on about here. Perhaps my phrasology isn't quite perfect enough for you.
Errr, aye. That's exactly how I was feeling, so maybe I responded in 'not the most polite' way. Seemingly this is not acceptable from me, but here you are saying that others felt this way and you are confirming they responded in a 'not too polite way' as well. So it's understandable from others, but not from me. Is that what you're saying? Double standards, Jeremy. This is a vicious circle it seems, but one where you can only see one side of the problem for some strange reason.
I believe I was well justified in feeling defensive. It should therefore be expected my posts may well become slightly tetchy. I'd consider this to be normal human behaviour. Perhaps you don't. You should view this as confirmation that, despite what some may believe, I am actually a human being. If you would have so much self control not to allow yourself to fall into this trap, then you are a one-off.
============================================
Here's my take on the first 2 pages since you are like a dog with a bone....
Following my post on page 2, made at 21:36 on Feb 16, there were consecutive posts from :
Matthew Robsinson : (What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?), Eric, Throbnorth, Rasher and Ron Toolsie. This accumulation, along with the eariler page, was bound to make me initially become defensive. This is bound to have an effect on everything following.
Matthew Robinson, in his usual style, attempted to ridicule an earlier post from me in a way that left me thinking that, although I'd put forward my opinion, it didn't count for anything, therefore, I am not entitled to one. You see, he asked me a question that I'd already answered, an answer that he even saw fit to quote in his post! He saw fit to ask...
In addition, the post from Throbnorth made an enormous deal of my comment regarding use of the word 'gay', for example. This added to the defensive posture I was now in and I don't see any need to apologise for going on the defensive at this point, even if it did cause me to post in a manner that was unjustified in your opinion.
It was my response to this group of posts that then brought about the one from Robinson that was the FIRST post that became personal. You can ask me to present quotes to justify myself all you like. I'm still waiting for you to start hassling the self appointed forum leader. I would like to believe that Matthew Robinson is a real thick shit, but I don't believe he is. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Jolly good show.
I won't be holding my breath.
quote:
What you quoted is not a viewpoint. It is an undeniable statement of fact, which can be verified by anyone who chooses to read page two.
Once again you choose to PRETEND that you don't know what I mean. Does everything have to be written down absolutely literally for you to understand what someone means? Are you suggesting that over the last few years on this forum that you haven't formed a viewpoint about me that is impossible for me to shift? That is what I'm on about here. Perhaps my phrasology isn't quite perfect enough for you.
quote:
However, would you not feel irritated, if not offended, if you were accused, even collectively, of being intolerant of someone's view, of thinking they were not entitled to their opinion and of being hypocritical? Would you not be tempted to respond in perhaps not the most polite way?
Errr, aye. That's exactly how I was feeling, so maybe I responded in 'not the most polite' way. Seemingly this is not acceptable from me, but here you are saying that others felt this way and you are confirming they responded in a 'not too polite way' as well. So it's understandable from others, but not from me. Is that what you're saying? Double standards, Jeremy. This is a vicious circle it seems, but one where you can only see one side of the problem for some strange reason.
quote:
Your feeling defensive may be an explanation for your accusation but it is not a justification.
I believe I was well justified in feeling defensive. It should therefore be expected my posts may well become slightly tetchy. I'd consider this to be normal human behaviour. Perhaps you don't. You should view this as confirmation that, despite what some may believe, I am actually a human being. If you would have so much self control not to allow yourself to fall into this trap, then you are a one-off.
============================================
Here's my take on the first 2 pages since you are like a dog with a bone....
Following my post on page 2, made at 21:36 on Feb 16, there were consecutive posts from :
Matthew Robsinson : (What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?), Eric, Throbnorth, Rasher and Ron Toolsie. This accumulation, along with the eariler page, was bound to make me initially become defensive. This is bound to have an effect on everything following.
Matthew Robinson, in his usual style, attempted to ridicule an earlier post from me in a way that left me thinking that, although I'd put forward my opinion, it didn't count for anything, therefore, I am not entitled to one. You see, he asked me a question that I'd already answered, an answer that he even saw fit to quote in his post! He saw fit to ask...
quote:I had already said,
Why do you wish to prevent same-sex marriages? You must have a reason surely?
quote:That is still my answer. I still have to be convinced that same-sex marriage should be allowed, and convincing people of why this should happen is the proper way for it to come about imo. Presently, it is not allowed and you don't scrap a law just because you want to scrap it, you have to justify scrapping it by convincing people that the alternative is BETTER. In short, you don't need a reason to keep something, you need a reason to get rid of something and replace it with something else.
Since marriage between men and women has been established for many years I believe you have this the wrong way around. It is for those who believe same-sex marriage should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not
In addition, the post from Throbnorth made an enormous deal of my comment regarding use of the word 'gay', for example. This added to the defensive posture I was now in and I don't see any need to apologise for going on the defensive at this point, even if it did cause me to post in a manner that was unjustified in your opinion.
It was my response to this group of posts that then brought about the one from Robinson that was the FIRST post that became personal. You can ask me to present quotes to justify myself all you like. I'm still waiting for you to start hassling the self appointed forum leader. I would like to believe that Matthew Robinson is a real thick shit, but I don't believe he is. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Jolly good show.
I won't be holding my breath.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by matthewr
"What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?"
I meant "ignoring the obvious sophistry".
Matthew
I meant "ignoring the obvious sophistry".
Matthew
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
I now appreciate that because Matthew asked:
I think I can probably speak on behalf of everyone involved when I say that I am very sorry that Matthew asked if you had a reason for your opinion, and I for one will do my best to avoid asking such questions of you in future.
I think that, having finally reached this epiphany, there is probably nothing more I can usefully add to this thread.
I now appreciate that because Matthew asked:
quote:AFTER YOU HAD ALREADY SAID:
"Why do you wish to prevent same-sex marriages? You must have a reason surely?"
quote:you felt entirely justified in accusing us all of being intolerant of your view, of thinking you were not entitled to your opinion and of being hypocritical. It is a lot easier to understand now that you have explained it.
Since marriage between men and women has been established for many years I believe you have this the wrong way around. It is for those who believe same-sex marriage should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not
I think I can probably speak on behalf of everyone involved when I say that I am very sorry that Matthew asked if you had a reason for your opinion, and I for one will do my best to avoid asking such questions of you in future.
I think that, having finally reached this epiphany, there is probably nothing more I can usefully add to this thread.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by Phil Barry
BrianD -
Sorry about the 'laudable' clause. This is the web - I don't give the same attention to web stuff as I do to traditionally published stuff. I agree that the most obvious reading of the line was that it was arrogant. I generally try to curb my arrogance; missed it this time.
Again, your change of mind indicates an approach that seems at odds with your words and the thoughts you've expressed.
Further, while I agree you've received some harsh confrontations, I think most people would not have received them as 'attacks', except in a fairly loose use of the word.
I agree, however, that the confrontations may be based on misunderstanding what you wrote.
And so I ask again: are you sure your writing on this forum represents your thoughts accurately?
BTW, leaving the forum because of the confrontations you've experienced would be a disservice to the forum and to you. The forum needs contrary opinions, especially if they're genuinely held; and you can use the forum to learn to express a contrary opinion without alienating your readers.
Regards.
Phil
Sorry about the 'laudable' clause. This is the web - I don't give the same attention to web stuff as I do to traditionally published stuff. I agree that the most obvious reading of the line was that it was arrogant. I generally try to curb my arrogance; missed it this time.
Again, your change of mind indicates an approach that seems at odds with your words and the thoughts you've expressed.
Further, while I agree you've received some harsh confrontations, I think most people would not have received them as 'attacks', except in a fairly loose use of the word.
I agree, however, that the confrontations may be based on misunderstanding what you wrote.
And so I ask again: are you sure your writing on this forum represents your thoughts accurately?
BTW, leaving the forum because of the confrontations you've experienced would be a disservice to the forum and to you. The forum needs contrary opinions, especially if they're genuinely held; and you can use the forum to learn to express a contrary opinion without alienating your readers.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
quote:
"What do you think he meant by "Ignoring the obvious sophistry"?"
I meant "ignoring the obvious sophistry".
Fine. Clearly a word you've heard other people use that you thought you'd try out while not understanding what it means.
Thanks for clarifying that one for everybody.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Jeremy
Good. Lot's of productive sarcasm there.
Exactly what do you hope to achieve by asking me a question and then posting this sort of stuff as a reply? All you've shown here is that you have no understanding that someone on the defensive is likely to slip into being unreasonable from time to time. I do wish I hadn't taken the bait laid down by Robinson. Things would have been so much better. But I fell for it.
Let me get your position clear. You asked me a question to which I offered a reply. You do not like my reply, to which you resort to a post full to the brim of sarcasm.
I will take it that you do not accept any of my points as being valid for causing the tone of my posts. I wonder why because they are very valid to me. You are showing a total lack of understanding and of tolerance here, Jeremy. I will also take it that you have completely missed the effect your comment, "everyone involved" is likely to have. Everyone in this case is EVERYONE. I am expected to remain polite and respectful to you and others throughout yet more comment that is going to make me even more defensive. Would you manage this, Jeremy?
I think that you despise me, Jeremy. This appears to affect everything you post to me and every interpretation you put on my posts to you and to everybody else. This probably goes back to disagreements of something like 3 years ago or more. I think it is very juvenile to hold a grudge for so long, Jeremy. It is why you are getting at me now continuously. You will not let this go, will you?
Look, I have nothing against you personally at all. What is your problem with me apart from the issues that go back probably 3 years or more? I live near York. I'm quite happy to meet you to thrash out these perceived differences in person, rather than via a forum, where nothing but confusion seems to result from posting replies to you.
quote:
It is a lot easier to understand now that you have explained it.
Good. Lot's of productive sarcasm there.
Exactly what do you hope to achieve by asking me a question and then posting this sort of stuff as a reply? All you've shown here is that you have no understanding that someone on the defensive is likely to slip into being unreasonable from time to time. I do wish I hadn't taken the bait laid down by Robinson. Things would have been so much better. But I fell for it.
Let me get your position clear. You asked me a question to which I offered a reply. You do not like my reply, to which you resort to a post full to the brim of sarcasm.
quote:
I think I can probably speak on behalf of everyone involved when I say that I am very sorry that Matthew asked if you had a reason for your opinion, and I for one will do my best to avoid asking such questions of you in future.
I will take it that you do not accept any of my points as being valid for causing the tone of my posts. I wonder why because they are very valid to me. You are showing a total lack of understanding and of tolerance here, Jeremy. I will also take it that you have completely missed the effect your comment, "everyone involved" is likely to have. Everyone in this case is EVERYONE. I am expected to remain polite and respectful to you and others throughout yet more comment that is going to make me even more defensive. Would you manage this, Jeremy?
I think that you despise me, Jeremy. This appears to affect everything you post to me and every interpretation you put on my posts to you and to everybody else. This probably goes back to disagreements of something like 3 years ago or more. I think it is very juvenile to hold a grudge for so long, Jeremy. It is why you are getting at me now continuously. You will not let this go, will you?
Look, I have nothing against you personally at all. What is your problem with me apart from the issues that go back probably 3 years or more? I live near York. I'm quite happy to meet you to thrash out these perceived differences in person, rather than via a forum, where nothing but confusion seems to result from posting replies to you.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by BrianD
Phil
Thank You.
My change of mind concerns only that I began by believing that only married men and women should receive certain 'benefits'. I've been convinced by the people who posted a list of *some* of the benefits (I've no doubt there are more) that in fact, there is no problem giving these benefits to people in long term relationships, whether they be gay or not.
Probably a symptom of being made to feel defensive. When it comes from what seemed to be many people, I perceived myself as under attack here. I've said I wished I hadn't responded in the way I did to some of the posts. But there is no excuse imo for the response from the likes of Matthew Robinson. This kind of thing alienates people from the forum and is likely to chase away new members.
I'm not convinced of this at all. I don't see what is difficult to understand. My view is that those who want change have to convince others it is needed, not for those others to convince people why something should not be changed. I have been convinced by the arguments put forward that it is a good thing to offer certain benefits to gay couples. I am not convinced that they need to be married to have these benefits, and in fact I would like to extend the benefits to ANY couple in a long term relationship.
See the above. I think I'm expressing myself clearly enough here. I'm not sure what it is you think I may actually be trying to say, Phil.
Well, again. That's your opinion and I won't take offence this time since I can see where you're coming from. I believe on this particular issue there was no chance of me not alienating many forum members no matter how I put my point across. You may disagree, but I'll find it difficult to believe how. Also, what you don't realise about me is that there is a history that some people seemingly are not prepared to forget.
quote:
Sorry about the 'laudable' clause.
Thank You.
quote:
Again, your change of mind indicates an approach that seems at odds with your words and the thoughts you've expressed.
My change of mind concerns only that I began by believing that only married men and women should receive certain 'benefits'. I've been convinced by the people who posted a list of *some* of the benefits (I've no doubt there are more) that in fact, there is no problem giving these benefits to people in long term relationships, whether they be gay or not.
quote:
Further, while I agree you've received some harsh confrontations, I think most people would not have received them as 'attacks', except in a fairly loose use of the word.
Probably a symptom of being made to feel defensive. When it comes from what seemed to be many people, I perceived myself as under attack here. I've said I wished I hadn't responded in the way I did to some of the posts. But there is no excuse imo for the response from the likes of Matthew Robinson. This kind of thing alienates people from the forum and is likely to chase away new members.
quote:
I agree, however, that the confrontations may be based on misunderstanding what you wrote.
I'm not convinced of this at all. I don't see what is difficult to understand. My view is that those who want change have to convince others it is needed, not for those others to convince people why something should not be changed. I have been convinced by the arguments put forward that it is a good thing to offer certain benefits to gay couples. I am not convinced that they need to be married to have these benefits, and in fact I would like to extend the benefits to ANY couple in a long term relationship.
quote:
And so I ask again: are you sure your writing on this forum represents your thoughts accurately?
See the above. I think I'm expressing myself clearly enough here. I'm not sure what it is you think I may actually be trying to say, Phil.
quote:
BTW, leaving the forum because of the confrontations you've experienced would be a disservice to the forum and to you. The forum needs contrary opinions, especially if they're genuinely held; and you can use the forum to learn to express a contrary opinion without alienating your readers.
Well, again. That's your opinion and I won't take offence this time since I can see where you're coming from. I believe on this particular issue there was no chance of me not alienating many forum members no matter how I put my point across. You may disagree, but I'll find it difficult to believe how. Also, what you don't realise about me is that there is a history that some people seemingly are not prepared to forget.
Posted on: 20 February 2004 by JeremyD
Brian,
quote:Sorry, but judging by your forum persona I think I would be frightened to meet you in real life - especially after your threatening remark to Johns Naim.
I'm quite happy to meet you to thrash out these perceived differences in person, rather than via a forum, where nothing but confusion seems to result from posting replies to you.