WHY MEN ARE NEVER DEPRESSED:
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Men Are Just Happier People--
What do you expect from such simple creatures?
Your last name stays put.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just another snack.
You can be President.
You can never be pregnant.
You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.
You can wear NO shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.
People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood all the time.
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks..
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.&nb! sp;
If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
You almost never have strap problems in public.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
Everything on your face stays its original color.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can play with toys all your life.
One wallet and one pair of shoes -- one color for all seasons.
You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
You can 'do' your nails with a pocket knife.
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.
No wonder men are happier.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Sara S
08-02-2009, 05:54 AM
Well, maybe these "trite stereotypes" could make those suicidal men lighten up a little!
Since a staggering 80 percent of all people who commit suicide in the U.S. are men, I just don't see the humor in these trite stereotypes.
abg73
08-02-2009, 11:26 AM
Come on, Clancy, lighten up a little !
Since a staggering 80 percent of all people who commit suicide in the U.S. are men, I just don't see the humor in these trite stereotypes.
theindependenteye
08-02-2009, 11:36 AM
Well, maybe these "trite stereotypes" could make those suicidal men lighten up a little!
Not intending to critique humorous stuff -- the essence of comedy is to be transgressive in some way, after all -- but I'm struck by the "lighten up" suggestion. Personally, for me humor based on "what men are like" generally takes me back to those grim years of high school when one felt utterly outside the in-group,when one absolutely longed to be stereotyped as long as it'd make you feel "in." This one's pretty innocuous -- no vomiting into people's laps, anyway -- but still has that faint miasma about it. But to each his own. Obviously the point isn't to make a serious case for which sex is the happier or the happiest.
On the other hand, it's strange to hear someone say that people with suicidal urges could be helped by lightening up, i.e. laughing at themselves — do you really mean that? Sure, if they could that'd be great, but for someone in serious depression that's like advising someone neck-deep in quicksand, "Think light!"
I don't blame the poster for defending the joke against a blunt attack, but that's probably not the best way to do it.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
abg73
08-02-2009, 08:07 PM
Obviously the point isn't to make a serious case for which sex is the happier or the happiest.
Exactly. It's a joke.
If someone were to ask me why the chicken crossed the road, I would not respond with "well, considering the mortality rate for chickens crossing roads is 60% I don't care to hear the punch line of your joke, sir."
Furthermore, if someone were to post that they were seriously depressed and contemplating suicide telling them to "lighten up" would obviously be a completely ignorant and insensitive response. But thats not what happened.
I would suggest that people who are easily offended or sensitive to certain issues perhaps stay away from the "censored/uncensored" forum.
Clancy
08-02-2009, 08:38 PM
I would suggest that people who are easily offended or sensitive to certain issues perhaps stay away from the "censored/uncensored" forum.
No thanks, the point of it being uncensored is that we are free to say whatever we want here.
I suggest you reverse the genders in the statistic I cited, and ask yourself what the national response would be if 80% of suicides were women instead of men. The public would be appalled, funding for women's studies departments would skyrocket, and we'd have calls on the floor of congress to act without delay to address the root causes of this horrific epidemic.
My own brother committed suicide a year ago. A good friend at the Center for Spiritual Living committed suicide two years ago. I have known half a dozen other men in my lifetime who committed suicide. All were severely depressed, all were untreated, and all are dead.
So, jokes about men being "simple creatures" who "never get depressed" seem absurdly insensitive and counterproductive, and I reserve the right to speak my mind about it.
Yemka
08-04-2009, 06:20 AM
1) This just wasn't very funny.
2) This is a prime example of a common contemporary cultural phenomenon: male-bashing, particularly white, heterosexual males.
3) Jokes bashing anyone's gender are never in good taste, and I suspect they may be in the same class as bashing race.
Sara S
08-04-2009, 06:39 AM
Clancy, I'm so sorry to hear that your brother killed himself.
I can't agree, though, that if "80% of suicides were women" there would be the results that you posit here. It's really only comparatively lately that we women have gotten much attention or assistance in any areas.
And I think one's response to this joke is just a matter of attitude; I thought that it was funny, and mostly true. If I were a man who was depressed, I think I might feel better after considering these ways in which men do have it a little easier than women!
No thanks, the point of it being uncensored is that we are free to say whatever we want here.
I suggest you reverse the genders in the statistic I cited, and ask yourself what the national response would be if 80% of suicides were women instead of men. The public would be appalled, funding for women's studies departments would skyrocket, and we'd have calls on the floor of congress to act without delay to address the root causes of this horrific epidemic.
My own brother committed suicide a year ago. A good friend at the Center for Spiritual Living committed suicide two years ago. I have known half a dozen other men in my lifetime who committed suicide. All were severely depressed, all were untreated, and all are dead.
So, jokes about men being "simple creatures" who "never get depressed" seem absurdly insensitive and counterproductive, and I reserve the right to speak my mind about it.
Clancy
08-04-2009, 08:58 AM
Depression is not alleviated by reading male bashing 'jokes' or telling yourself how good your life is.
Understanding Depression: Signs, Symptoms, Causes, and Help (https://helpguide.org/mental/depression_signs_types_diagnosis_treatment.htm)
And I have to say, if women comprised 80% of suicides, it would have been the most commonly cited statistic for the last 40 years, shown as proof positive the detrimental effects our 'patriarchal' society has on women. Since it's mostly men doing the dying, we just shrug it off, as you are doing right now.
And finally, you are free to think the Archie Bunker stereotype of men is funny, and I am free to be disgusted by your outdated sexism.
I can't agree, though, that if "80% of suicides were women" there would be the results that you posit here. It's really only comparatively lately that we women have gotten much attention or assistance in any areas.
And I think one's response to this joke is just a matter of attitude; I thought that it was funny, and mostly true. If I were a man who was depressed, I think I might feel better after considering these ways in which men do have it a little easier than women!
Barry
08-04-2009, 01:12 PM
1) This just wasn't very funny.
2) This is a prime example of a common contemporary cultural phenomenon: male-bashing, particularly white, heterosexual males.
3) Jokes bashing anyone's gender are never in good taste, and I suspect they may be in the same class as bashing race.
I disagree on all 3 counts! But "your mileage may vary", which is why this is appropriate to be in the Censored category.
PeriodThree
08-04-2009, 02:21 PM
Are you serious Barry? You disagree on all 3 counts?
"Jokes bashing anyone's gender are never in good taste, and I suspect they may be in the same class as bashing race."
I think you are saying that jokes bashing gender are in good taste.
Not just 'well, it is in Censored.' But whatever!
I disagree on all 3 counts! But "your mileage may vary", which is why this is appropriate to be in the Censored category.
Barry
08-04-2009, 03:04 PM
OK, to be more precise, I didn't consider the original post in this thread to be "bashing". I think "teasing" maybe a more accurate term, which can be in good taste or not, or someplace in between, depending on your sensitivity, which is where the censored category comes in.
Are you serious Barry? You disagree on all 3 counts?
"Jokes bashing anyone's gender are never in good taste, and I suspect they may be in the same class as bashing race."
I think you are saying that jokes bashing gender are in good taste.
Not just 'well, it is in Censored.' But whatever!
Yemka
08-04-2009, 06:52 PM
OK, to be more precise, I didn't consider the original post in this thread to be "bashing". I think "teasing" maybe a more accurate term, which can be in good taste or not, or someplace in between, depending on your sensitivity, which is where the censored category comes in.
The word "teasing" generally refers to individuals. Verbal abuse applied broadly to an entire group is usually considering "bashing". I hope this isn't too subtle a distinction to be making here.
abg73
08-04-2009, 07:41 PM
I would like to point out that this "joke" was posted by a male,
who apparently doesn't take himself too seriously enough to poke fun at his own sex. I believe in not taking yourself seriously. If someone posted a similiar comparison to women, I may not agree with everything in it but I would take it at what it is...just poking fun!
I would like to make a second observation:
so many threads I have read or been a part of turn into hostile arguments. This is disappointing to me and tiring. I appreciate where Clancy is coming from and I am wholly saddened by his personal experience. He has every right to express his opposition. I just wish we could all take things for what they are...words/thoughts/musings of another person which are always given a choice to react to - either take personally or to do as the duck does.
After all, they are just words. And I have plenary doubt that wbreitman meant these words to offend anyone in particular.
Let's appreciate every perspective someone else may bring to the table, whether we may agree or not?
PeriodThree
08-04-2009, 09:21 PM
It feels like 'bashing' to me as well.
As near as I can tell Barry has a fairly specific view of what he considers to be acceptable versus not acceptable.
Identifiable people and organizations who he doesn't consider to be in his personal community, such as the former president, the US Government, or NASA are fair game to the most brutal of very personal and very strong attacks.
Local politicians, such as Sebastopol City Council members, are entitled, in Barry's view, to a heightened level of what he refers to as 'respect' because, and I think I am fairly clear on this, they are 'members' of the community.
In Barry's view the people who are grouped as 'corporations' who sell things are entitled to no 'respect' unless they are also identifiable local individuals - especially individuals who advertise on WACCO.
So it is okay to issue the most vile of libels agains, say, Dupont, because they make 'chemicals' but even a mild message pointing out that an advertiser is making claims which are not just unproven, but which are downright crazy is 'disrespectful,' and is subject to deletion.
Just to make it more interesting, in Barry's view, being 'disrespectful' is also 'shameful.' (These are in quotes because these are his words).
So for example, challenging someone for literally libeling the organization which I work for, NASA, is in Barry's view 'shameful,' but calling for resistence against vaccinations - which leads to people dying, is okay.
(Barry repeatedly told me in a private message to 'just answer his fucking question' about a moon landing denier who had already had his 'fucking questions' answered repeatedly. Yes, I am sorry, but I do feel bitter that Barry thinks moon landing deniers are entitled to _any fucking respect_ at all, let alone that questioning a fucking insane person is 'shameful'. I am sorry, but Barry - this is fucked behavior on your part).
This whole idea of what is 'respectful' does make some amount of sense if it is calibrated against what I think is Barry's sense that anything said to or about someone who he is likely to encounter in his daily work, and to be frank, who might give him money or status, is subject to a different standard than things said about people and organizations outside of his regular experience.
Bashing men is okay with Barry. This confuses me, but whatever. He gets to run his site in the way he wants.
The word "teasing" generally refers to individuals. Verbal abuse applied broadly to an entire group is usually considering "bashing". I hope this isn't too subtle a distinction to be making here.
PeriodThree
08-04-2009, 09:25 PM
Without challenging your specific perspective, no, I don't agree.
Some perspectives should not be at the table.
Would you 'appreciate' the perspective of a holocaust denier? What about a global warming denier? Or someone who things recycling is a scam?
Minds are a lot like parachutes - if they open at the wrong time people die.
Let's appreciate every perspective someone else may bring to the table, whether we may agree or not?
Yemka
08-04-2009, 11:07 PM
I would like to point out that this "joke" was posted by a male,
who apparently doesn't take himself too seriously enough to poke fun at his own sex. I believe in not taking yourself seriously. If someone posted a similiar comparison to women, I may not agree with everything in it but I would take it at what it is...just poking fun!...
Thank you for helping me make my point. The fact that the originator of this thread is a male is totally irrelevant to me personally. However, that a male is engaging in what can only be described as "male bashing" speaks poorly for what is currently considered acceptable in the community. My concern here is that "he" is (?unwittingly) promoting a negative male image, which may find it's way into the minds of our more susceptible readers, albeit perhaps unconsciously.
DynamicBalance
08-05-2009, 08:09 AM
Just to make it more interesting, in Barry's view, being 'disrespectful' is also 'shameful.' (These are in quotes because these are his words).
So for example, challenging someone for literally libeling the organization which I work for, NASA, is in Barry's view 'shameful,' but calling for resistence against vaccinations - which leads to people dying, is okay.
(Barry repeatedly told me in a private message to 'just answer his fucking question' about a moon landing denier who had already had his 'fucking questions' answered repeatedly. Yes, I am sorry, but I do feel bitter that Barry thinks moon landing deniers are entitled to _any fucking respect_ at all, let alone that questioning a fucking insane person is 'shameful'. I am sorry, but Barry - this is fucked behavior on your part).
I think that the real problem that Barry has with your posts has nothing to do with his views on NASA, the moon landing, or vaccinations. The problem is the way you choose to express your views, which is disrespectfully. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with someone without that other person being "evil," as you are so fond of saying. The fact that you resort to trying to discredit someone in this manner, rather than calmly discussing your views on the issue at hand, is not only disrespectful but totally shameful.
DynamicBalance
08-05-2009, 08:13 AM
Without challenging your specific perspective, no, I don't agree.
Some perspectives should not be at the table.
Would you 'appreciate' the perspective of a holocaust denier? What about a global warming denier? Or someone who things recycling is a scam?
Minds are a lot like parachutes - if they open at the wrong time people die.
So, what you're saying is that if something is commonly accepted as being true, no one should ever be allowed to question it?????????? Please tell me you're joking.
Yemka
08-05-2009, 09:21 AM
Ahhhhhhhhhh,,,,, (deep breath)......
How ironic!
IMHO, PeriodThree IS indeed engaging in this dialog in a respectful manner. We all have different personal styles. I imagine PeriodThree would be agreeable to re-posting any of his comments here using his "disrespectful voice". It is clear to me that he is refraining from doing so out of clear desire to further the (very slightly heated yet interesting) discussion. By the same token, I perceive umphreak doing the same thing. For myself, I have to censor my own rather ugly "disrespectful voice" while I attempt to express my views in the most respectful or more likely the least disrespectful voice possible.
So, in a rather beautiful (to me at any rate) fashion we are recapitulating the original point regarding the nature of the inciting incident (which was, we all agree, only intended to be humorous), by discussing our own perceptions regarding the nature of the debate itself. For example, in my reality, resorting to the use of profanity, other than directly quoting someone else, moves the discussion in the direction of becoming disrespectful (and therefore, less likely to be productive). However, I do recognize that other folks have less reaction to profanity (at least I believe this to be true, judging from what appears to be commercially viable music and video). I do not see how profanity will advance any discussion of anything in a public forum. There are perhaps other, more subtle (and more damaging?) examples of this, such as excessive sarcasm, personal innuendo, and even stating simple facts which are actually not at all germaine to the dialog ( a person's gender, sexual orientation, or race) at hand.
I think that the real problem that Barry has with your posts has nothing to do with his views on NASA, the moon landing, or vaccinations. The problem is the way you choose to express your views, which is disrespectfully. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with someone without that other person being "evil," as you are so fond of saying. The fact that you resort to trying to discredit someone in this manner, rather than calmly discussing your views on the issue at hand, is not only disrespectful but fucking shameful.
podfish
08-05-2009, 09:40 AM
Humor is an amazing part of the human experience. I think it arises from the way most people's brains work, but obviously it doesn't happen the same way for everyone. It's not even always a pleasurable feeling, but it gives some real insights into how we function internally and how we perceive the world. Like many other things, the truisms about it aren't always true but:
It's often about power. Humor usually works best when its target is a group comfortable in its status. So that's why male-bashing is a lot more funny than female bashing. "Power" is a fluid concept, though. An earlier post brought up holocaust humor. It's not funny when the camp guards make the jokes. Gender politics is more subtle and power shifts, so it does work both ways. That being said, if it's -really- funny it sure can be about a weaker group, but I think that only works when it illuminates in a hopefully uncomfortable way how the target's being perceived.
A lot of humor that most people find harmless but many don't "get" is based on non-sequitors or odd conjunctions of ideas. Something about the way the mind processes those ideas is inherently rewarding. I think that this directly follows from the observations made by people like Damasio about the way our feelings interact with the biochemistry of our brains. Not everyone gets the same stimulation from the same thoughts, and some people's life experiences will kill the humor response altogether.
Debates like the one that triggered this seem to me to be pointless just because of the nature of humor. It's really foolish to say something's "just not funny". Whether it's appropriate is different.... but when a place like this is set up where the bounds are explicitly loosened it's a silly debate to have.
Yemka
08-05-2009, 09:46 AM
So, what you're saying is that if something is commonly accepted as being true, no one should ever be allowed to question it?????????? Please tell me you're joking.
The examples cited by PeriodThree are clearly intended to be topic headings generally understood to trigger emotional responses. It is hard for me to imagine a productive dialog resulting from a thread starting out like that.
Of course, there is no way to "disallow" people from holding their own perspective; but before trotting it out for public discussion, they might consider sanitizing it and attempting civil discourse first.
Most of us don't feel safe discussing something with someone who makes no initial attempt at tempering their viewpoint.
Yemka
08-05-2009, 11:06 AM
Men are no longer, and have not been for a long time, in any conceivable way "the weaker sex". I also see no evidence that as a group men feel "more comfortable in their status".The statistics given earlier on male suicide speak to this point. I am disappointed such broad gender generalizations are still raised. Even if there is some type of evidence presented, it is usually on the level of sociological soft science. Even if true, many facts and statistics are utilized to obscure the truth, rather than to reveal it. Gender equality can only be obtained once the genders are equal in the mind of each individual observer. I believe the same to be true regarding race. This is why prejudice can never be legislated out of existence. This is why a victim role or maintaining an attitude of entitlement is ultimately self-defeating. The playing field is level only if one sees it that way, and not otherwise, and never will be. What is, is.
This debate is most definitely NOT about who has a sense of humor.
If we all found the initial joke to be humorous, this discussion would not be taking place. Note that when someone accuses another of something, such as stifling debate, they are usually pointing a finger back at themselves. The debate IS very much about acceptance of the fact that not all jokes are humorous to all people, and may even be objectionable to a few. I do not dispute the obvious fact that many people found this joke to be funny. I myself found it to funny initially, but as I finished reading it I was more struck by a profound sadness over the greater implications: the message implicit in the humor.
BTW, I consider the advice "lighten up" to be one of the most objectionable, hateful things we say to one another. I would rather someone say to me "fuck you" than "lighten up"-it is more honest as a way of stating "your view are unacceptable to me" or even worse "you should not be feeling that way". It's passive-aggressive to the extreme.
Humor is an amazing part of the human experience. I think it arises from the way most people's brains work, but obviously it doesn't happen the same way for everyone. It's not even always a pleasurable feeling, but it gives some real insights into how we function internally and how we perceive the world. Like many other things, the truisms about it aren't always true but:
It's often about power. Humor usually works best when its target is a group comfortable in its status. So that's why male-bashing is a lot more funny than female bashing. "Power" is a fluid concept, though. An earlier post brought up holocaust humor. It's not funny when the camp guards make the jokes. Gender politics is more subtle and power shifts, so it does work both ways. That being said, if it's -really- funny it sure can be about a weaker group, but I think that only works when it illuminates in a hopefully uncomfortable way how the target's being perceived.
A lot of humor that most people find harmless but many don't "get" is based on non-sequitors or odd conjunctions of ideas. Something about the way the mind processes those ideas is inherently rewarding. I think that this directly follows from the observations made by people like Damasio about the way our feelings interact with the biochemistry of our brains. Not everyone gets the same stimulation from the same thoughts, and some people's life experiences will kill the humor response altogether.
Debates like the one that triggered this seem to me to be pointless just because of the nature of humor. It's really foolish to say something's "just not funny". Whether it's appropriate is different.... but when a place like this is set up where the bounds are explicitly loosened it's a silly debate to have.
PeriodThree
08-05-2009, 12:25 PM
I believe that when people lie and repeat lies (which both the anti-wifi nuts and the anti-moon landing people, and the vaccine morons do) that there is a moral duty to counter the lie.
I do not consider it respectful of a community to allow insanity to be unchallenged.
I believe that truth and honesty are more important than 'respect,' and I strongly believe that Barry believes the opposite.
Respect is a stupid measure of anything. Requiring someone to be respectful of people who are insane is wrong.
I don't respect umphreak at all. Using the word 'shameful' to defend someone repeating libels of my employer, as you did, is deeply disrespectful.
But I don't need to 'respect' you to be in 'dialogue' with you.
I don't need to respect Barry and his deeply flawed view of community in order to be in dialogue with him.
Unless, of course, Barry decides that it is more important to have the gloss of 'respect' rather than honesty, rather than truth.
So yes, I do believe that people who equate animal breeders with the Holocaust to be fucking insane. And yes, I believe that deniers of the moon landing are idiots. And I do believe that the people questioning the safety of Wifi are fucking idiots. And regardless of the real dangers of vaccines I believe that the vaccine nuts on Wacco are doing things which will lead to many more people being killed by stupid diseases for which we have treatment.
And I don't have any respect for any of them, or for you.
And I am deeply angry that there are people, like you, and like Barry, who have intentionally, actively, over the course of years sacrificed truth and honesty at the alter of 'respect.'
I think that the real problem that Barry has with your posts has nothing to do with his views on NASA, the moon landing, or vaccinations. The problem is the way you choose to express your views, which is disrespectfully. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with someone without that other person being "evil," as you are so fond of saying. The fact that you resort to trying to discredit someone in this manner, rather than calmly discussing your views on the issue at hand, is not only disrespectful but fucking shameful.
someguy
08-05-2009, 01:20 PM
I believe that when people lie and repeat lies (which both the anti-wifi nuts and the anti-moon landing people, and the vaccine morons do) that there is a moral duty to counter the lie.
I do not consider it respectful of a community to allow insanity to be unchallenged.
I believe that truth and honesty are more important than 'respect,' and I strongly believe that Barry believes the opposite.
Respect is a stupid measure of anything. Requiring someone to be respectful of people who are insane is wrong.
I don't respect umphreak at all. Using the word 'shameful' to defend someone repeating libels of my employer, as you did, is deeply disrespectful.
But I don't need to 'respect' you to be in 'dialogue' with you.
I don't need to respect Barry and his deeply flawed view of community in order to be in dialogue with him.
Unless, of course, Barry decides that it is more important to have the gloss of 'respect' rather than honesty, rather than truth.
So yes, I do believe that people who equate animal breeders with the Holocaust to be fucking insane. And yes, I believe that deniers of the moon landing are idiots. And I do believe that the people questioning the safety of Wifi are fucking idiots. And regardless of the real dangers of vaccines I believe that the vaccine nuts on Wacco are doing things which will lead to many more people being killed by stupid diseases for which we have treatment.
And I don't have any respect for any of them, or for you.
And I am deeply angry that there are people, like you, and like Barry, who have intentionally, actively, over the course of years sacrificed truth and honesty at the alter of 'respect.'
But didn't she say that it was the manner in which you present yourself and your ideas that is shameful, not what you stand for? She was saying that you are fond of calling people evil who disagree with you, and that is a shameful tactic. I agree with her wholeheartedly with Umphreak and find you to be the most evil and despicable person to post on the site. You offer little substance and a lot of attitude and personal resentment to anyone who disagrees with you."oh my lover...." Plus you are incoherent most of the time. Just like this post I'm responding to, you ignore what Umphreak has said and go on and on about something else entirely. We all know what you believe, but how about informing us as to why you are so quick to call people evil? Tell me that.
Oh and BTW you said that respect is a stupid measure of anything, and then have the balls to call Umphreak disrespectful, what the hell dude? So is your measurement of respect the only sane measurement available? It seems you are the only one who dictates good and evil, respect and disrespect, insane or sane. Now that is evil. You are nothing. Your opinion is shit. You sir, are a waste of space and its goddamn shame that my hard earned tax dollars pay for your wicked salary at NASA.
To be so callus and rude all the time is shameful. You are shameful. And you should be ashamed, you deviant bastard. I cant believe a person like you exists. You infantile clown. Why don't you take a reading comprehension class so in the future you can actually respond to what is said. For example: Umphreaks post. You completely misread what she wrote, and then you have the frijoles to call her shameful and insane, that is ludicrous.
Hopefully by now you can understand that I have a serious problem with you and would love to see your ass banned. I look forward to your inane response and future banning. Chao for now cholo.
DynamicBalance
08-05-2009, 01:37 PM
I believe that when people lie and repeat lies (which both the anti-wifi nuts and the anti-moon landing people, and the vaccine morons do) that there is a moral duty to counter the lie.
I do not consider it respectful of a community to allow insanity to be unchallenged.
I believe that truth and honesty are more important than 'respect,' and I strongly believe that Barry believes the opposite.
Respect is a stupid measure of anything. Requiring someone to be respectful of people who are insane is wrong.
I don't respect umphreak at all. Using the word 'shameful' to defend someone repeating libels of my employer, as you did, is deeply disrespectful.
But I don't need to 'respect' you to be in 'dialogue' with you.
I don't need to respect Barry and his deeply flawed view of community in order to be in dialogue with him.
Unless, of course, Barry decides that it is more important to have the gloss of 'respect' rather than honesty, rather than truth.
So yes, I do believe that people who equate animal breeders with the Holocaust to be fucking insane. And yes, I believe that deniers of the moon landing are idiots. And I do believe that the people questioning the safety of Wifi are fucking idiots. And regardless of the real dangers of vaccines I believe that the vaccine nuts on Wacco are doing things which will lead to many more people being killed by stupid diseases for which we have treatment.
And I don't have any respect for any of them, or for you.
And I am deeply angry that there are people, like you, and like Barry, who have intentionally, actively, over the course of years sacrificed truth and honesty at the alter of 'respect.'
I think the fact that your response has nothing to do with what I actually said leaves little doubt as to who is the insane one here.
PeriodThree
08-05-2009, 04:30 PM
You claim that the way I express myself is 'disrespectful,' and my whole message is about 'respect' and how it is less important than truth and honesty.
I'm not quite sure how you missed that point.
As for 'someguy' - whatever.
I think the fact that your response has nothing to do with what I actually said leaves little doubt as to who is the insane one here.
abg73
08-05-2009, 08:26 PM
I can appreciate the fact that everyone has a unique view on life and his own experiences and the right to express them. The "right to free speech" is not contingent on whether or not I agree with the statement of another, it simply means that we are all different and have the right to believe what we choose. I appreciate that there are reasons and personal experiences that may lead someone to believe that the Holocaust never happened or who denies global warming, etc. even if I believe such ideas are ludicrous because I respect that another person's very different experience has brought them to that conclusion.
There is also a difference between "challenging" another person's view and attacking it. It is at times difficult to differentiate between the two when all you have are typed words. I am all for discussion and debate but it should be done respectfully.
...Thats all I have to say in this discussion. It is obviously completely counter-productive and a waste of time. I wish I had kept my chuckling to myself and not ever responded to wbreitmans post.
good riddance!!!!
Without challenging your specific perspective, no, I don't agree.
Some perspectives should not be at the table.
Would you 'appreciate' the perspective of a holocaust denier? What about a global warming denier? Or someone who things recycling is a scam?
Minds are a lot like parachutes - if they open at the wrong time people die.
Sara S
08-05-2009, 09:55 PM
As Big Joe Turner sang, "You make me roll my eyes, and, baby, make me grit my teeth."
I believe that when people lie and repeat lies (which both the anti-wifi nuts and the anti-moon landing people, and the vaccine morons do) that there is a moral duty to counter the lie.
I do not consider it respectful of a community to allow insanity to be unchallenged.
I believe that truth and honesty are more important than 'respect,' and I strongly believe that Barry believes the opposite.
Respect is a stupid measure of anything. Requiring someone to be respectful of people who are insane is wrong.
I don't respect umphreak at all. Using the word 'shameful' to defend someone repeating libels of my employer, as you did, is deeply disrespectful.
But I don't need to 'respect' you to be in 'dialogue' with you.
I don't need to respect Barry and his deeply flawed view of community in order to be in dialogue with him.
Unless, of course, Barry decides that it is more important to have the gloss of 'respect' rather than honesty, rather than truth.
So yes, I do believe that people who equate animal breeders with the Holocaust to be fucking insane. And yes, I believe that deniers of the moon landing are idiots. And I do believe that the people questioning the safety of Wifi are fucking idiots. And regardless of the real dangers of vaccines I believe that the vaccine nuts on Wacco are doing things which will lead to many more people being killed by stupid diseases for which we have treatment.
And I don't have any respect for any of them, or for you.
And I am deeply angry that there are people, like you, and like Barry, who have intentionally, actively, over the course of years sacrificed truth and honesty at the alter of 'respect.'
Sara S
08-06-2009, 07:17 AM
Silence is the severest criticism. -Charles Buxton, brewer, philanthropist, writer and politician (1823-1871)
I can appreciate the fact that everyone has a unique view on life and his own experiences and the right to express them. The "right to free speech" is not contingent on whether or not I agree with the statement of another, it simply means that we are all different and have the right to believe what we choose. I appreciate that there are reasons and personal experiences that may lead someone to believe that the Holocaust never happened or who denies global warming, etc. even if I believe such ideas are ludicrous because I respect that another person's very different experience has brought them to that conclusion.
There is also a difference between "challenging" another person's view and attacking it. It is at times difficult to differentiate between the two when all you have are typed words. I am all for discussion and debate but it should be done respectfully.
...Thats all I have to say in this discussion. It is obviously completely counter-productive and a waste of time. I wish I had kept my chuckling to myself and not ever responded to wbreitmans post.