should men write lesbian stories?

[Colleen Thomas]

Or closer to perfection.

Only if your definition of perfection is a misogynistic, repressive, psuedo thocratic police state.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
Only if your definition of perfection is a misogynistic, repressive, psuedo thocratic police state.

Or if its "spiritually accurate, in accordance with metaphysical law". I'm just sayin', fundamentally Christian people in power doesn't necessitate "future horrors".

 

[cloudy]

Or closer to perfection.

Jeez Joe, you can't honestly mean that! Don't make me rethink my impression of you as a reasonably intelligent person - please.

 

[cloudy]

Or if its "spiritually accurate, in accordance with metaphysical law". I'm just sayin', fundamentally Christian people in power doesn't necessitate "future horrors".

For anyone outside what "fundamentally Christians" think is normal or moral, it does.

I'm basically conservative in my views, but people that believe like you do frighten the hell out of me. Are men goose-stepping in jackboots next?????

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
Jeez Joe, you can't honestly mean that! Don't make me rethink my impression of you as a reasonably intelligent person - please.

Given that there's nothing inherantly wrong with being fundamentally Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc.)... its intellectually unreasonable to assume that only bad things come from it. That's my point. Hopefully that doesn't change your impression of me, but it /is/ the most reasonable and intelligent way to approach it... maybe it is bad, maybe its not; because it can produce bad things and it can produce good things, making a value judgement either way is to do so without all the facts (like what /is/ going to happen).

 

[killallhippies]

For anyone outside what "fundamentally Christians" think is normal or moral, it does.

I'm basically conservative in my views, but people that believe like you do frighten the hell out of me. Are men goose-stepping in jackboots next?????

american fascism is just around the corner. you'll most likely live to see it happen thanks to lack of an effective leftwing in american politics. all we really have now is center and right of center. the true left is impotent.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
For anyone outside what "fundamentally Christians" think is normal or moral, it does.

No, it actually doesn't. Fundamentalist Christians could run the country and you could /still/ be protected by religious freedoms and tolerance. That /is/ possible. It being possible means that horros aren't necessitated (unavoidable, absolutely positively going to happen, necessary, etc.).

Geez, I really don't want to argue about this. I'm not saying ANYONE is guilty or innocent. Nothing about jackboots. I'm saying ONLY that it is POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with fundamentalist Christians in power--same as it being POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with total Atheists in power. The religious belief DOESN'T necessitate that everything will turn to failure or dictatorships.

That's perfectly moderate a belief, fair to all sides, and entirely reasonable.

 

[cloudy]

Given that there's nothing inherantly wrong with being fundamentally Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc.)... its intellectually unreasonable to assume that only bad things come from it. That's my point. Hopefully that doesn't change your impression of me, but it /is/ the most reasonable and intelligent way to approach it... maybe it is bad, maybe its not; because it can produce bad things and it can produce good things, making a value judgement either way is to do so without all the facts (like what /is/ going to happen).

No, there's nothing wrong with being a fundamental Christian - if that's where it stops. The problem facing our country now is that the fundamental Christians in power can't see any way but their own, and would like to place all kinds of restrictions on anyone that doesn't follow their way of life. That I have a huge problem with.

 

[killallhippies]

No, it actually doesn't. Fundamentalist Christians could run the country and you could /still/ be protected by religious freedoms and tolerance. That /is/ possible. It being possible means that horros aren't necessitated (unavoidable, absolutely positively going to happen, necessary, etc.).

Geez, I really don't want to argue about this. I'm not saying ANYONE is guilty or innocent. Nothing about jackboots. I'm saying ONLY that it is POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with fundamentalist Christians in power--same as it being POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with total Atheists in power. The religious belief DOESN'T necessitate that everything will turn to failure or dictatorships.

That's perfectly moderate a belief, fair to all sides, and entirely reasonable.

so you're playing devil's advocate? that's kinda what i thought.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Given that there's nothing inherantly wrong with being fundamentally Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc.)... its intellectually unreasonable to assume that only bad things come from it. That's my point. Hopefully that doesn't change your impression of me, but it /is/ the most reasonable and intelligent way to approach it... maybe it is bad, maybe its not; because it can produce bad things and it can produce good things, making a value judgement either way is to do so without all the facts (like what /is/ going to happen).

So said the Germans when the Nazis came to power. Maybe they will be good. Maybe they won't continue with the abuses the sponsor. Maybe. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Being intellectually gifted dosen't neccessitate an analytical mind. You may still be viewed as reasonably intelligent, but the lack of critical thinking ability you display here is apalling.

-Colly

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
No, there's nothing wrong with being a fundamental Christian - if that's where it stops. The problem facing our country now is that the fundamental Christians in power can't see any way but their own, and would like to place all kinds of restrictions on anyone that doesn't follow their way of life. That I have a huge problem with.

I know a lot of people who are fundamentally Christian... and they have no problems seeing other ways. Being Christian (or Buddhist or Shinto or Atheistic) doesn't preclude the ability to entertain ideas that one doesn't share belief in. Nothing about "being Christian" equals "can't appreciate religious tolerance". As such, it doesn't necessarily stop there... our country faces a LOT of problems, these days, and not all of them are because of Christianity (that's just ludicrous). Some want to restrict people on religious grounds, some want to restrict people on social grounds, some don't want to restrict people very much at all (a great number of very liberal politicians are Christian).

You say that "people like [me]" disturb you... but I'm just illuminating what is merely possible and what isn't necessarily true. If that's scary, I recommend not reading ANYTHING objective--including the news. Stick to opinion articles preaching only an extreme viewpoint, independant of reason or intellectual responsibility, that reinforces beliefs you already have.

I wasn't going to go there, but you made that whole "jackboot" comment that was kinda rude.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
So said the Germans when the Nazis came to power. Maybe they will be good. Maybe they won't continue with the abuses the sponsor. Maybe. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Being intellectually gifted dosen't neccessitate an analytical mind. You may still be viewed as reasonably intelligent, but the lack of critical thinking ability you display here is apalling.

-Colly

OR so said the Colonists when hearing the British preach that Independance was a waste and would only cause ruin (ever read propoganda from that time, it was harsh). Drawing a correlation to Nazis is flashy, but we can draw any number of correlations to peacekeepers, civil rights leaders, revolutionaries...

"Maybe Independance WILL fail, but its not necessarily true. It CAN work. They're just preaching hate and ignorance"

I am employing perfectly fine critical thinking... as I am not narrowing my mind to the possibilities. It is a rejection of analysis and critical thinking to assume things and then refuse to give merit to rational possibilities that come in conflict with the assumption. Assumption... only bad can come from Christians in power. Possibility... good could come from it, as freedoms and tolerances could still be protected by law, and those Christians being exceptional politicans.

But, I tell you what... I'll bite. I'm willing to hear this out. HOW have I failed to employ critical thinking skills?

 

[cloudy]

I know a lot of people who are fundamentally Christian... and they have no problems seeing other ways. Being Christian (or Buddhist or Shinto or Atheistic) doesn't preclude the ability to entertain ideas that one doesn't share belief in. Nothing about "being Christian" equals "can't appreciate religious tolerance". As such, it doesn't necessarily stop there... our country faces a LOT of problems, these days, and not all of them are because of Christianity (that's just ludicrous). Some want to restrict people on religious grounds, some want to restrict people on social grounds, some don't want to restrict people very much at all (a great number of very liberal politicians are Christian).

You say that "people like [me]" disturb you... but I'm just illuminating what is merely possible and what isn't necessarily true. If that's scary, I recommend not reading ANYTHING objective--including the news. Stick to opinion articles preaching only an extreme viewpoint, independant of reason or intellectual responsibility, that reinforces beliefs you already have.

I wasn't going to go there, but you made that whole "jackboot" comment that was kinda rude.

I wasn't trying to be rude, I was stating how I felt about the direction I feel our country will go in if those "fundamental Christians" in power now continue to have their way about things.

No, not all of the problems are because of Christianity, I never said that. But there are some that can be laid directly at the feet of the powerful fundamentals.....can you deny that?

Again, I feel that someones spirituality or lack of, is their own business, and no one else's, but I sure as hell don't want laws facing me a few years down the road that say that I can't believe what I choose (which is way, way older than Christianity, thank you), or that I can't pass those same beliefs on to my children, or that my gay friends can't enjoy the same rights I have simply because of their sexual orientation. And, that's what my comment about jackboots was referring to, thank you.

 

[killallhippies]

joe, are you a christian?


john? wtf was i reading?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
I wasn't trying to be rude, I was stating how I felt about the direction I feel our country will go in if those "fundamental Christians" in power now continue to have their way about things.

M'k. We're coo'.

No, not all of the problems are because of Christianity, I never said that. But there are some that can be laid directly at the feet of the powerful fundamentals.....can you deny that?

With the sensible addendum of "as well as some being laid at the feet of highly ignorant athiests", sure. I can agree with that. Some problems in this country can be laid at the feet of fundamentalists. Even fundamentalist Christians. But to say that only bad can come from fundamentally Christian people is the same thing as saying that only bad can come from Athiests in power. Its just conjecture, and doesn't solve anything.

Again, I feel that someones spirituality or lack of, is their own business, and no one else's, but I sure as hell don't want laws facing me a few years down the road that say that I can't believe what I choose (which is way, way older than Christianity, thank you), or that I can't pass them same beliefs on to my children, or that my gay friends can't enjoy the same rights I have simply because of their sexual orientation. And, that's what my comment about jackboots was referring to, thank you.

I feel that someone's spirituality is their own business--and excellent laws are in place to protect the privacy AND publicity of that spirituality. I don't want laws facing me a few years down the road that say I can't practice MY beliefs (which extend to the dawn of time) because they happen to contain religious notions, that my kid can't pray before a meal at school to himself because some parent feels that's "too much".

The jackboot fits either foot.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by killallhippies
joe, are you a christian?


john? wtf was i reading?

No.

 

[cloudy]

Joe, I believe you and I are arguing the same thing, only from different sides of the fence.

I don't have a problem with fundamentalist Christians, per se, but I have a problem with those that want to make the world in their image, and see no room for differences.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

OR so said the Colonists when hearing the British preach that Independance was a waste and would only cause ruin (ever read propoganda from that time, it was harsh). Drawing a correlation to Nazis is flashy, but we can draw any number of correlations to peacekeepers, civil rights leaders, revolutionaries...

"Maybe Independance WILL fail, but its not necessarily true. It CAN work. They're just preaching hate and ignorance"

I am employing perfectly fine critical thinking... as I am not narrowing my mind to the possibilities. It is a rejection of analysis and critical thinking to assume things and then refuse to give merit to rational possibilities that come in conflict with the assumption. Assumption... only bad can come from Christians in power. Possibility... good could come from it, as freedoms and tolerances could still be protected by law, and those Christians being exceptional politicans.

But, I tell you what... I'll bite. I'm willing to hear this out. HOW have I failed to employ critical thinking skills?

All right smart aleck. We will play it your way.

First, you are playing an intellectually disingenuous game. Fundamentally Christian, is NOT the same thing as fundamentalist christian. Fundamentalist Christian refers to a specific sect of Christianity. That sect is characterized by thier belief that the bible is the literal word of god. At the same time, they ignore those tennets that preach tolerance and christian love of all, prefering to latch onto old testament verses that teach wrath, intolerance and undisguised misogyny.

Secondly, your failure to critcally think here is linked to your inabily or unwillingness to see a correlation between past action and future plan. If, as is the case, a presidential candidate states during his campaign he is personally pro life, but will not press any changes to the staus quo as their is no general call to do so, and then rams through a bill that would be the foundation of undoing roe v wade, critical thinking and analysis would lead to the inescapable conclusion that he will continue this assault if given four more years.

Similarly, a suspension of the right of habeus corpus, portends future attacks on the privacy rights and political protections of citizens everywhere. It dosen't take a poly sci major to see causality or recognize a trend. The slightest bit of analytical observation and critical analysis of the data at hand can "see the writing on the wall".

From a poly-sci standpoint, you fail miserably to apply rational or critical thinking. GWB and his cronies draw their core support from conservative elements in society. However, they draw their grass roots appeal from the strongly religious and the gruop that most contributed to this is the Fundamentalist Christians. No politician alienates his core, but if he can appease his grassroots support, without angering his core, he will do so. GWB can appease the fundamentalists he depends on for grassroots support, without upsetting his conservative core, by moving slowly to implement policy that is in line with their religious beliefs. He can do so by packageing these changes as something else and moving slowly.

Suspension of the right of habeus corpus is disguised as part of a law that fights terrorism. Attacks on the rights of women are burried in voluminous legislation that purports to stream line medicare, or fight crime, or some other innoccuous program that appeals to conservatives. That's politics. Any poly sci major can outline the basic forms, strategems and trend in what is happening.

Since you refuse to apply the critical thinking to the situation and take your stand on theoretical what ifs that contain no recognizeable link to reality, I can say quite comfortably you are not critically thinking. To take your view, a person would have to sacrifice all pragmatism and all application of past experience, in short, he or she would have to divorce themselves from analytical observation and retreat into the world of vague posibility. It's a nice little theoretical world you live in, but it has bugger all to do with critical thinking or analytical thinking.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

Or closer to perfection.

Oh no. Not perfection. Anything but perfection.

Have you seen what happens when we try to make the world 'perfect'? It ain't pretty.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by cloudy
Joe, I believe you and I are arguing the same thing, only from different sides of the fence.

I don't have a problem with fundamentalist Christians, per se, but I have a problem with those that want to make the world in their image, and see no room for differences.

Which lends itself perfectly to the notion that there are those who aren't like that, and assuming the future is screwed by their having power is irresponsible--it could turn bad, but not necessarily.

I think we're in agreement.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

How did we go from men writing about lesbians to religion?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

How did we go from men writing about lesbians to religion?

My bad. I answered the question of women not liking men writing lesbian erotica as at least partially due to politics.

Mea Cupla

apologies to all.

-Colly

 

[ABSTRUSE]

My bad. I answered the question of women not liking men writing lesbian erotica as at least partially due to politics.

Mea Cupla

apologies to all.

-Colly

In the words of the great juan:'

you are all sick lesbians who hates mens and should go find mens not womens

 

[matriarch]

Oh no. Not perfection. Anything but perfection.

Have you seen what happens when we try to make the world 'perfect'? It ain't pretty.

 

[Guest]

you are all sick lesbians who hates mens and should go find mens not womens

My first big grin of the day (hard to come by these days); thanks Abby.