Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Dan,
Interesting. Here are your words (emphasis in brackets):

"A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
understanding come on [for some thinking people, but not for those
self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.]"

Can I come to a different conclusion, Dan? Sounds to me that you feel
Christians have problems with thinking?

See earlier post. My real name is Chris. M100C is my favorite model of
Seeburg jukebox.

Hey, if we are going to have differences, let's have them on our first date
.... ;-)

Chris

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>> And your knee-jerk conclusion that Christians are not thinkers
>
> ...exists only in your mind.
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth, Mr. M100C (if that *is* your real
> name). Not on the first date, at least.

Dan,
Interesting. Here are your words (emphasis in brackets):

"A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
understanding come on [for some thinking people, but not for those
self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.]"

Can I come to a different conclusion, Dan? Sounds to me that you feel
Christians have problems with thinking?

See earlier post. My real name is Chris. M100C is my favorite model of
Seeburg jukebox.

Hey, if we are going to have differences, let's have them on our first date
.... ;-)

Chris

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:
>
>> And your knee-jerk conclusion that Christians are not thinkers
>
> ...exists only in your mind.
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth, Mr. M100C (if that *is* your real
> name). Not on the first date, at least.

041109 0022 - Daniel J. Stern posted:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>
>> I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an
>> individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is
>> gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him
>> straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?"
>
> A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.
> For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along
> the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is
> inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and
> a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and
> Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges."
>
> That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said
> just the other day:
>
> "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for
> the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a
> union of a man and a woman."
>
> Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy
> around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a
> century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either).
>
>

Now I am recalling the story of the schoolbus driver who was driving a bunch
of school kids to school, and listening to all the name calling and chatter.
He finally got tired of it and pulled the bus over to the side of the road,
and hollered back to the kids: "OK you kids, I'm tired of listening to all
you kids namecalling each other, calling ******s, whitey, chink, and
whatever. From now on we're all going to be one color on this bus. We're
all going to be GREEN. Now you dark greenies get on toward the back of the
bus and you light greenies move on up front here."

041109 0022 - Daniel J. Stern posted:

> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, indago wrote:
>
>> I am recalling a program I saw on cable of a search into why an
>> individual is gay. An individual, seeking to understand why someone is
>> gay, asked a gay person: "Why are you gay?" The gay person looked him
>> straight in the eye and asked: "Why are you straight?"
>
> A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.
> For those individuals, the answer to "Why are you straight?" runs along
> the lines of "Because that is God's order for the world. Homosexuality is
> inherently disordered, an abomination before God, and it is a behavior and
> a lifestyle choice at best, and a sickness at worst. Come pray with us and
> Jesus will cure you of your homosexual urges."
>
> That's a longwinded way of saying what President Bush's Karl Rove said
> just the other day:
>
> "If we want to have a hopeful and decent(!) society, we ought to aim for
> the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a
> union of a man and a woman."
>
> Yep, that's the Bush administration..."spreading freedom and democracy
> around the globe" (the Brits called it "bringing them civilisation" a
> century ago...didn't work out too well back then, either).
>
>

Now I am recalling the story of the schoolbus driver who was driving a bunch
of school kids to school, and listening to all the name calling and chatter.
He finally got tired of it and pulled the bus over to the side of the road,
and hollered back to the kids: "OK you kids, I'm tired of listening to all
you kids namecalling each other, calling ******s, whitey, chink, and
whatever. From now on we're all going to be one color on this bus. We're
all going to be GREEN. Now you dark greenies get on toward the back of the
bus and you light greenies move on up front here."

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Dan,
> Interesting. Here are your words (emphasis in brackets):
>
> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on [for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.]"
>
> Can I come to a different conclusion, Dan? Sounds to me that you feel
> Christians have problems with thinking?

Looks to me as if your reading comprehension is at a rather superficial
level. To be specific, it looks as if you don't quite understand the
phrase "self-proclaimed", nor the reason for the scarequotes around
"Christians", so you just mentally omitted them when you read what I
wrote.

There are two significant and critical differences between the following
two assertions. One difference is in the scope of the applicability of
the accusation. The other difference is that I made the first one, but
not the second one:

"A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to
blasphemy."

"A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for Christians,
for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy."

DS

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Dan,
> Interesting. Here are your words (emphasis in brackets):
>
> "A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
> understanding come on [for some thinking people, but not for those
> self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy.]"
>
> Can I come to a different conclusion, Dan? Sounds to me that you feel
> Christians have problems with thinking?

Looks to me as if your reading comprehension is at a rather superficial
level. To be specific, it looks as if you don't quite understand the
phrase "self-proclaimed", nor the reason for the scarequotes around
"Christians", so you just mentally omitted them when you read what I
wrote.

There are two significant and critical differences between the following
two assertions. One difference is in the scope of the applicability of
the accusation. The other difference is that I made the first one, but
not the second one:

"A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for those
self-proclaimed "Christians" for whom thinking is tantamount to
blasphemy."

"A clever and apt rejoinder, to be sure, and it might make the light of
understanding come on for some thinking people, but not for Christians,
for whom thinking is tantamount to blasphemy."

DS

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Dan,
> My name is Chris ... no obscurity intended.

Congratulations, Chris, on a job half done.

> I assumed (incorrectly) from the umich address that you were near to me
> ... perhaps in Ann Arbor.

As it seems.

> You are revealing your limited political knowledge,

No, I am discussing my viewpoint. It differs from yours. That makes
neither of us right or wrong, neither of us necessarily knowledgeable or
ignorant.

> To be fair, you have forgotten more than I know about Chrysler
> products,

Irrelevant.

> But, your ramble is very Will Hunting-ish.

"Rambles" are not organized into coherent bullet points, each confined to
one specific point, and all in direct response to a question.

Since my response was, in fact, organized into coherent bullet points,
each confined to one specific point, and all in direct response to a
question, it was not a "ramble".

> A lot of academic conjecture

Nope. Two points of conjecture, and a lot of historical evidence.

> pointless for straightforward debate.

Humanity's long societal-behavior track record is very much germane to a
discussion of societal behavior.

> Think more logical.

Your self-perception as exclusive holder of logic on the issue is noted,
as is your improper grammar.

> Think smaller

No thanks, I'm not into being small-minded. Small-mindedness is the
problem here, not the solution.

> - for Christians, it is upholding their Biblical interpretation of marriage

....which they can uphold fully well without enforcing their Biblical
interpretations upon those who don't share it. All they have to do if they
don't believe in gay marriage is (class? Anyone? Buehler?) Not gay-marry.

> it is the fear of liberal, activist judges who enact law, instead of
> interpreting it.

"Activist judges" like the ones who struck down mixed-race marriage bans?
"Activist judges" like the ones who desegregated America? Those kinds of
"activist judges", or some other kind?

> Don't you see the irony?

Of course I do: Those who oppose gay marriage (or abortion, or gun rights,
etc.) do not want to prevent the installation and hamper the machinations
of activist judges. They simply want a different polarity to the activism
and a different result from it.

Look, Chris, I don't expect to change your mind on this. I disagree with
you, but I don't think you're ignorant or addlebrained or anything. It's
sad, but you seem incapable of coping with the notion that it is possible
for reasonable, intelligent, educated individuals to disagree. That being
the case, I see little point in further debate with you.

DS

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, M100C wrote:

> Dan,
> My name is Chris ... no obscurity intended.

Congratulations, Chris, on a job half done.

> I assumed (incorrectly) from the umich address that you were near to me
> ... perhaps in Ann Arbor.

As it seems.

> You are revealing your limited political knowledge,

No, I am discussing my viewpoint. It differs from yours. That makes
neither of us right or wrong, neither of us necessarily knowledgeable or
ignorant.

> To be fair, you have forgotten more than I know about Chrysler
> products,

Irrelevant.

> But, your ramble is very Will Hunting-ish.

"Rambles" are not organized into coherent bullet points, each confined to
one specific point, and all in direct response to a question.

Since my response was, in fact, organized into coherent bullet points,
each confined to one specific point, and all in direct response to a
question, it was not a "ramble".

> A lot of academic conjecture

Nope. Two points of conjecture, and a lot of historical evidence.

> pointless for straightforward debate.

Humanity's long societal-behavior track record is very much germane to a
discussion of societal behavior.

> Think more logical.

Your self-perception as exclusive holder of logic on the issue is noted,
as is your improper grammar.

> Think smaller

No thanks, I'm not into being small-minded. Small-mindedness is the
problem here, not the solution.

> - for Christians, it is upholding their Biblical interpretation of marriage

....which they can uphold fully well without enforcing their Biblical
interpretations upon those who don't share it. All they have to do if they
don't believe in gay marriage is (class? Anyone? Buehler?) Not gay-marry.

> it is the fear of liberal, activist judges who enact law, instead of
> interpreting it.

"Activist judges" like the ones who struck down mixed-race marriage bans?
"Activist judges" like the ones who desegregated America? Those kinds of
"activist judges", or some other kind?

> Don't you see the irony?

Of course I do: Those who oppose gay marriage (or abortion, or gun rights,
etc.) do not want to prevent the installation and hamper the machinations
of activist judges. They simply want a different polarity to the activism
and a different result from it.

Look, Chris, I don't expect to change your mind on this. I disagree with
you, but I don't think you're ignorant or addlebrained or anything. It's
sad, but you seem incapable of coping with the notion that it is possible
for reasonable, intelligent, educated individuals to disagree. That being
the case, I see little point in further debate with you.

DS

Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>> target of hatred
>>
>>
>>
>> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view.
>
>
> What is the evidence of this?

Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
of happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.

Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Homosexuality does not serve as an acceptable excuse for being the
>>> target of hatred
>>
>>
>>
>> Are ya sure? A lot of voters seem to hold the opposite view.
>
>
> What is the evidence of this?

Uh, try the fact that voters in 11 states passed resolutions against gay
marriage. I guess they forgot that all Americans, including gays and
lesbians, are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit
of happiness. Why these people think they can impose their religious
convictions on everyone is beyond me, but there we are.