A Conversation with Bjorn

The BBQ Pit
101

thanks coldfire…

the example provided was not quite accurate. it lacked what the accuser meant.

the accusing MP(a=accusing)(as you call it…much better)meant that people like the other MP(b=the other one) caused what is wrong in the society of every minority group in the world. it was like calling him a racist or a sexist. MP(b) was simply stating that MP(b) acted like a member of the KKK or some other extremist group in dealing with given legislation proposal(updated news: the legislation has been passed and accepted). that is how MP(b) and people like him are responsible for bad things happening in the society of minority groups.

bj0rn - the one and only!

102

You know how Sherlock Holmes has “one pipe” and “two pipe” problems? This was a “one chicken” problem. Let’s see if I have this straight.

Okay, so there’s a debate on a TV talk show on the proposed “gay adoption” legislation. During the discussion, MP Leif Ericsson objects to the legislation. I assume he is a Conservative. MP Thor Heyerdahl, who evidently supports the proposed legislation and who I assume is a Liberal, says snidely, “Oh, well, people like you are responsible for what is happening in the society of gay people–a lot of young gays are committing suicide.” His statement clearly implies to everyone who is listening that what he really means is, “…because they’re so depressed that they aren’t allowed to adopt children.”

The TV studio is immediately in an uproar. Battle axes are produced from under the seats, Viking helmets are donned, war chants are heard from the gentlemen’s restroom. Cooler heads eventually prevail, but MP Heyerdahl still doesn’t understand that he said anything wrong.

Bjorn, when he heard this story, had to laugh, because, he says, Ericsson didn’t see how Heyerdahl’s accusation was correct, he only reacted to the way he said it. Ericsson thought it was a ridiculous thing to say and was furious at being held personally responsible for everything that goes wrong in gay society.

So, Bjorn, you’re saying that Heyerdahl was right? Gay people ARE committing suicide because they’re so depressed at not being allowed to adopt?

Bjorn says that what the liberal Heyerdahl meant was that people like the conservative Ericsson are the ones who cause what is wrong in the society of every minority group in the world, by voting for repressive legislation. It was meant to be an insult, like calling him a racist or a sexist. Heyerdahl was simply stating that Ericsson acted like a member of the KKK or some other extremist group in dealing with the proposed legislation. Heyerdahl meant, “that is how Ericsson and people like him are responsible for the bad things happening in minority groups.”

I suppose the American equivalent insult would be to call him a “Neanderthal”, to imply extreme backwardness.

(updated news: the legislation has been passed and accepted).

So gays in Iceland are allowed to adopt children? Are they allowed to marry? Or are these going to be single-parent adoptions? How progressive…

103

I don’t know how bj0rn is going to respond, but I’ll tell you this much: you’ve got the names wrong (partially).

All Icelandic men carry a family name ending in -son, such as Gutmarsson.
All Icelandic women carry a family name ending in -dottir, such as Gutmarsdottir (possibly Gutmarssons sister, even).

The suffixes mean son and daughter, respectively.

So there, bj0rn. Don’t tell me I know nothing about Iceland :smiley:

104

Yeah, I know. I just used the names of the two famous Scandinavian persons I was most familiar with who weren’t also involved in the entertainment industry (Liv Ullman, Ingmar Bergman, etc.)

I thought about using Roald Amundsen, but everybody always assumes it’s a typo for “Ronald”, so I didn’t.

And I thought about using a “dottir”, but I thought his posts made it clear it was two guys.

Whatever.

:cool:

105

the two MPs debating were: Árni Johnsen and Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir.
dont know how long the links will last
real player link: http://audio.islandia.is:554/ramgen/video/2000050718550.rm?start=00:43:35&end=00:45:32
the story:

Árni has spoken enthusiastically against the legislation on gay adopting their stepchildren and considers it a blow against any moral in the society, in the mean time Kolbrún thinks its a principal in human rights and its first and foremost the interest of the children that are living with gay parents.

when Kolbrún said that Árni and people like him who preached predudice had a responsibility in gay suicides who have a difficulty with facing their sexuality, Árni got a bit mad…

direct translation from real player(the accual interview):
Kolbrún: now listen…lets make it clear that, Árni Johnsen, that today young men are committing suicide because people like you are not ready to allow them to face their sexuality. that is known!
Árni: you are saying i am responsible for suicide.
Kolbrún: you are responsible for alot in the daily lifes of people…
Árni: you are saying i am responsible for suicide…
Kolbrún: because you are partially the law, you are responsible for the discussion
Árni: you are saying that i…
Kolbrún: you are preaching predudice…
…
Kolbrún: i said men like you, who uphold predudice in the society. we are supposed to open our arms for young people and we are supposed to be patient and loving. we are supposed to offer them a chance to express their feelings and love like their feelings offer. its a question of love.
Árni: then we have nothing to discuss!

bj0rn - let every man judge for himself…

106

when the news agency tried to contact Árna, Kolbrún answered: the mobile phone can not be reached at this moment, it is either…

bj0rn - :wink:

107

So, what you’re saying is that Iceland is a really small town? LOL!

So one of them WAS a “dottir” after all! My sexist face is red. :o

Anyway, so what we’re talking about here is not just gays adopting children at random, but specifically about gays legally adopting their step-children? Meaning, children that they are already related to, sort of? Meaning, children that are already living with gay parents?

When you say “gay adoption” to me, I automatically think you’re talking about gay couples going to an adoption agency and picking out a baby, or something like that.

Do you have any idea of the numbers that we’re looking at here? How many gay couples, etc.?

Remember, you and I were talking about “what gets everybody in Iceland really angry” and you mentioned this. So are people really angry? Is this a major problem in Iceland, or is it just “this week’s topic” and it will be gone in another week?

P.S. I watched a really good NOVA episode last night on PBS on the Vikings. Now I’m jealous. They get all the good stuff–media attention, movies, books, historical reconstructions. All I am, ethnically, is just plain old Anglo-Saxon, although I did have a great-grandfather on my mother’s side who came over from Denmark. Maybe I should learn to get in touch with my “inner Viking”.

Note: Even the Russians are now evidently claiming that they, too, descended from Vikings. They’re saying that “Rus”, the name of the Scandinavian tribe that my history book says came to Russia and gave it their name, is from the Finnish word “Rutz”, related to the Swedish word “ross” meaning “rowers”, and means specifically the Vikings, not just some general sort of Nordic tribe. I’ve never heard THAT before. Revisionism is a wonderful thing.

Personally, I think the Russians are subconsciously trying to escape the stigma of 75 years of Slavic communism, Joe Stalin with those high cheekbones, etc., so they’re pushing the “hey, we’re really just Vikings” button for all they’re worth. Probably a lot more American tourists would come to see Viking artifacts than would be interested in World War II tanks, not to mention Lenin’s body. :rolleyes:

:smiley:

108

oh…i thought i had explained that earlier, that we were talking about the children of their mate.

anyway…this MP"dóttir" sounded quite upset, if not mad. although it was directed at the other mp"sen(its called snob)".

ugh…that was a silly paragraph.

a quick question here; can people get mad at subjects? are they not just mad at other peoples opinions on the subject?

dont know anything about that russian thing, and i dont like living in the past - its just something i like to read about in the history books

bj0rn - ekki mubla.

109

Oh, yes, absolutely, I think people can definitely get mad at a subject. Especially very emotional subjects like abortion and gay rights. As a matter of fact, I think most people feel more angry towards a subject like gay rights when it’s in the abstract, when it’s just an “idea”. But as soon as they get to know an actual gay person, and they see “well, gosh, he’s not so bad…”, then they sometimes change their tune, and calm down a little.

People get all upset about things like the death penalty and gun control when it doesn’t even affect them personally. Most people don’t personally know somebody on Death Row, and most people don’t even own guns.

P.S. Even if you don’t like history, :smiley: here’s NOVA’s page for the Viking show. I thought it was very nifty. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vikings/

110

I think I am almost 100% Viking. That is, three of my grandparents were pure Scandinavian (two Norwegians and a Swede) and the other one was more than 3/4 Norwegian, mixed with a little English, so who knows? Not that anyone cares about my ancestry. It is interesting being well over six feet tall with glowing blond hair in Japan though. Little kids often mistake me for a supernatural being (I think thats what they are saying anyway . . . little kids are damned hard to understand).

I agree that people get very worked up about ideas. Its especially sad when they are so upset about ideas that they know next to nothing about. The conservatives and gays are a perfect example. Most of them dont know any homosexuals (or at least dont know that they know any, if you see what I mean) but they nearly burst their collective spleens worrying about it. There may in fact be legitimate arguments against legalizing gay marriage, but most opponents are so excited that they never get past the screaming, spitting, placard-waving stage. Its hella frustrating to have a conservative bend and be lumped in with all these Nazis and idjits (sic).

111

I think I am almost 100% Viking. That is, three of my grandparents were pure Scandinavian (two Norwegians and a Swede) and the other one was more than 3/4 Norwegian, mixed with a little English, so who knows? Not that anyone cares about my ancestry. It is interesting being well over six feet tall with glowing blond hair in Japan though. Little kids often mistake me for a supernatural being (I think thats what they are saying anyway . . . little kids are damned hard to understand).

I agree that people get very worked up about ideas. Its especially sad when they are so upset about ideas that they know next to nothing about. The conservatives and gays are a perfect example. Most of them dont know any homosexuals (or at least dont know that they know any, if you see what I mean) but they nearly burst their collective spleens worrying about it. There may in fact be legitimate arguments against legalizing gay marriage, but most opponents are so excited that they never get past the screaming, spitting, placard-waving stage. Its hella frustrating to have a conservative bend and be lumped in with all these Nazis and idjits (sic).

112

Fricking double post! sorry. my browser locked up . . .

113

think about it notthemama…
the subject is: gay adoptions.
the argument is: blablabla.
witch one are you going to be mad/glad about? the subject or the argument?

the moment you see the subject, you might get angry, but that would be because you imagine some argument that makes you angry.

my point is: you can never get mad at anything that happens in the society, just what it becomes.
like: a kid is brutally murdered, but it isnt discovered, so it becomes a missing kid case. everybody is sad because of that missing kid, but they do not know what really happened.
here the subject would be: missing kid.
argument: how did he get lost.
if he ran away, people might get mad at his parents for some reason or other.
if he just simply vanished, people would get puzzled.
if he was kidnapped, people would be shocked.
if he was murdered, people would be mad.

so it is not the subject, but the argument people get mad about, because if they get mad at the subject (yeah, yeah…) they are mad at themselves (mad at their own argument) because they havent heard any other argument.

bj0rn - blah…!

114

Well, yes, but sometimes people also get mad about a subject even when there’s nobody around to argue with. For example, I tend to get very irritated on the subject of the florist industry, cut flowers, roses, and stuff like that. People spend billions of dollars on it every year, for something that’s going to be thrown away in a couple of days.

But usually there isn’t anybody around who wants to hear about it, let alone argue about it, so I have to be mad all by myself.

Galahad: How do you know those cute little Japanese kids aren’t just speculating on whether your hair is the same color “down there”? :smiley:

115

notthemama, has cut flowers dune you wrong in the past. all this hostility tward such a happy indistry. maybe no one has sent you flowers in a while and you just feel left out and take it out on the flower indestry (by the way, your angry at the people spending billions of dollars, not the subject). I’ll see if i can send you a dandylion or two :slight_smile:

116

wow, that latest one from Bjorn was worth at least a drumstick, if not a half a chicken (would you like that deep fried or roasted, sir? Can I get you anything else?)

anyway, i think i kind of see where bjorn is going with that. its true that you have to separate the issues from the arguments people make about the issues, and in fact thats sort of what I was lamenting in my last post, that people assume that if you share a viewpoint on an issue than you must share the arguments.

However, i also think that people can get upset about an issue. Its probably hard to do in relation to a specific case, because then you get bound up in figuring out the facts and so on. But you can get upset about a concept without knowing any specific cases.

Fortunately I know enough Japanese to know that they arent commenting on my other hair. They use words like: monster, foreign scum, etc. Its more out of surprise than anything I think. Its weird, but the average Japanese grade-schooler has probably never had a face to face experience with any non-Asian person, so naturally they trip out.

Yesterday I was helping a friend of mine set up a new office (he sells electronics) and there were these two college graduates working with us. And we got started talking about my experience in Japan and this guy asked me if I was ‘actually born with blond hair?’ I couldnt believe my ears! Now there is a guy that needs to take a trip somewhere, anywhere!

117

I’ve seen pictures in TIME magazine, etc. of people in Tokyo who dye their hair blonde. So maybe it wasn’t such an off-the-wall question. Not to mention pink, purple, green…

I’m not angry at the people who buy flowers–I’m angry that the whole trade exists at all. During the debate over slavery, there were people who weren’t angry at the slave owners and traders in person, they were just angry that the trade existed at all.

(Well, actually, I’m not angry in the sense of “furious”, just “annoyed”. This is not a rant.)

Anyway, my “argument” against the florist trade is that it’s a waste of society’s resources, resources that could be put to better use elsewhere. I suppose that if I met somebody else who was annoyed about the florist trade, his “argument” might be that it prevents the Mexican peons who grow the flowers from developing a viable agricultural economy–they spend all their time growing carnations for Americans, instead of food. So we might agree on the “issue” but not on the “argument”.

I am going out of town for the weekend, so if you don’t hear from me till Monday, it’s not because I went gunning for Teleflora. :smiley:

118

if you are mad that slavery exists at all, the subject isnt slavery. the subject would be something like: “the evil aspects of human nature”.

greygalahad: uh…yeah, basically.

what i said, with different words and your opinion…

bj0rn - ö

119

Okay, but now you’re quibbling about semantics again. Quibbling about semantics is what gets you blown out of the water every time, babe. Plus it’s, like, super-boring, OK?

Being mad at the subject of slavery is different from being mad at the evil in men’s hearts. Slavery has been perpetrated in the past by some very nice, non-evil people. I wouldn’t characterize the ancient Greeks as, en masse, “evil”. Ditto the ancient Incas and Mayas.

You can be mad at the subject of slavery, in the abstract, without being mad at the people, evil or not, who participate in it.

I’m sure there are some very nice people who run flower shops. And I’m not mad at them. But I’m still mad at the “concept” of the modern cut-flower industry.

120

ok then notthemama, what is it that makes you mad at the modern flower-cutting industry?

i did not know what semantics meant, so i looked it up:
merriam-websters

  1. eh, no.
    a. i like that but, no.
    b(2). cute but, no.
    3a. is this what you meant?
    b. or this?

bj0rn - ö.