I get that. I get it from this as well (from another thread):
It’s an interesting thing to see people waving around signs with “No on H8” who look like they have enough anger to kill someone. Strange juxtaposition.
So here’s part of what I don’t understand. Wasn’t anyone mad when this was put on the ballot? Why did people sit around complacently this time, if that’s what you’re saying they did?
I had a feeling it would be you answering this since it was you that I was referring to. I guess I should have modified my term a little and will do so now. I’ll call it a ‘veiled threat’ instead of an all-out threat. But here’s an example.
To me though, there’s not much difference in tone and style.
Thanks for your concern (although I don’t know how you would know anything about this).
But if I did get angry about something I’m passionate about, I would hope that I had enough sense and foresight to channel this anger in a way that was positive and constructive in attaining my desired goal, not expressing it in such a way that it moved me further from it.
Someone so boggled at other people’s vigor in these circumstances has clearly never experienced such.
“Heff-a-lump-and-Roo-bot engage angry proto-col. Initializing sense and foresight drives. Commencing to channel Microsoft Anger® 6.0 software in pos-i-tive and constructive ways, to attain desired goal. Kill the homos. Kill the homos. Kill the homos.” (swing your arms around in stiff motions while reading this)
Really? You find that strange? So, you think that people who are the victims of blatantly bigoted legislation should… what? Be bouncing around with big happy smiles on their faces?
Well, for one thing, until shortly before the election, the polling was overwhelmingly against Prop 8. It wasn’t until out of state interests started pouring money into the anti-marriage campaign that it started swinging towards passage. Right up until the 4th, most people still thought it was going to fail. In hindsight, we should have taken this threat more seriously. It’s not a mistake we’re going to make again. That’s why we’re having marches now: because we need to get motivated and organized to repeal this, and the sooner we start, the better our chances.
Are you fuckin’ kidding me? Where’s the veiled threat in that? I referred to him as my “enemy.” And he is: he’s actively opposing my civil rights. I didn’t insult him, I didn’t call him names, I didn’t warn him of any sort of retribution. I simply pointed out that he’s placed himself in opposition to me. Again, given the situation - I’m talking to a person who has unapologetically voted to strip me of my rights - how do you expect me to relate to him? Call him my best buddy and invite him over for tea and crumpets?
Thanks a million to all the posters (sorry,** 5-4 figthing**, won’t multi-quote his time) who have been showing triangular objects and thinking they are triangles (in the Euclidean gemoetrical sense, which is what I was refering to in the first time). Your inability to see the difference between geometric triangles and objects which for shorthand/convenience/analogy are called triangles is exactly at the same level of recognizing the differences beween marriage and SSM (and I know the M in SSM is marriage).
So to all your non-geometric triangles: Are they 2d? No. Are they made of straight lines? No. Do they have only three angles? No. Do the angles add up to 180? In a few cases, by chance.
If I draw a cat and ask people, what’s this? most will answer “a cat” (a few will answer “a drawing of a cat”). All of those answering “a cat” no for sure that it is not a Felix domesticus, but since language is economical they say “cat” and they are not confused.
Analogous and metaphorical meanings allow communication to be quick and fluent.
It was mentioned that “cubes are bound by 2-dimesional shapes”. That is true but no one has shown me one single 2-d object. Cobalt lattices are still 3d.
I’ll be more than happy to let the geometric discussions die here (and meaybe open a thread for that) if you agree that we’re talking about two things called triangles: the geometric abstraction and the analogous real-life objects.
Sometimes it’s as silly as:
Are you in favour of gay marriage? Sure, the groom and the bride should be happy when they marry.
As to accusations of trolling, if true, it’s you who are feeding me and/or not reporting.
Number 2: No, there were no presidents in ancient Rome. I have no idea where you are getting that from. Not in any comitia, not in the senate, nowhere. There were leaders, but none with the title of president or with anything resembling the function that modern presidents have.
…QUOTE]
Quotes as to the Comitia centuriata (and mashed up the spelling big time, sorry for that) First, Second, Third (in Spanish).
From the first page: “The president at the comitia was the same magistrate who convoked them, and this right was a privilege of the consuls, and, in their absence, of the praetors (Cic. ad Fam. X.12). An interrex and dictator also, or his representative, the magister equitum, might likewise convene and preside at the comitia (Liv. VIII.23, XXV.2; Cic. De Leg. III.4).”
The second: “The presiding magistrate sat on a special chair (the “curule chair”) […] The president of the Century Assembly was usually a Consul (although sometimes a Praetor).”
Sometimes in English, the word “president” is used as shorthand for “presiding magistrate”. That does not mean that, as I said above, there was any office called the president or any office with similar powers and function to that office which modern people recognize as a president.
It is absolutely amazing how a word appearing in a descriptive sense in a document means Rome had presidents, but you are willing to engage in this ridiculous semantic discussion about how triangles are not triangles.
Okay, Heffalump and Roo, I’ll bite. If you were gay, and were engaged to be married to the person you’ve chosen to spend the rest of your life with, and were accordingly unhappy with Prop 8 passing, I’d like to know how you’d react to the current situation. I’m being completely serious here. You seem to think that the reaction you’re seeing is inappropriate, and I’d like to know what you consider appropriate.
Completely agreed and you think I missed the point.
When somebody asked me the same question about SSM and how would people call it i said “marriage”, because its shorthand.
Those Romans presided important meetings, and thus the modern use of the word president definitely is rooted on the concept. They were NOT presidents in the sense we would use it today as head-of-state/head-of-governemt. It is exactly my point. The word is not more important than what it describes and at the same time words DO have powerful meanings
(BTW, this whole “president” thing started with wrongly-written or wrongly understood pronouns)
The Latin title was not president but præsidentum, which while it would seem a nitpick in some is surely no more off key than whatever ding you’re dinging by playing the triangle.
In Roman assembly meetings there were people who took the title praesidentum because they presided over the meetings. QED.
Also in ancient Rome the confessions of slaves were only admissible in courts of law if they were obtained by torture and torture was usually performed by undertakers as they were the most knowledgeable profession when it came to the human body [physicians and surgeons being usually slaves or low born free or freed men who’d served a 6 month apprenticeship and was not considered a particularly respected or learned profession]). The vast majority of the streets in Rome, and there were thousands, had no name but were referred to by full sentences (e.g. “on the Quirinal behind the wool merchant, the insula with the two fig trees and the statue of Lætitia and owned by Gnaeus Tullius”) and in almost every apartment was a private miniature temple called a lararium where the people served the household deities, most of them unique to that household. I mention these things because they’re far more interesting and no less relevant than whatever the point is about presidents.
I fear also that you’ve picked the wrong board… the realllllly wrong board- to think that people will be impressed with obscure references- I doubt there’s a Doper here who can’t make references not 1 in 20,000 would get, be it about comic book heroes, Tolkien, the mistranslated conjugation of words in an Arabic poem, the details of the sexual reproduction of a plant that only grows on a particular river in Maine, the punctuation of Anais Nin, the military meritis and minuses of Boudicca, the ailurophobia of Napoleon, the genealogical inconsistencies of All in the Family and of the pedigree of Theseus or how many sisters Esther Rolle had (15), how connected the Titanic was to the invention of radio/television (or did Sarnoff lie), the differing takes on the Black Oath by Quakers and Presbyterians in Ulster, recipes for eels and pearl onions, the programming of a surplus ENIAC to perform robocalls or what kind of typewriter Plato would have used had he been reincarnated as a 1924 Belgian office girl (Olivetti M-3 1914 Ivrea). Dopers include authors, academics, historians, botanists, linguists, doctors, lawyers, librarians, fishermen, farriers, students, waitresses, actors, office managers, chemists, appliance salesmen, armorers, poets, bakers and the occasional koala wrangler and we all bring our own odd interests to the table (myself: my odd interests include Mormon polygamy- I can name 30 wives and all 57 children of Brigham Young without having to consult a source and I also mentally stockpile genealogies of famous people and have a borderline obsession with 1970s sitcoms and flopped big budget musicals). Thus on particular subjects individually and on a shitstorm of subjects collectively we could if we so desired send every god in geekdom to Google. There are threads here on gay issues in whcih the orgins and meanings of arsenokoites and malakos are debated and that went hundreds of posts and got thousands of views- we’ve no objection to obscure or ancient terms when relevant (in fact we love them) or when entertaining, but we are not impressed that you can google, cut and paste them. In fact it’s annoying as all hell because it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about and you come across- rightly or wrongly- as an overzealous moderately bright embittered 3rd year college student of indeterminate major who’s used to hanging around stupid people who seem awed by your knowledge but who as yet seems unable to distinguish shit from shine or sophistry from sophia.
That being said, what in the name of the chlamydia cloaked cloaca of Clay Aiken’s Cuculidæ does Roman politics or the abundance of or complete absence of your notion of a perfect triangle in nature have to do with whether or not the formal union of two people of the same sex should receive spousal benefits from the state and Federal governments of the United States of America in The Year of Our Lord 2008?
You completely lost me. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
And just for the record, Sampiro, I agree with the vast majority of what you said, but praesidentum is not, to the best of my knowledge, a Roman title. It is not in the Lewis & Short dictionary. What you can see is the present participle of praesideo, which is praesidens, which basically means “the one who is presiding”.
Sorry for the Latin hijack. I got distracted by Aji’s smoke and mirrors.
A rocky old agate from Fife
With triangular facets was rife
When asked “What the hey
Does that have to d with being gay?”
It answered, “I don’t have a fucking clue!”
And Gallina’s logic is almost as screwy as that rhyme scheme!
Yes, I’m angry. And yes we’ve been angry about this for years. This seems to have created a tipping point where that anger that’s been mostly under the surface for years has been brought out, in force. I honestly don’t expect you to understand it, that wouldn’t really be possible if you haven’t spent your life being looked down on by most people. I was pissed off the first time this got put up for a vote, but dealt with it because there was little to nothing we could do about it. I’d really love to see the religious rights reaction if a constitutional amendment was put up to a vote to take protection of religion out.
My take on the ‘no more mr nice gay’ slogan is that we’re not just going to sit back and take whatever little handout is offered anymore. We’re going to demand that the law treat us equally as guaranteed in the US constitution. Some people have taken it too far, I have nothing but scorn for the group that physically assaulted a 60-something year old woman who was carrying a large styrofoam cross or the ones that vandalize churches. But over the course of the gay civil rights movement we’ve largely kept to a ‘be nice, just fit in and hope for acceptance’ method and we’re just plain sick of it. We are opposed in large numbers by people who would hate us and condemn us no matter what we do.
Another thing to remember, we’re not the ones that are calling this a war. That came from the other side. If they want to frame it that way, they shouldn’t be surprised if it starts getting treated like one. (heh, this is a bit rambling here. One of these days I’ll write about this without the stream of conciousness thing going on)
To a wrinkled old maid Pictish hag it
was said by a sentient agate
“I’ve got a great triangular porn video
of a catamite and a dwarf that a præsideo
can fuck (but not marry, the faggot!”)
