Waverly, I would also add that astounding is a gross misuse of the word as well. We all know that astounding means to astonish, bewilder and strike dumb with wonder, but it’s obvious from The Ryan’s posts that he’s…
Oh, no, wait - strike that. Never mind.
Esprix
So you complain that I’m telling you what your position is, and then proceed to tell me what it is that I’m basing my statement on.
And I see you haven’t admitted you were wrong about the “ad absurdum” point.
Polycarp:
So because you misunderstood what I was saying, that’s my fault? You admit that I did respond to your request for clarification. And yet that’s not good enough for you. What do you want from me?
I find your position that I ignore requests for clarification extremely hypocritical. There are at least half a dozen questions in that thread alone that you have not answered. In the pedophilia thread, you also repeatedly ignored my questions. You still haven’t explained your “asshole” comment.
So because the OP believes it, I must too?
I see no basis for those claims.
Polycarp, are you insane? The OP starts with a blatant lie. No one (other than me, of course) challenges that lie. Not you or any of these people whose opinions I’m supposed to listen to challenges it. When I challenge it, neither you nor do any of these people second my challenge. Someone accuses me of “nitpicking” and I provide an example of this alleged “nitpicking” and show that it was a case where the person was clearly wrong, in a way that substantially affected his case. Do you or any of these paragons of agree that the charge of nitpicking is unfounded? No. So here we have a bunch of people who are either dishonest or else turning a blind eye to dishonesty, and you expect me to put their opinions above my own. What possible reason would I have to do so? I have questioned whether these concerns are legitimate. And my answer is “Hell no!”
Esprix
Seeing as how this is the first time you’ve asked this question, it’s not surprising that I haven’t answered it before. Your question reveals your own prejudices, because it shows that you are convinced that they are doing this out of malice. According to Catholic doctrine, it is in the best interest of everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, to discourage homosexual behavior. So they aren’t intending to hurt anyone.
I really don’t see how you can call this a irrelevant tangent. If we’re discussing whether pedophiles are homosexual, by what insane logic is the issue of whether people who engage in non-consensual activity with people of the same sex “irrelevant”?!?
Cite?
This is what I find so repugnant about you. The mere fact that I won’t agree with your definition is “insulting”.
There is thread claiming that this is discrimination. I don’t believe it is discrimination. So I argue that it is not discrmination. Are my motives really that hard to fathom? If the entire thread is about whether it’s discrimination, how is claiming that it’s not discrimination “nitpicking”? That’s like starting a thread about how the Israelis are fascists that don’t belong in the West Bank, and then objecting to someone saying that Israelis aren’t fascists as “nitpicking”. Or is this another example of how you get to redefine words?
And yet again I make a sincere effort to explain my point of view, and you simply dismiss it. Where do get off telling me what “everyone else in the world” thinks? Have you conducted a poll? This is what you think, not how everyone in the world thinks. How did you ever get so conceited as to think that the two are synomynous?
While I detect a considerable amount of sarcasm, I do agree. There is no evidence that Esprix has some amount of ability, but on the other hand there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he doesn’t have any. I was careless in using a term which I was using for its connotation of “extreme” while forgetting its denotation of “complete”. Considering who else is posting in this thread, this may be the only example of someone admitting that they were wrong. You should study it carefully, as you seem to have great deficiencies in that area.
The Ryan: I am working from the assumption that your reason for being on this message board is to learn and to teach other people. Your approach has been tested, and it is ineffective at convinceing other people to see your point of view. Whehter or not it is a theoretically sound approach is irrelevant: in this context it serves to antagonize, not convince. If your point is to convince, you need to modify your approach. I, myself, find that I am more effective if I envision myself as teaching ,not argueing. But you have to find what works for you.
Then you are blind, deaf, and dumb.
BECAUSE YOU’RE WRONG! Indeed there may be times when you are the only right person on an entire message board, but those times are few and far between - the vast majority of the time, YOU’RE JUST WRONG! How fucking thick-headed can you be? If I posted a thread and said, “The sky is blue,” and every single response to that thread said, “No, the sky is yellow,” there comes a point when I open up the door to check, for fuck’s sake! Every person in this thread (save one willing to give you the benefit of the doubt) has agreed that you are a pedantic, overstuffed windbag with nothing to add to a debate except childish quibblings over the precise meaning of words that everybody else in the debate understands perfectly, leading to you pissing off enough people to start how many Pit threads about your behavior? Jesus, you’d think there would be a point where you’d look in the fucking mirror!
I’ve posted several questions to you in the thread, and you’ve blithely skipped over them with your semantical white noise. You’d rather ignore the questions that actually have some import to the topic at hand in favor of belaboring the meaning of the word “is.”
Except the guy who wants to bring his boyfriend to the prom. And ignoring Canadian law. Your asinine, pointless debate over “it’s not discrimination because heterosexuals can’t come in same-sex pairs either” is from Mars. Where are you getting this bullshit? The school said (and I will quote from the article a THIRD time for your itty-bitty cognitive functions):
THEY’RE NOT LETTING HIM COME BECAUSE HE’S GAY. Why you think this is somehow related to straight guys asking other straight guys to the prom is LUNACY.
And for the record, let’s just say it once more - together, everyone! - homosexuality is in no way comparable to pedophilia. Now take your dictionary and shove it up your ass far enough for osmosis to take over when it dissolves directly onto the surface of your brain.
Oh, please. Try re-reading what everyone else has been saying about you in this thread. For God’s sake, you’ve got Polycarp - POLYCARP! - using strong language. Few people have been able to achieve this feat, but no one here thinks it’s an accomplishment you should be proud of.
How about because you went off on some freakish non-sensical tangent about “same-sex couples” when the article quoted in the OP clearly states they wouldn’t let them come because they were a GAY couple!
Does anybody else feel like a fried egg? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
No - but I started a Pit thread, and everyone agreed with me. Try reading it sometime, choad.
Esprix
ESPRIX, have this virtual cold drink. I’ll even direct it be served to you by a cute little Asian boy. (Cute little over-18 Asian boy, of course.) And, heck, Cinco de Mayo’s coming – let’s make the drink a Corona. And here – some chips and salsa. Let’s cue the mariachi band and head to the virtual beach.
Now, think pleasant thoughts: About how it’s Friday. About how life is pretty good. About how warm the virtual sun is out here on the virtual beach. About how grateful your insurance company will be if you do not have an aneurysm today.
“Esprix, I don’t see what you mean. Please clarify. Your statements are without factual basis. I’m not following you. Can you show me where I said what you’re saying I said because you’re saying I said what I never said nor would have said had I…” :rolleyes:
My first exposure to this guy has been in this thread. I dated someone like this - faced with overwhelming evidence of being in the wrong, she’d start picking my sentences apart grammatically. “Whose place was I shacking up at? You ended that question with a preposition.”
I’d rather slowly hammer a tiny sharp tack through my fingernail than wade through this guy’s electronic waste. Esprix, you have more patience than I.
If Jodi’s tack fails, remember: you are not related to Ryan, you don’t have to live with him, and you don’t have to sleep with him. These thoughts should bring you MASSIVE relief.
As much as I can sympathize with posters being frustrated with other posters, and as inappropriate as it is, I would like to say that I have some respect for Ryan in that he truly never seems to get upset.
How in the fuck he manages that I will never understand because, whether he is right, wrong, or misunderstood, the guy takes shit all over the place.
The reason I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt (I assume that I am the one Esprix is referring to) is because he seems to be very critical of strong positions in general. The quickest method for dissecting strong opinions is in attacking the method of expression… for instance, do you really mean that Ryan can’t understand anything?
But, still, language isn’t that precise (try reading through Tractutus Logico-Philosophicus sometime if you think it can be) and after a while taking a reductionist approach to semantic understanding is not only frustrating, but probably inappropriate.
I also feel that Ryan tries too hard to place all statements in a logical context (something that the Tractutus will also cure anyone of, IMO) when this is truthfully a very difficult thing to do because grammatically and semantically correct interpretations require type, class, and order distinction, not just an understanding of subject, predicate, and relation. Not that this comment can’t be directed at others, too, myself included, just that Ryan is the subject here and so there you have it.
But, he is a level-headed debater not privvy to emotional outbreaks, and has upon more than one occassion made me think, so he’s done a lot of good, IMO.
I do not believe he is a homophobe.
I do not believe he is an idiot.
I do believe that this won’t be the last thread of its type. But hasn’t he also told us he isn’t here to make friends? 
One question: what “blatant lie”? I assume you’re referring to the Canadian Catholic school thread that Esprix linked to.
I honestly have no interest in trashing you, Ryan – I’m massively frustrated at a failure to match up understandings, and I’m generally quite good at seeing the other person’s point of view, at least well enough to argue against it or to ask questions about what I don’t understand. Whatever point you were trying to make in that thread, and in several others we’ve both participated in lately, has escaped me. That is why I’ve joined in this thread.
{breathes deeply & exhales}
Thank you, Jodi and Hastur.
Esprix
But he sure plays a mean pinball.
I’m referring to the statement in the OP “And remember, kiddies, thus sayeth The Ryan - taking a same-sex date to the prom has nothing at all to do with homosexuality.” Then there’s the statments “He’s already said outright that being right is the whole point of his arguing, and that he won’t accept being wrong (sees it as some kind of character flaw or something equally ridiculous),”
I don’t think that the policy in question is discriminatory. Was that really so hard to determine (that that is my point)?
Esprix:
If so, there’s a very simple way to show that: provide a quote. The fact that you haven’t done so implies that you are lying.
You refuse to debate politely, and are then surprised when I ignore you? Oh, boo hoo.
Considering that he implied that he thought I was an asshole, refused to explain what he meant, and is now complaining that I ignore requests for clarifications, his opinion, while more meaningful than yours, is still not compelling evidence.
Silly me, thinking that the terms “gay couples” and “same sex couples” might have similar meanings.
I have already explained how they consider this to be in his best interests. And at the risk of yet again being accused of semantically quibbling, I don’t see how “The school does not intend to hurt anyone except ignoring Canadian law” makes grammatical sense.
Who? Marc? Marc is perfectly free to attend. Or do you mean the boyfriend? Again, he is permitted to attend. He is not permitted to attend as part of a gay couple. There is no evidence that his orientation is a factor. Just because they don’t allow gay couples, that doesn’t mean they don’t allow gays.
Surely you didn’t mean that statment literally, as it is entirely possible to compare homosexuality to pedophilia. And if you mean “Homosexuality is not of the moral character as pedophilia”, I have never claimed that it is. So what did you mean? I am not asking this out of a semantic quibble. I honestly do not know what, other than to two meanings I have presented, you might mean by it.
Well, [gasp] then [gasp] I [gasp] guess [gasp] you [gasp] must [gasp] be [gasp] right.
Sorry, it took my a lot of effort to say that without laughing. Do you really think that’s a valid counterargument?
I did not, directly, call you “an asshole” – I implied strongly that your behavior, at the time in question, was so describable, that being my opinion at the time. I have since come to find that you were not trolling but instead making points that I failed to understand (and in some cases still do not). If that implication does indeed rile you unduly, I will, with your permission, withdraw it.
With your evident desire to be a stickler for precision, may I observe that the purpose of school dances is not to promote sexual activity among the students, but to enable romance and recreation between them. Your (IMHO) jumping to the conclusion that permitting the Canadian student to bring his boyfriend as a same-sex date would encourage same-sex sexual activity is not borne out by the facts.
Again IMHO, the policy is discriminatory because it prohibits the person in question from bringing a date selected on the basis of his own sexual orientation – which does of course not refer exclusively to sexual behavior but rather to the whole complexus of what makes men and women choose life partners, whether same-sex or opposite-sex. I can grant that he is held to the same rules as other students, in that he like they can bring a date of the opposite sex – but if the policy were reversed and all students could only bring someone of the same sex, do you not think that there would be loud cries of discrimination there?
Wow, I was right! The Ryan completely ignored my post in the other thread! What do I win??
Oh, and Ryan? As much as you like to say other posters are liars, looks like you’re the one doing it now. Esprix asked you that question on page 3 of that other thread. If you weren’t so busy ignoring arguments that hurt your case, you might have seen it. Unless, of course, you’re going to say he didn’t really ask the same question, because the wording was a little different, in which case: “Oh, so sorry, and answer the fucking question next time.” Thank you.
Earlier you argued that for the school to refuse to allow the couple to attend the prom was not anti-homosexual discrimination since it was an application of a ban on same-sex couples not on gay ones. So are same-sex couples the same as gay ones? If yes then the ban is discriminatory towards homosexuals. If not, then the above quote seems to fall below your standards of terminological exactitude.
Esprix isn’t spreading lies, he’s doing his damnedest to make sense out of you. Immediately after your admission that you don’t relish following links (which was quite elucidating,) you offer us this insight:
Whether it was your intention or not, this could certainly lead one to believe you avoid acknowledging references that would be harmful to your position. You also clearly characterize someone else making a valid counter point not as learning something, but as ‘loosing.’ From my perspective, this seems to be an illustration of someone not so much discussing a topic so much as entering into a contest to be won and employing two decidedly dishonest tactics in order to secure a sense of victory: The avoidance or non-addressing of cites, and the criticism of the words used as opposed to the point being made.
When Esprix asked who the rule is intended to hurt, rather than answer you seize upon the word ‘hurt’ and skip happily off on a tangent.
If Exprix had substituted the word ‘hinder’ could he have gotten an answer, or would you have skirted the question in another manner? Just as a simple majority, who is most likely to want to bring a same sex date to the prom, homosexuals or heterosexuals? Who is therefore going to be most affected by the rule.
Jeez, I’m starting to see The Ryan’s point.
Maybe I can get him to lobby for my bill making possession of dark skin, curly hair, and thick lips a hanging offense. The usual lobbyists won’t touch it - some nonsense about it being somehow “racist.” Those lefty liberal folks get some funny ideas.
Why is it that I keep sticking my foot in my mouth? sigh This is why I don’t post in the Pit.
SHEESH.
In what way could this not be discriminatory?!???
It’s very simple. In order to get your head around it, think of it this way:
Obviously, banning homosexuals at the prom would be a discriminatory policy.
See, the homosexuals aren’t being banned. It’s just an attribute that defines homosexuality that’s verboten.
So it’s okay.
Happy to clear that up for you.