Isn’t trolling a bannable offense?
Count me in with those above.
If Polycarp calls you an asshole, you have fucked up big time.
I posted the above as a flat question, not to be provocactive. I in no way presume to vote for banning one way or the other.
Toby, it is very important that you do not breed.
Wow.
One time–ONE time in ten years of teaching–I told my students to shut up.
Complete, utter, shocked silence followed. Then, a couple of years of students reminiscing, “Remember when Msbodypoet told us to shut up? WOW! That was something!” Those kids probably STILL remember the day IT happened.
Now I kinda know how they feel.
Thank you, polycarp. As always, I’m in awe.
(And can I email you sometime? I’ve tried but got bounced.)
Best,
karol
I think his admission of trolling is simply a defense after he realized he had gotten his ass kicked.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I share the opinion of Uncle Toby, for pretty much opposite reasons. I think the government has no business at all regulating the kind of union I want to engage myself in.Not only I’m in favor of gay marriage, but also of polygamic marriage, polyandric marriages, and whatever other kind of marriage you can think of. For instance, if I want to live platonically with my brother because we appreciate each other and think we’re more happy that way, why not? And why would it have different legal consequences than for people living together because they love each other or lust after each other?
But of course, I realized that in this case, at some point, the concept of marriage in itself lose any signifiance.
So, more and more, I think the state shouldn’t endorse at all the institution of marriage nor regulate it, and should only enter the picture (granting rights or advantages, etc…) when children are born (or adopted). Marriages being in this case considered as private matters, regulated by private contracts if need be, without intereference by the government. Some advantages granted by marriage (say, concerning taxes) should be removed from the books and others (transfer of lease, acquisition of citizenship) based of other objective criteriums not related to a state-endorsed marriage (for instance, you lived for 3 years in the appartment, so you can keep the lease when your “partner” die, regardless who he was : husband, boyfriend or best mate)
So, in some way, I agree with Toby : no endorsement/regulation of an union by the state as long as there are no children.
I don’t feel like getting in to this too deeply, but I feel like most of you are needlessly vilifying **Toby[/y]. He does not seem a troll to me. An “adversarial stance” does not constitute trolling. I’ve done worse than that. I’ve taken the devil’s advocate position in GD before. I have said things I don’t personally believe. Does that mean I’m trolling? No. Hell no, of course not. I think most of you are reading far too much into his words.
Polycarp, you know I love you, but perhaps you allowed the situation with your wife to make Toby’s comments a little more personal than they were meant to be. It seems more that he was arguing an intellectual point about the government and what constitutes a marriage contract.
To the rest of you: Yes, Polycarp is the closest thing to a saint we have on this board. I respect him highly. However, don’t run to back him up without thinking about the facts. Think for yourselves and read what was actually said. He will be the first to tell you that he is only human. Sometimes he’s wrong.
I, like a few others, am wondering if UncleToby is using the “trolling” excuse to avoid taking the full blame for his posts. They certainly seem like what he actually believes to me, based on his previous posts.
Toby never said he was trolling. Am I the only person who reads things without a pre-biased view? He never said he was trolling. He said he took “an adversarial stance”. He did. And that is completely fair in GD.
His is an unpopular view. He does not need to be pitted merely because you disagree with him. Jump off the dog pile and think. You can respectfully disagree, but Toby has not come near to crossing the line. Lay off.
Calling gay people and those who do not have children or cannot have children or who do not fit Herr Toby’s limited worldview perversions crosses so many lines that you’d lose count if you tried to enumerate them.
His unfortunate use of the denotation of the word “perversion” instead of the conotation aside, where did he cross the line?
If one is going to play devil’s advocate in GD, one usually bloody well either says so or gets pitted for it if it’s something akin to what Uncle Toady said.
“I took an adversarial stance because I wanted to see if any of you would come up with this or could knock holes in the argument.”
This is after the fact saying “Hey, I was only arguing something to see if someone else had any problem with it”. Commonly known as the “Oh fuck you’re NOT all idiots” defense. See smithwow for a (I’m warning you, don’t go unless you want to see) classic example of this.
Except it assumes we are. And while I dare not speak for myself, I know many GDers who are not.
[sub]And do you REALLY expect so many people to say “Hey, I was only trolling”? I mean, come on!:)[/sub]
Sadly, his kind will never have enough brain cells to realize that fact. Pity.
And beeble, perhaps we ought to advise you to do the reading yourself. What didn’t he say that wasn’t offensive? I sure missed it…
Esprix
Guess what? Homosexuals are also “abnormal”. Why? Because the are a minority, and hence not “normal”. Uncle Toby tripped over his own feet when he made the “perversion” comment but his point was one of denotation, not of conotation. He does not need to be roasted in the pit, just beaten in GD.
Lay off the dog pile. Ya’ll are over-reacting. It is reached a point where I think that Toby deserves an apology. He never said half the things you people are accusing him of. I don’t agree with his points, but damn, I feel like I am the only sane voice in Salem right before the witch trials.
Beeblebrox, who else is abnormal? Since men are a minority does that make me abnormal based on my genetic makeup?
Conotation/denotation iampunha. Try to follow my point. If I use the word in a denotative sense don’t for a minute think that I believe the conotative. I have zero problem with homosexuals, have friends that are homosexuals, and believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry due in large part to my loving my uncle and his lover of twenty some odd years.
However, Toby does not deserve the bile that is being thrown at him. He has shown no history of prejudice. Ya’ll jumped on him and put him on the defensive so badly that he was bound to “take an adversarial stance”.
However (again), I grow tired of being a public defender. I wash my hands of this.
Marriage gives certain legal benefits. I would like to know why those couples who are currently without children (for whatever reason, infertile, choice, sexuality) do not deserve these benefits.
I’m primarily talking about the ability to make medical decisions for your partner, to be able to visit them in hospital, etc…
Ahem, Beeblebrox, gay pepople are NOT abnormal. We are perfectly normal, just not common. I can just see you and UncleToby at the florist:
“There’s a red rose among a basket of white ones–it’s abnormal!”
At the dog show:
“Wait a sec…the Shih Tzu among the beagles…how abnormal!”
At the library:
“You like Marcel Proust when most people prefer John Gresham? You’re abnormal!”
Conotation/denotation gobear. Jesus, I thought you of all people would be inteligent enough to know the difference.