|
Post by .~Kaede~. on Mar 19, 2009 18:48:52 GMT -5
While reading the Eneterprise-Record--the must-have news rag in my town--I stumbled upon this article, and thought I might share it...
Dictionaries update definitions of 'marriage'
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Only two states may have laws on the books sanctioning same-sex marriages, but the nation's leading dictionary publishers have updated their definitions of the word "marriage" to recognize gay unions.
The changes actually were initiated several years ago, before gay couples could legally tie the knot anywhere in the United States. But they only gained widespread notice, and ignited a war of words on the Internet, after the conservative World Net Daily news site published an article about the latest Merriam-Webster entry for the term.
"One of the nation's most prominent dictionary companies has resolved the argument over whether the term 'marriage' should apply to same-sex duos or be reserved for the institution that has held families together for millennia: by simply writing a new definition," the online publication said late Tuesday.
In its online and print editions, Merriam-Webster still defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."
But in a nod to evolving ideas of love and English usage, the Springfield, Mass.-based company in 2003 added a secondary meaning for "marriage" as "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."
Merriam-Webster issued a statement Wednesday explaining that the edited entry merely reflected the frequency with which the term "same-sex marriage" had popped up in print and become part of the general text-con.
"In recent years, this sense of 'marriage' has appeared frequently and consistently through a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as 'same-sex marriage' and 'gay marriage' by proponents and opponents alike," the statement read. "It's inclusion was a simple matter of providing dictionary users with accurate information about all of the word's current uses."
Merriam-Webster spokesman Arthur Bicknell added that the company was surprised the revision was creating a stir only now.
"What we are finding odd is that this is neither news nor unusual," Bicknell said. "In fact, we were kind of late to the party. We were one of the last ones among the major dictionary publishers to do this."
Boston-based Houghton-Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, last modified its definition of marriage in 2000.
Does anyone here have their own opinions on this?
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 19, 2009 19:05:22 GMT -5
According to the article, they added a second definition to reflect the meaning of marriage as referring to gay marriage, in addition to the traditional definition, which was unchanged. I find it a little odd that they need two separate definitions. I mean, I'm not going to go on a rant about how "separate but equal" is a bunch of nonsense, but it seems silly to add a whole new definition.
I imagine the only reason they didn't just amend the first definition to include both gay and straight marriage is because it would've made even more of a stir - you just know Fred Phelps and his cadre of inbred psychopaths would be making a stink over it if they actually changed the definition to include gay marriage. So all they did was add a secondary one. Not that I own a copy of a Merriam-Webster dictionary, but the point remains.
|
|
|
Post by .~Kaede~. on Mar 19, 2009 19:18:22 GMT -5
You do have a point there--it's still not imbedded in the traditional definition of marriage...but I still feel it's a step forward for the homosexual/bisexual community. Now people can't use the argument "the dictionary defines marriage as between two people of the opposite sex" without looking like an idiot, for it's now technically--even in a tiny way--apart of its definition. (of course, I always felt it was a stupid argument anyway, but who am I to judge?)
There's still a long way to go for gay people concerning their image and their rights...and the battle will probably not end within my lifetime...but this tidbit of news is surely positive in some small aspect.
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 19, 2009 19:26:13 GMT -5
Actually, that's a very good point that didn't occur to me - the 'at-least-now-it's-in-the-dictionary' point. Thanks for bringing my attention to that. Now if I hear someone use that argument, I have a COUNTER-argument. XD I probably am not helping the issue much anyway, since my way of thinking is that if I meet someone I want to marry, I'll just drag him to a foreign country that doesn't have its head so far up its arse, and just get married and live there. So I'm not really motivated to try to change things here. To be honest, I'm more concerned about gays in the military than gay marriage, but that could just be because I haven't met anybody I want to marry, and I am joining the military. Go figure. *realizes he hadn't yet come out of the closet on TotalRP* Oh... uh, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by .~Kaede~. on Mar 19, 2009 19:33:49 GMT -5
Now I can add you on to the list of all of my homosexual friends! ...Which would be the majority of my friends in general. XD I don't know what that says about my character, but it doesn't really affect me much.
Gays in the military IS a big issue...and, like almost every other issue on the subject, makes no sense to me. It's one of those issues that I look at and see the answer being clear--"why the f**k not?" Yet people endlessly argue about the pros and cons of it, completely missing the big picture.
Of course, your looking at the country who spent over 50 years debating over slavery...-_-"
|
|
|
Post by SilverSugar on Mar 19, 2009 22:36:26 GMT -5
I think it's great for gays and lesbians to have equal rights but I still think the term should be different. And I know I'm a total bitch for saying it, (I've been told that by several people even though I hadn't said anything condescending or with a harsh tone) So the way I figure it: No matter what I say, I'm wrong to somebody.
Having rights and going against a biblical commandment, while grey in the eyes of many, is a huge issue to me.
I don't care if you believe in God or what have you, because again, no matter what I say or think I'm wrong, but I'll say my peace regardless.
I'm asexual, I don't believe in having sex. Period. I think it is disgusting.
It's not because I am religious--and I'm what some would call a Christian, although I don't go to Church and prefer to worship God away from all of that because let's face it--a lot of those people are crazy. Anyway. I believe sex outside of Marriage to be wrong, very wrong, but I'm not against people that do it (unless they are doing it like rabbits with anything that moves). I think everyone has their own sins and will deal with them when they face God. It's none of my business.
The problem I have is when people bring things like this up and try to change things to make everyone feel better.
"Marriage" should be between a man and a woman, in my uneducated and personal opinion, but I think as human beings be us single, partnered, or otherwise the unionized, deserve as equal a respect for one another as humanly possible.
However I feel about a persons sexuality has nothing to do with how I think God does. We cannot possibly hope to comprehend His mind. Ultimately, this is just one of those issues that makes me wish more people believed, or were less stupid. Regardless I'd be much happier if the Government just took the whole "loop hole" route and legalized some sort other term with the same benefits as marriage for gays and lesbian couples and leave the judgement to who it rightfully belonged.
|
|
|
Post by .~Kaede~. on Mar 20, 2009 23:07:49 GMT -5
You're absolutely right--though the Bible never truly states homosexuality is a sin (though Leviticus does say it outright, he also said eating pork, breeding horses, and shaving facial hair are sins...and Jesus tells his followers to ignore Leviticus's teachings anyway...more information about this here), it does clearly state that marriage should only be between a man and a woman...which is why I agree with this woman, who has come up with a solution that, not only helps keep the sanctity of marriage, but also allows gay people the right to get unionized under federal law; it's so simple, I'm amazed no one else has thought of it. Sadly, it will probably never be implemented in my lifetime for two reasons: 1) Politicians are fairly stupid here, and 2) It's a concept that's too "new" for many old-fashioned minds to adjust to (which is perfectly fine--we shouldn't attempt to change how other minds work). In a perfect world, though...*sigh* it's nice to dream.
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 20, 2009 23:19:48 GMT -5
Silver brings to my mind a point that has always bothered me; that is, the fact that people seem to have this almost carnal obsession with making rules about everything. Every possible permutation of a human's psyche and subsequent actions has to be covered, somehow or other, by a rule or a law. If there is (and I use this 'if there is' as a way to respect everyone's views, not as a skeptic's way of saying 'if there is, and there isn't') a God waiting to judge the sins of the dead, then I don't see why people are so eager to get so much judging done here and now. If you think someone's sinning, let God deal with it, because we all live in glass houses. I don't have a real solid opinion on whether gay marriage should be legally recognized in the States, but I do believe there should at least be some legal equivalent available to us, whatever word it goes by. A while ago, I thought it was silly that folks would begrudge a word, marriage, while handing over all of the legal rights and responsibilities that normally go with it, under a mere alternate term. These days I understand the motive of both sides - "Separate is not equal" - but it still isn't a huge issue for me, because as I said, it's just not a priority of mine. Personally, I'd like to know who called Silver a bitch for saying any of what she said; because I'd bet a lot of money that they were probably a pseudo-commie liberal idiot who'd vote for an afro-wearing pasty-white pothead in tie-dye than a legitimate politician that might actually do this country some good. Every person is entitled to their opinion, whether they are conservative sociopaths, left-wing peaceniks, or entirely sane individuals who are capable of stepping outside the arena of political and ethical warfare and looking at the whole situation with a sense of perspective, realizing how petty the whole system has become, and formulating a real opinion on the matter - if it's even worth having an opinion on. But that is a rant for another time and place. Anyway, one of my favorite slogans on the issue is pretty succinct: "Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one!"
|
|
|
Post by .~Kaede~. on Mar 20, 2009 23:24:39 GMT -5
I don't see how anyone could call Silver a b!tch...then again, I think Silver's completely awesome with a dosing a Gackt-induced craziness. ("craziness" is a compliment in my book...then again, so is "weird," "odd," and "creepy")
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 20, 2009 23:26:25 GMT -5
Am I creepy, Kaede? It would make me inappropriately happy if you said I was creepy. XD
|
|
|
Post by .~Kaede~. on Mar 20, 2009 23:30:00 GMT -5
*laughs until next millenia* No, you're terrifying! (which is an enhanced version of "creepy") XD
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 21, 2009 1:08:37 GMT -5
Bwa ha ha, I win. Though I'm not sure how 'terrifying' will help me get through life. Although I bet 'creepy' would have been even less useful... But we digress. *ninja*
|
|
|
Post by SilverSugar on Mar 21, 2009 19:25:02 GMT -5
Digressing is fun. I for one love when threads go "telephone". Very entertaining.
Anywaa...ha ha ha ha! Gackt-induced craziness? Is that a clinical term Kaede?
*now has a fit of the giggles* Thanks a lot. Now everyone'll think I'm insane...
*shifty eyes* But he's so freaking amazing! Oh oh, and he proves I have nothing wrong with gay peoples because GacktXChachamaru=adorable. And yes, I like Chachamaru-san more than You-san or even Mana-sama. Well...Mana's pretty hard to top, but Chacha's hair is more fun. *fawns over it* There aren't enough pictures of him though. Not that you guys have any idea who the hell I'm talking about. Shutting up now.
It's funny though, I wonder quite frequently how I'm not a lesbian myself, what with a ridiculous love for my best friend and all... Then again I think you have to be physically interested in someone to be classified as straight or gay, so yeah. That's why I'm asexual. And no, I'm not Bi. While I do find features of both men and women attractive...sex...not so much. (I actually have a stamp over on my dA account that makes my feelings clear.) That and I find it incredibly offputting when someone says they are "bi". Most of the "bisexuals" that I know just use it as an excuse to sleep around with anything that moves. Disgusting. It is my personal opinion that a person can't be bisexual. Maybe they are confused as to what gender they are truly more attracted towards, but someone truly "bi" just doesn't exist in my book. If a person is bisexual how can the ever commit to just one person because if the did they'd have to label themselves as straight or gay and I think that bothers them so rather than make that step they call themselves "bi" and just go f**k every damn person they can....
If that makes any sort of sense at all. Pardon my language, but I just can't talk about those types without getting a little worked up...I've seen too many people hurt due to partners cheating because "Oh I'm 'bi' now so it's okay."
I'm the type who strongly believes in a certain amount of loyalty. *coughwerewolfcough* Which is another reason I have problems with pre-marital sex and the like, as well as divorce. People rush into marriage so quickly and wonder why the hell it fell apart. Morons. Some people just shouldn't get married...and if all they want is sex they are even stupider and should jump of a cliff for being sleeper and decease spreaders. I'm just one to think that since the only purpose for sex is to create new life (or in the case of married people show love or whatever *gag*). Why do it if you don't want kids, really? (Kids=super creepy. *never cared for them, so naturally they love her*)
Also, I wish the media wouldn't glorify "sexcapades", it's disgusting. They're making everything about sex...makin' my poor brain hurt...
Anyway, I'm probably annoying you guys now so I'll stop. Thanks for hearing me out and not hating me.
Oh and solipsism, you should totally be my new best friend so I can say I have a gay guy as a buddy. *shifty eyes* I have no male friends. Okay I have two but they don't exactly count because they are online only friends. I'm totally not comfortable enough around guys to actually be friends with one in real life. Ha ha ha. I'm so pathetic.
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 22, 2009 17:14:34 GMT -5
(I spent most of this post refuting you, Silver, but think of it as a school debate. I respect your opinion, I'm just arguing mine. Also, parts of this post get a little (just a little) personal, so if that's not your cup of tea, you've been warned. Nothing even remotely explicit, just vague personal addenda.) Well, if we did become best friends, I'd still just be an online friend, so I wouldn't count either. I've never really had any experience (in myself or otherwise) with asexuality, so I can't say much on the subject; but I wouldn't really say there's no such thing as bisexuality. I will, however, say that I think a very small percentage of people calling themselves bisexual are actually bisexual. I think a lot of people do use the term as an excuse to experiment more than necessary. I also think a lot (a lot a lot) of people use the term to make themselves look liberal, open-minded, and/or cool. My school was a huge example of this - I don't think I knew a single person that wasn't "bisexual", and yet I also didn't know anyone that was in a same-sex relationship. I even tried to start a relationship with one of the "bisexual" guys, and though it had an interesting (but of course bumpy) start, I was utterly convinced by the end of the first week that this guy really wasn't interested in other guys - at all. For pity's sake, I broke it off. But my point is that the ratio of people calling themselves bisexual to those that actually are bisexual is extremely high. Added to that, I don't necessarily think that bisexuals are incapable of steady relationships, nor do I think that being in a steady relationship would by definition render them gay or straight; who in particular you like doesn't necessarily have an impact on what types of people in general you like. Saying that a bisexual person in a straight relationship would have to actually be straight is like saying that a man who likes blondes and redheads, but who is in a relationship with a redhead, actually prefers redheads (or to be literal, that he only likes redheads). In reality, and I speak from experience, whether or not someone has a thingy is not the only thing I look for in a relationship. I look for certain qualities of personality. I've often thought, as I'm sure most people (especially most gays) have, that I might be bisexual, though usually I chalk it up to how much of a pain in the ass (and I am not speaking literally here) it is to be gay. Who knows? Maybe I'll end up with a wife and three kids, and be perfectly happy with my life. The fact that I don't find the female body particularly appealing doesn't preclude romance; tastes change, and that's all sexual preference is, really - a taste, a preference. At the moment, I'm drinking apple juice. Does that mean I actully don't like any other kind of juice? Nah. It just means the juice that I found that struck my fancy when I went looking for juice happened to be apple. I didn't even pick it up because it was apple; I picked it up because I was thirsty, I wanted fruit juice, and the apple juice was the first juice I found. I think the same concept applies to bisexuals - "I'm a man in a relationship with a great person, who has a wonderful sense of humor, a great taste for adventure and risk, a very affectionate demeanor, not to mention this person is incredibly sexy (because anyone you're in love with is, of course, incredibly sexy). Oh, look, this person is a dude, and so am I. *shrug* Doesn't change the rest of it." That phrase could apply with any combination of genders, including genders other than male/female; it just depends on who you fall in love with. And we're only talking about gays, straights, and bisexuals - we haven't even touched on asexuals (beyond yourself of course, Silver), transgender people, transsexuals, hermaphrodites, polysexuals, pansexuals, and pomosexuals (lulz). (Sorry, postmodernism makes me giggle inside.) And I'm sure there are more that I left out, too. But I just lost my momentum, and I've been ranting long enough, so I'll stop now. EDIT: Oh, I forgot that I wanted to say this: There is a big difference between sexual preference and promiscuity. I don't believe all bisexuals are promiscuous, any more than I believe all promiscuous people are bisexual. Although I will concede that a lot of bisexuals do sleep around way more than is healthy, that very fact is probably the reason that a lot of folks have a conception of bisexuals as being promiscuous. It's just like how, in a city full of Mexican gangs, people are bound to assume that every Mexican they meet is a badass gangster who will either cut your face or shoot you, despite the fact that gang violence has nothing intrinsic to do with being Mexican. Basically, it's one group of idiots ruining the image of the entire race. Same with bisexuals, I think - maybe not a small group, but it's nonetheless an idiotic fraction of the overall bisexual population making the entire population look like a bunch of horn-dogs.
|
|
|
Post by SilverSugar on Mar 23, 2009 12:28:50 GMT -5
Oh yeaaah huh? Stupid me.
Uh... I wasn't trying to say your opinion was wrong or anything. It's just yours. (This is why I hate these types of conversations so much, it really is just as bad as talking 'bout religion or the government.)
I have yet to meet anyone that claims to be "bisexual" that wasn't sketchy. (Please keep in mind I also went to a very small--I repeat--very small high school with around 130 people total) so I've never had much experience with varied peoples. So I don't mean to rule anything out--there's always an exception, but I haven't met that person so in my mind they aren't there.
I tend to have a hard time grasping any concept I can't see or deal with you know? I can't tell you how many times I jumped off my couch because Gravity was stupid. And until the concept of germs got drilled into my head I was fearless (I wish I had a bubble sometimes). Basically the very concept of bisexuality rubs me the wrong way thanks to those that I was exposed to, so until I meet someone who is an exception to what I know now, I'm probably going to continue thinking in absolutes. I'm sure there are subjects with which everyone feels the same yes?
Anyway I'm rambling and I apologize once more.
I understood half of that, the last three went over my head. Sorry, I'm rather unread and stupid. Oh and before you bring it up; from what I gather "waiting for the right person" is typically what asexuals are thought of as doing but that's just abstinence and I can appreciate that too--but I don't think real asexuals are like that. I myself just have no interest, and I'll give it a less than 1% chance that that'll change. God I can't get over how many people have told me "just try it and then decide". *fume* Honestly, why the hell should they care at least I pose no threat to them right?
I don't care who they are, or where they are in life, people shouldn't suggest things like that! It's none of their business. It's not like they are suggesting something necessary for my well being. Unless it is requested, or I think someone is in danger, I try not to give advice or my take on a subject because frankly, it's none of my business either. Right? Anyway, sorry, I just literally got told that again via IM while writing this so rather than yell at the person it merged here since it fit.
I agree that you can't control who you fall in love with, but...I hate to say it, but you can control what you do with those feelings. Anyway. That's more directed at the few cheaters and idiotic daters too young to know any better that I've known. I just hate it when people are lusting after clearly unattainable people or flip-flopping between people that they may or may not "love". So yeah, that doesn't really apply here, but I wanted to say it anyway because my fingers typed it for me.
I think most of my attitude comes from the fact I don't think teenagers should be dating in the first place. Most of them aren't mature enough to know what they want, need, or have any sort of control needed to be safe and secure in what they do... It's a tough subject which, like religion, I find hard to talk about openly because people jump down my throat and whatever. You're one of the few people, it seems, who isn't out for blood which I respect.
Ultimately though, I don't think anyone else's opinions matter--nor mine really, because I'm not trying to influence anyone else. I know I can't. It's not up to me. Yet of course I want to talk about it anyway because once I start I'm a moronic little blabber mouth. Hm. Funny, I can't hold these types of conversations in person though. Mainly because I've seen them break out into freaking wars. Ah well.
I've run out of ranting mojo too. So yeah.
Don't even get me started on promiscuity in general. *shakes head*
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 24, 2009 1:43:25 GMT -5
(This post is a little convoluted, I think. Earlier I was trying to respond to posts in order of points, but in this one, I just kind of referred back to random points to say whatever occurred to me. So it's a bit jumbled. Doesn't really matter if I'm not turning it into an English professor, but still. >_>) Eheheh, if we want to get into whether or not peoples' opinions matter, I could drag us back to the issue of letting God do His work and leaving the judging to Him - because when it comes down to it, if you really think about it, most opinions, if not all, are judgments. But that wouldn't be any fun, so I'll stick with the 'everyone has a right to their opinion' spiel. I might disagree with your opinion, I might think you're wrong, I might even think your opinion is stupid, but I'll never insult you for having an opinion. And to be perfectly honest, I love these kinds of discussions, as long as people can keep from jumping down each others' throats. So it's all good. On that note, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the question of whether it's anyone's business who you take to bed with you, if anyone. I wouldn't say that asexuals are actually just 'waiting for the right person' any more than I'd say I'm actually just waiting for the perfect woman to change my mind, but at the same time, in my view, I don't see why asexualism would be different from any other sexual preference - not a choice by any means, but not a biological trait either, i.e., it may or may not change over one's lifetime, depending on how one's life goes. (Excuse my digression when I say that I believe sexual preferences are more a personality trait than anything else - not voluntarily chosen, but not set in stone either, rather like a love of chocolate, a habit of acting without considering consequences, a tendency to be honest to a fault, et cetera.) I know I'm being unintentionally vague right now, but I'm really just trying not to sound like I'm telling you that you're just waiting for the right person, because that's not what I'm saying. I suppose the sum of my opinion on that matter is that who (if anyone) you want to be intimate with is your business, and if that preference ever changes, well, that's your business too, and don't let anyone, least of all the conservatives, tell you otherwise. God knows they're trying to cull everything other than heterosexual men and women out of the human race. If I were to be perfectly honest, I'd have to say that the way you think of respectable, loyal bisexuals is much the same as how I think of asexuals, not necessarily from any negative stereotype or experience, but rather a lack of experience. As you are doubtless aware, there isn't exactly a whole slew of asexuals present in mainstream media, and people don't tend to run around with sexual preference nametags, so when you don't see any, you kind of get the subconscious impression that they just don't exist. (I felt rather the same way about gay kids in my high school, which made high school miserable and lonely, let me tell you.) So that's understandable, really. I... ran out of momentum again. >.< Damn my habit of going back and proofreading posts at random moments! Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by SilverSugar on Mar 24, 2009 13:17:03 GMT -5
Sorry if I make things hard to follow. (Yours is perfectly fine.) I find it easier to reply to key points rather than run through an entire post essay style myself. It seems more natural to me given this is an actual conversation...I dunno. I'm sorry I'm not smart enough to write essay style all the time, but it would take me way to long to do that and I'd probably get bored first. Heh.
I completely agree with that. It's up to God not us. It's hard to always remember that though which is why I think so many people struggle. I'm not good at these sort of conversations because I'm terrified about people getting mad at me. It's probably one of my bigger fears. I keep thinking everyone's upset. Without tone it's incredibly difficult for me to tell what people are feeling behind their words, you know?
Anyway, I guess the only real reply I have to make for your post is that...I don't think I've ever agreed with a single post to this degree before. I'm completely stunned. Normally I don't find people that make that much sense in these types of topics. You are making perfect sense and I don't think I've missed anything. I mean sure we have a difference of opinion overall--but I think I'm really getting what you're saying in regards to individual points. I dunno' if you feel the same way given my "arguments" are rather lacking...not that I really care to "argue" at all. I just wanna' share my take. Which you are actually respecting. With anyone else, I'm sure, there would be doom.
...
I can't think of anything else to say...
*thinks*
Ah...!
Kyaa! I do the exact same thing!
*laughter*
This is getting scary.
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 24, 2009 21:06:15 GMT -5
Well, when two *intelligent* people have an *intelligent* discussion on a *serious* topic that has *real* ramifications in the *real* world and are able to keep a *level* head and actually *share* their opinions instead of *throwing* them at each other, the result is something like this. So you see that not all arguments are bad; my definition of 'argument' doesn't necessarily involve any kind of enmity at all, and it sometimes doesn't even involve a difference of opinion. I suppose my definition of 'argument' is more like the definition of 'debate' in the true sense. You'd really be surprised at how much more you'll agree with someone who presents their opinions logically and respectfully than you would with someone who gets red in the face and gets all angry that you don't know exactly where they're coming from without even hearing a logical argument. On that note, I think most 'heated' arguments that come up in debates like this probably stem from a simple misunderstanding - usually as a result of someone not thinking through what they said, and/or the other person not trying to see from the other person's point of view. And of course, as they teach in even the most basic debate classes (and, really, any education on how to deal with someone that can be defined as an 'opponent' or 'enemy', be it high school debate or military combat), the best way to one-up your opponent is, before you even start to formulate your own arguments, first think from your opponent's point of view, and try to formulate theirs, so that you can get an idea of how they are thinking. (This doesn't necessarily mean you and I are 'opponents', but it works with any discussion, even one on which two people are totally in agreement.) That can be difficult when your 'opponent' is so alien to you that you can't begin to imagine how they would think in a given situation - I'm hard-pressed to come up with examples, because most people on Earth have something in common with each other - but even if it can't be easily done, it'll always give you a bit of a leg up in any discussion. Somehow this got from a conversation about the definition of marriage, to a discussion on... uh... well, an ambiguously-defined conversation about sexual preferences, and thence to... a dissertation on proper debate technique? Man, I thought I had grown out of my ADD... >_> Oh, I don't think it's necessary to write forum posts like an essay, even in a debate or an intellectual conversation; I just like to make sure I address every relevant point, and the easiest way for me to do that is to go down through them like a list. (If I really wanted to be literary and uptight, I'd preface each post with an introduction paragraph outlining what I was going to say, and finish with a recap and a concluding thought. Which is way too much work after an eight-hour shift of slicing and weighing lunchmeat and saying "Thank you for stopping by, ma'am! Have a great evening!" four million times an hour, so I'll refrain. )
|
|
|
Post by SilverSugar on Mar 25, 2009 17:24:24 GMT -5
(I tried to reply to this twice but either I got kicked off the computer or the forum was mad at me so I can't remember half--okay any--of what I said originally.)
Hee hee... Lots of asterisks.
I wouldn't call myself intelligent, but thanks. Heh.
Anyway, my opinions haven't really changed at all, but at least we are having a good conversation, yes? Which is a pleasant change from what I'm used to on these subjects. Unfortunately I think I'm completely tapped out for things to say...unless we wish to digress further, but yeah.
I have to say it again though, I really love it when conversations like this go all "telephone". It's always fun to see how topics change from one to another as it goes along. I dunno' for some reason I think it's healthier to branch out--even if you return to the original topic later--it just gives a unique perspective for things. That way you aren't focusing all your energy into one thing that way when you get back around to it you aren't sick of it. Not that I'm any closer to thinking up anything else to say on the matter. Heh. I'm just not that interested anymore, sort of, although some of our side topics have more of my attention interestingly enough.
Am I making any sense at all? I fear I haven't been all here today... *slight laugh*
|
|
Ikken Isshu
Silver Member
Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum.
Posts: 110
|
Post by Ikken Isshu on Mar 25, 2009 20:37:59 GMT -5
You make perfect sense, and I know exactly what you're talking about. And now I'm tempted to go make a random debate thread. >_>
|
|