Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Gifts and supplies for the musician
SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
Ad (Piano Sing)
How to Make Your Piano Sing
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pianoteq
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
Who's Online
114 registered (ando, Anita Potter, anamnesis, Artur Gajewski, 34 invisible), 1431 Guests and 18 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Quick Links to Useful Piano & Music Resources
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano & Music Accessories
*Music School Listings
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Pianos
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#767872 - 04/07/02 12:09 PM A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


After the events of the weekend in which a few people have forced their own view of what are acceptable discussions among adults, I have decided I will not be replying to posts on any "weighty" topic. I really do not want to take the time and energy to start up or join in a good, intelligent conversation, only to see it is suddenly gone because someone was offended by what was said or decided it was too intense for tender ears (or eyes in this case).

Not sure I will even visit the Coffee Room much at all, since I get enough banter in meetings, the workplace and social events I have to attend.

While it sounds self serving to publicly post this since my decision is really not something which shakes the universe, I have done so because I think that people like those who complained to Frank need to know what effects their small mindedness and inability to cope with life as it is has. As I said in my original post on this action, these types of things are exactly why we have seen the dumbing down of America. And now this dumbing down has spread even to the level of this forum.

Not that I really think these people care. but maybe there is some scintilla of a desire for freedom in them that will make them think twice the next time they choose to ask some authority to control other people to limit what their children see, hear and read. Maybe they will see that it is their responsibility to monitor their children, not everyone else's.

It is too bad this very small minority of people have such power, but they do. Not just here, but every where else. It is damaging the very fabric of our society when intelligent discussions cannot take place without people having to watch everything they write or say because someone is scrutinizing every word, sentence and thought that is expressed, just ready to run to whatever authority there to demand censorship the moment they find something objectionable.

So, to those whose convictions are so strong that they got up the "courage" to go behind everyone's back to complain in secret, but who do not believe strongly enough to publicly identify and explain their actions, let me just say.....congratulations. You actions have just provided another tiny step to diminishing American freedom and to the controlling of thoughts and information flow.

Of course, by itself what happens here is relatively meaningless. But when this is added to the thousands and perhaps millions of times this same action is taken in venues everywhere year after year, and the number of formal and informal rules that get written by groups everywhere just to placate these small minded people, it adds up and does become significant.

And people wonder why Americans no longer seem to be able to think. I believe we have all just seen an example of why this is happening.

Top
Piano & Music Accessories
#767873 - 04/07/02 12:31 PM Re: A Decision
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
I posted this once, but I'll post it again. There is a place where one can continue having civil discussions and debates of current events, views, or whatever you wish, with no concern of having the discussions "dumbed down". Click here to visit Club 21.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#767874 - 04/07/02 12:40 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
I'm going to sign up for Larry's 21-Club. Talking about pianos is interesting, but quite frankly it gets boring after a while. The Coffee Room was by far, in my opinion, the best thing that happened to this forum. As I said in another post, sipping tea and knitting sweaters is not my idea of an interesting discussion. And that is apparently what we have to limit our discussions to because of a few people (who probably don't even post). I'm switching to Larry's forum (if he'll let me)! \:D Hope to see you guy's there. I'm going to start the first controversial discussion!!!

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767875 - 04/07/02 12:50 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
personally, i don't think the solution is to leave. i think the solution is to keep having the civil and friendly and thought provoking discussions that we want to have. even at our most fervent, these discussions have been g-rated.

ok, maybe we got to pg-13 once or twice. ;\)

larry's board says explicitly that he will evict those people whose behavior he doesn't like. we are clearly, over there, going to a moderated forum, which is what all of us said we didn't want.

we've had some pretty intense discussions on this forum over the past year and i haven't seen any censorship until this moment. i wonder if frank will reconsider his actions on the abortion thread. and i wonder if he might clarify here what his take on the whole situation is.

i, for one, don't get the impression that, as a general rule, there is any censorship here.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767876 - 04/07/02 12:50 PM Re: A Decision
JohnC Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/10/02
Posts: 1672
Loc: Lower Left Coast
George,

Please don't make a rash decision.

If your reason(s) for not participating are due to outside demands and pressures it is understandable. But to let those who have squashed one discussion influence many more is giving them the courage to think they can have even more of an impact by their behavior. Those people will not take to heart anything you say. They *will* see how easily they achevied their desires to stifle an honest, thoughtful, exchange of ideas. Don't give them the courage to think they have that power. They don't. Don't make it easier for them George.

I really think you should reconsider.
_________________________
There are few joys in life greater than the absence of pain.

Top
#767877 - 04/07/02 01:05 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
pique,

Larry's board would have allowed the abortion thread to continue, something that was not allowed on this board.

Nancy commented on my Net Nanny post by saying parent's should watch their children. She is right. Paren't only wish that the worst their kids saw on the internet was the abortion thread.

There is no need for censorship when two opposing sides are having a civil discussion. If you don't like the topic, change the channel.

I'm changing forums. Hope other's will follow. There's a juicy one on Larry's 21-Club.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767878 - 04/07/02 01:31 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
hi, derick,
i went for a look. if that's the kind of discussion that is going to go on over there, i think i'll stay here, thanks. it's better for my mental health.

have fun!
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767879 - 04/07/02 01:37 PM Re: A Decision
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
Let me make sure I am understood. It is not my intention to advocate *leaving* this board. That is not my intention, nor my goal. One can *add* a destination in their list of places to go. They don't have to leave one to use the other. This is a great forum, and I will not be leaving it *myself*, so please don't anyone think for a moment that this is what I advocate. I am simply providing a place where you can have the discussions you want to have without interruption. That is all. I do not, am not, will not, and never will suggest anyone stop coming here.

Second, to Pique: The warnings of getting kicked off Club 21 are clear that I am talking about posting gratuitous or pornographic material. I am trying to tell you that this is the only material that is not allowed. Please don't take my warning about this category of material to mean that I intend to control what you discuss. The goal is to allow you to discuss anything you want, as long as it doesn't go into offensive or gratuitous sex, or extreme vulgarity, or anything that is offensive for the purpose of being offensive. That is the *only* limitations, and I don't see that as censorship, I see that as asking posters to use discretion and good taste.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#767880 - 04/07/02 01:40 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:
i wonder if frank will reconsider his actions on the abortion thread. and i wonder if he might clarify here what his take on the whole situation is. [/b]
I think Frank has explained himself enough and I accept his decision. He did what he thought was best for the whole, which is exactly what he should have done. I might have handled it differently, but that is beside the point. He made the best decision he can and I support it. But his decision also has consequences.

The ones who should publicly explain themselves are those who complained. They should explain why they complained, why they have so little control over their children and why they feel the rest of society must change because of their own fears of opposing viewpoints and their inability to adequately exercise parental supervision.

But they won't publicly explain because they do not have the guts to do so, they cannot really justify to others their own desire to limit thoughts and expressions and they prefer to function under the cloak of secrecy.

Imagine being challenged in public when you demand others change how they act! The indignity of it when you are so obviously right!

Top
#767881 - 04/07/02 01:45 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
Don't leave, Don't leave, Don't leave! (George, do NOT take your ball and go home ;\) ) I don't mind so much the idea of an "adult forum", or at least a forum that our slightly younger participants can visit with parental permission. Why can't it be here? Of course, I'm not sure what threads we would put in this category, as none so far seemed out of line to me. And once you put an "adults only" sticker on something, it immediately becomes attractive, even if it's a complete bore. I have no beef with Larry, although his views often differ from mine. But I am guessing that there are people who will not be willing to participate in a forum moderated by someone who has such strong opinions. (no offense meant, Larry, just my opinion \:\) ) So, stick around folks, and lets keep talking! Jodi

Top
#767882 - 04/07/02 02:11 PM Re: A Decision
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
Geez......how many times do I have to explain that it is *not moderated*!!

You're also missing an interesting post (it took two posts to hold it all) of my tour of the Yamaha factory.

So to repeat: I am not advocating anyone leave here, I'm only suggesting you add it to your list of places to go. I am not censoring anything. There will be things you'll find there that you won't find here, and vice versa. Expand your horizons.
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#767883 - 04/07/02 02:14 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
OK, OK, I believe you! \:\) Jodi

Top
#767884 - 04/07/02 02:56 PM Re: A Decision
Steve Miller Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 3290
Loc: Yorba Linda, CA
Naw George, don't do that.

I propose that a softening of tone and nuancing of statements (just a bit!) will allow us all to have the discussions we want without offending tender sensibilities. I further propose that writing in this fashion is much more fun than blasting.

It has been said that a diplomat can tell you to go to hell (interesting that the auto-censor does not *** out hell) in such a fashion as to make you look forward to the trip. If necessary information is to be shown the light of day, I believe that this will be the best way to do it.
_________________________
Defender of the Landfill Piano

Top
#767885 - 04/07/02 03:02 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
I don't know why anyone would hesitate to go to Larry's forum; at least for discussions of this sort.

FWIW, this "unmoderated" forum was moderated enough to get a thought provoking thread kicked out of it. Larry's supposedly "moderated" forum (which isn't moderated as he's said twice now), would have allowed that thread to continue. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which forum is less "moderated".

A second FWIW; Larry now you see what I went thru trying to explain my position on CEO pay/bonuses.

pique - if discussing the death penalty is more straining on your mental health than discussing abortion, then you support my long-held theory that many, if not most, pro-choice people believe the rights of criminals far outweigh the rights of the unborn.

Now after dropping that bombshell :p I'm outta here and will come back later to see how badly I've been ripped to shreds. And hope to see some replies on Larry's forum about the death penalty.

Later,
Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767886 - 04/07/02 03:17 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Miller:
Naw George, don't do that.

I propose that a softening of tone and nuancing of statements (just a bit!) will allow us all to have the discussions we want without offending tender sensibilities. [/b]
And when we have "softened the tone and nuanced the statements (just a bit!)" the shadow controllers will still be there, wanting more softening and more nuancing. We will all genuflect to their desires and it will happen again and again.

How more civil could the discussion on such a controversial and emotional topic as abortion have been? What could have been softened and nuanced any better than that was?

You see, it was the very ideas that were being discussed, not the wording of them, that upset the shadow controllers, those who would control our lives and our thoughts and our expressions.

As has been often said, America will not lose its freedom in war or by invasion of some enemy, but through small incremental steps that seem so reasonable to the majority at the time they are proposed.

We have seen this through the political correctness foisted on us by the left and the book bannings in the schools foisted on us by the right. We are witnessing it daily as Americans are willing to accept the limitations on the freedoms being foisted on us by Bush2 and John Ashcroft all in the name of security. We have now seen it even in such a non-controverisal non-threatening forum as this.

There are places I am willing to fight the fight. This Board is not one where I will spend my time only to have it all wasted because the shadow controllers will attack again and then good, honest, civil discussion is removed.

I do not intend to leave Piano World. I just do not intend to waste my time trying to have an intelligent discussion on significant issues here. If it steps over someone's secret line, it will simply be stopped.

Top
#767887 - 04/07/02 04:30 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
derick:
it's not the topic, it's the tone.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767888 - 04/07/02 05:19 PM Re: A Decision
Larry Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 9217
Loc: Deep in Cherokee Country
I see. In other words, you wouldn't object to discussing the topic Derick started, but you don't want to discuss it with anyone who disagrees with you. Interesting.........
_________________________
Life isn't measured by the breaths you take. Life is measured by the things that left you breathless

Top
#767889 - 04/07/02 05:33 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
larry, what part of "tone" didn't you umderstand? that has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767890 - 04/07/02 05:34 PM Re: A Decision
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
Geez, leave town for a while, & look at what happens.

Hey friends, let's all step back for a minute.

As Frank has said, this place is called the "Piano Forum." Regardless of whatever he has chosen the site to be, it is still ultimately "Frank's Place." If he chooses to moderate or non-moderate, if he chooses to limit forum posts to exclusively piano-related topics or allows for some, or all, other topics to be discussed, it is his call.

I am a frequent "off-topic" commentator, but I wouldn't be offended in the slightest if tomorrow, Frank said he was going to remove all off-topic posts from all forums on his site. Note the pronoun "his" - no matter how much we all appreciate and use this site, it is a private enterprise. It's not a public utility, and it's not the press. We have not all been endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to say whatever we want here, and in whatever form we choose. If, by Frank's choosing, our ability to comment on any topic were limited or prohibited by the webmaster, it is not a Constitutional crisis of us being denied our civil rights.

I hope it never comes to that point, of course, but come on! Everyone here knows of dozens of places that they could go online to carry on completely unmoderated, unlimited conversation on any topic they wished to discuss.

So let's not get melodramatic here. I hope that the forum continues in the manner we've all come to know and like, but just because the speech here is sometimes filtered - and don't forget, this isn't the first time Frank has pulled a thread; there have been others - let's not (literally) make a federal case out of something that isn't.

Top
#767891 - 04/07/02 05:47 PM Re: A Decision
Brendan Online   content


Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 5325
Loc: McAllen, TX
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:

"shadow controllers" and the loss of American freedoms
[/b]
George,

Almost every city newspaper and major syndicated news network has a message board as part of their website where opinions on the articles (i.e., pertinent issues) can openly be discussed and debated with little moderation (basic things like obscenity, racist remarks, nudity, etc.). Even more "popular" news magazines (US Weekly, Time, World News and Report") offer this service:

New York Times
CNN
Time Magazine

That should get you started.

However, if you want to come to a place where you can talk about pianos and piano music (and meet some very educated people of all types), here is my first choice:

Take a wild guess

Having done a quick search of your posts, I found out that the vast majority of them have nothing at all to do with the piano but instead shove your political beliefs down our throats with a nice helping of horsemeat added. Perhaps if you are seeking to have " an intelligent discussion on significant issues here," (thanks for the insult by basically calling everyone here stupid)
you need to come to terms with the fact that this is a Piano-related[/b] BBS. Yes, the coffee room was created to give us a chance to talk about things that interest us and out hobbies, but the sole purpose of this site is to talk about the piano.

One more thing about the "shadow controllers": I have a confession to make to everyone:

As it is rumored, there is an Inner Circle of members who "frequent" (to strongly euphemise) the forums. We have several levels of heirarchy, ranging from aliases created by us to do our bidding freely and spread our influence without retribution to chaired positions that are voted upon bi-annually, but regularly communicate through e-mail and sometimes telephone. The "shadow controllers," as you put it, are also subservient to us. I personally supervise them, as their own ideologial, moral, and ethical beliefs are in accord with my own.

Why else would I keep clamoring for a moderator?

I can assure you all that I will be the only member to ever reveal his identity.

The collective We have determined that your account and IP address will be banned so that your influence stops with your excommunication.

Threateningly submitted,
Brendan Michael Ignatius Kinsella,
Vice-President and founding member of the
PianoWorld Inner Circle and
High Commissar of the SC
Bachelor of Music, 2002
_________________________
http://www.BrendanKinsella.com

Top
#767892 - 04/07/02 05:55 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:


So let's not get melodramatic here. I hope that the forum continues in the manner we've all come to know and like, but just because the speech here is sometimes filtered - and don't forget, this isn't the first time Frank has pulled a thread; there have been others - let's not (literally) make a federal case out of something that isn't.[/b]
I understand what you are saying, Dwain, but can you guess which topic will be their next target? Or which words? Or which thoughts? Is it really worth it to take our time to think something through, read other's comments that they spent time on and try to give a thoughtful reply only to find that some parent somewhere has decided he/she does not want their kids learning about maybe Jews, or Moslems, or other religious viewpoints. Or perhaps it is liberal ideas or conservative ideas they don;t want their kids reading. Or perhaps it is the word "gay" when applied to sexuality they don't want their kids to read (unless it includes the thought that gays are all damned to hell). Or perhaps it is....well, who the hell knows?

You are right, Dwain. It is not worth making a federal case out of this. But neither is it worth a lot of time to "test" their limits again, when their limits are so low anyway.

Top
#767893 - 04/07/02 08:36 PM Re: A Decision
Dwain Lee Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 2419
Loc: Columbus, Ohio
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:
[QUOTE]I understand what you are saying, Dwain, but can you guess which topic will be their next target? [/b]
No, and frankly, I don't care. As I said, this website is not a part of the much-vaunted Fourth Estate. It is not Public Access television. It is not the guarantor of our right to free speech. It's a freakin' private website - about pianos - and if the webmaster doesn't want a topic, or topics, on his forum, he has the right to delete - or, to use the dreaded word, censor them. It doesn't matter to me whether it's a pet topic or position of mine, or someone else's. If I want to talk about something, I'll talk about it - here, or on Usenet, or at any one of the sites Brendan mentioned, or God forbid, face to face with a person rather than typing it and posting it to cybereverybodynobody. In short, I'm not afraid of "them" taking away my right to free speech by their alleged complaints and Frank's actions while overseeing this forum. It doesn't even matter if I agree with Frank's decision, or any of the decisions voiced in the dreaded thread (of which I have not read a single line). It's HIS CALL. If my comments aren't appropriate, or wanted, here, I can still speak just as freely, in numerous other venues. And if I don't like it, I can set up my own website and talk about any blather that pops into my head.

BTW Brendan, did you get my email? The dogeared mockingbird sings respectfully at night while the frustrated swordfish obtains unheeded hard drives. 121.5. squawk 7700.

Top
#767894 - 04/07/02 08:55 PM Re: A Decision
Brendan Online   content


Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 5325
Loc: McAllen, TX
 Quote:
Originally posted by Dwain Lee:
The dogeared mockingbird sings respectfully at night while the frustrated swordfish obtains unheeded hard drives. 121.5. squawk 7700.[/QB]
Roger that. I'll send some of my SC to take care of it.
_________________________
http://www.BrendanKinsella.com

Top
#767895 - 04/17/02 08:46 AM Re: A Decision
Barbara Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 07/10/01
Posts: 17
Loc: Watkinsville, GA
Dwain: AMEN!
_________________________
Barbara S

Top
#767896 - 04/17/02 11:16 AM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Amen to what? That this is Frank's site? I think that this point is undebatable.

I think that what is debatable, is what subjects are proper for this room. Either tell us, in advance, or do away with this feature of the site.

There is too much BST involved in some of these point/counterpoint dialogs, not to mention pathos, insight and revelation to have them relegated to the cyber netherworld.

The Coffee Room makes me think, and I like that. So jump in Barb and give us your views. Whether we agree or not, it might be fun. Or educational. Or a respite from an otherwise boring day.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767897 - 04/17/02 11:30 AM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Barbara,

In case you didn't notice, the subheading under The Coffee Room is "General, non-music, discussions."

The webmaster certainly does have the right to pull any and all topics for whatever reason. However, that does not mean that posters don't have the right to complain. Yes, I did say "right".

While I don't agree with one word George has written, his posts are intelligent and well thought out and have obviously taken him a lot of time to write. I, for one, miss reading posts from the 'other side'. George does have a right to complain as do many others. You, ten days after the last post in this thread, with a whopping 11 posts, have re-opened the wound by tossing in your $.02.

I'm guessing your a uniter, not a divider?

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767898 - 04/17/02 08:02 PM Re: A Decision
nancyww Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 585
Loc: central oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
Or a respite from an otherwise boring day.[/b]
AMEN

Top
#767899 - 04/18/02 06:53 PM Re: A Decision
Barbara Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 07/10/01
Posts: 17
Loc: Watkinsville, GA
Derick:

And to think I really got upset with all the people who jumped all over you when you first started posting.

I agree with Dwain's opinion that it's Frank site and he can do whatever he wants with it. I also agree that anyone can have an opinion and can voice (write) it.

Yes, I try to be a uniter, not a divider. I do not consider that a character flaw.

I realize I have not posted much. I can't believe I posted only 10 days ago. I have been getting my house ready for marketing, have been travelling 80 miles as often as possible to redecorate our new house, and have spent a great deal of time with my 80+ year-old parents at doctors' and hospital appointments. I'm 57 years old, and I'm tired. So what leisure time I've had has been spent practicing the piano.

I recognized a long time ago that I am not loaded with self-confidence, and my opinions would probably not interest anyone. I am a pretty boring person, and I have enjoyed reading posts on the Piano World because I envy those of you who are very good at verbalizing opinions and provoking thought.

I'm guessing this is my 13th and last post.
_________________________
Barbara S

Top
#767900 - 04/18/02 07:24 PM Re: A Decision
nancyww Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 585
Loc: central oregon
 Quote:
Originally posted by Barbara:
Derick:
I'm guessing this is my 13th and last post.[/b]
Barbara,

I, for one, hope that you change your mind and stay. \:\)

nancyww (a pretty boring person who posts anyway)

Top
#767901 - 04/18/02 07:26 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
Nooooo, don't leave us, Barbara. Derick must've been feeling particularly fiesty the day he wrote that post. I like reading what you write, even if it has only been 13 posts. I'm sure others appreciate your contributions too. Jodi (ever the peace maker) \:\)

Top
#767902 - 04/18/02 07:38 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Barbara,

It was not my intent to chip away at your self-confidence. I can see how my earlier response could do that. I am truly sorry.

The comment on the 10-day old post had to do with the date the last post was made in this thread, not the last time you posted. In any event, you are mistaken, your opinions would interest all of us. That was one reason I was annoyed when you expressed your approval for the pulling of that thread.

It bothered me greatly when that thread was pulled. I felt we were having an adult conversation about a very controversial topic without screaming and yelling at each other over ridiculous things. I felt that thread showed the promise of what I had hoped this room would become. Pulling it has, at least for the time being, put quite a damper on this room (IMO).

Larry has just about vanished, as has pique and Penny. Jolly continues with his pithy, very sharp comments, but there is no back and forth. And where is George who "started it all"? I miss those threads and I guess I just got annoyed when you seemed to support pulling the thread. But, I'm very sorry if I made you feel bad - VERY sorry.

Please post and don't worry how you express yourself. I'm no rocket scientist. At least not when it comes to the use of the English language. ;\)

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767903 - 04/18/02 08:08 PM Re: A Decision
lily_chauchoin Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/19/02
Posts: 17
Loc: New Hampshire
 Quote:
Originally posted by Derick:

"I guess I just got annoyed when you seemed to support pulling the thread."

Derick[/b]
De-lurking with my $.02. (I have a six month old, so I'm not about to explain why I've been MIA for awhile.) ;-)

Are you upset that it seems as if she was supporting pulling THAT particular thread or that she seems to support the webmaster's ability to censor in general? Her one word reply left a little room for interpreting her feelings. I got the sense that she supported the view that the owners of a site have the right to do with it as they wish. I find it really hard to believe Barbara would be squeamish about discussing abortion. I get the impression if she wasn't interested in discussing something or the topic bothered her, she'd just skip it, not complain about it.

I agree with you that just about everyone here has the ability to communicate rationally and maturely on any subject raised, however, I'm going to have to side with Dwain and Barbara on this one. Mainly because of what I've witnessed at other sites. I was a regular poster on a Current Debates board at a parenting site of all places. Any topic under the sun was permissable. The regulars rallied for free speech and told the owners of the site to butt out and let them censor themselves. The forum is unrecognizable now as the inmates are running the asylum. I have no idea where I'll go now to discuss current events and hot topics with educated adults. Perhaps here? I hope so.

I don't mind a little censorship. If I did, I'd just have to carve out a little time to create Lily's Piano World. Fat chance. :-)

Have we discussed the crisis in the Catholic Church yet? I do live in New England and that's about as controversial a topic as you can find around here these days. \:D

Top
#767904 - 04/18/02 08:34 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Hi,

I was more upset that Barbara seemed to support pulling that particular thread. But censoring by the webmaster is also an issue for me.

I'm going to exaggerate a bit here when I say that the pulling of that thread was what I would consider extreme censorship. There were two posts that I felt crossed the line. If I was the webmaster, I would have deleted those posts and issued a warning.

That said, I don't know what the nature of the complaints were. Perhaps someone complained about the entire topic and not just the two posts. I don't know. All I can do is guess. I wish we knew exactly what was the objection so we could avoid it in the future.

Your point about the "inmates running the asylum" is well taken. I do not want this forum turning into something like that. Which is precisely why I was so glad when we got this room. People here are intelligent and have so much to offer - whether they think so or not.

I'm open to a discussion on the crisis in the Catholic church. You start another thread, I dare ya! Seriously, I think it's an interesting topic.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767905 - 04/19/02 12:28 AM Re: A Decision
Penny Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 2943
Loc: San Juan Capistrano, CA
I'm here! I just don't have a lot to say about roses, game shows, etc. :rolleyes:

penny

Top
#767906 - 04/19/02 02:23 AM Re: A Decision
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
Just as the abortion thread was veering into deeper territory it got pulled, and mine was the last post. I wonder if I was responsible? I hope not. I did think it worthwhile to ask what has happened to LOVE in our society or whether in fact a society without LOVE can really long hope to endure. When I was growing up, in Northern California by the way, fairly near San Francisco, where my mother was born, I can remember feeling proud enough of my country that I could honestly say, even with its faults, that I loved it. I still love my country, but that innocent kind of loving of anything seems either gone or mocked so much as to have been driven underground or away.

I feel the same about music and much else that passes for art. Theres no LOVE in it or any real shade of love; romance, elegance, BEAUTY, purity, sanctity, holiness. Please dont laugh.

Look at their reverse; the opposite of romance is the hardest to get right. One possibility is that romance has something to do with French culture from the roots of the word itself; a story written in French. Connoisseurs have preferred things French for centuries. Though the French may have invented romance, even today they may have tired of it. As applied to an attachment between two people, a romance or romance itself is the story of love. But in our day and age, there is no story at all: its all over before it gets started.

Elegance? Some equate it with beauty itself, but its more usual to think of it as refined, distinguished, stylish, in good taste, or well made. That which is not elegant is slap-dash, crude, common or vulgar and thats most of what passes for culture these days.

Ever since we threw out discrimination as the mark of discernment, we have lost the ability to even recognize the better from the average. I am fiercely against political correctness because it ruins everything it touches, destroys greatness and deprives those without it of ever gaining it. It is a lie to think that all and everything everywhere is just as good as everything else. There are real distinctions and they are worthwhile preserving.

The opposite of beauty is ugliness. But its not considered PC to call something ugly even when it is be it a painting a building a piece of music or dare we say it a persons behavior. Its in the eye of the beholder but some have got to be pretty blind not to recognize it. Ugliness is a physical misfortune for some. Thats why there are plastic surgeons.

Purity, that which is clean. Clean of habit, clean of heart and clean of mind. The opposite is impure, dirty or filthy and thats what we have for the most part.

Sanctity and holiness? Why nothing is held sacred anymore. Some of us could hold music, certain kinds of it or certain pieces, as sacred. Its what produces a QUIET and respectful awe. Where do we find any of that nowadays?

Our society is rotten. It is however not without hope of recovery. Perhaps 9/11 was a wake up call. One thing we are told that the Moslems cannot stand about us, not that I really want to curry favor with them because I dont, but they do say that our culture and our MORALS are repugnant to them. We need to clean up our act as they say. We certainly are not going to do it by being PC when being honest about standards and discipline is whats required.

Is that enough fat to chew on?
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#767907 - 04/19/02 11:51 AM Re: A Decision
Nina Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/13/01
Posts: 6467
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
Hi, David:

Wow, you said a lot in that last post! I've read it a few times and agree with most of what you say.

It does appear to me that there's a general lack of substance in our daily lives as a society. I am already anticipating the million and one individual exceptions that people will undoubtedly launch my way, but in general terms I'm concerned about the way our general society seems to be aligning itself.

Extreme obsession with money and possessions have trumped business and personal ethics at even the highest levels. People like David (and me) feel defensive about using words like love, beauty, morals, ethics, character. We are paranoid about the PC police (David, I totally agree with you on that one!).

I worry that we are raising kids who spend more time talking and worrying about whether Brittney and Justin have broken up than about what kind of people they will be when they grow up. The sort of conversations I remember going on at our dinner table as a kid don't occur now, because few families even eat dinner together!

In a recent bout of insomnia, I was up pretty late at night channel-surfing. I was embarrassed by what passes as "entertainment" on late-night TV. Prime examples: "The Man Show," "Girls Gone Wild" advertisements.

I don't believe in much in the way of "big brother" censorship, but I absolutely do believe in self-censorship. It seems that we are losing our ability to self-censor, and yell about having the "right" to do something rather than question whether doing it would actually improve our lives, or unnecessarily hurt someone else. I am blessed to be living in a free society, but I think there's a responsibility inherent in that. Being legally able to do just about anything, or express just about any opinion doesn't mean you ought to do it without thought, and ignore any responsibility you may have for the consequences, whether intended or not.

It is a complicated issue for me, and I apologize for the rambling post; but as I say, David's post really got me to thinking.

Nina

Top
#767908 - 04/19/02 01:23 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
I certainly can't disagree with anything you have said David, but it does raise some issues. I know I'm going to get blasted for this but I'm going to say it anyway. Maybe it will make this room interesting again...

Can it not be said that political correctness, Communism, freedom of speech/expression, etc... are all similar in that, philosophically, they sound good on the surface?

After all, who am I to judge how you live your life? Wouldn't it be nice if those who had more money than they could spend in three lifetimes gave to those who don't know how they will pay for their next meal? Why shouldn't I be able to display my works of art that some call pornographic if someone else can march on Washington protesting abortion?

The problem, I believe, is where do we draw the line? When is too much PC, too much? How much redistribution of wealth can occur before the economy starts to suffer? What exactly is pornographic? Up until what point, if any, is abortion acceptable?

People, I think, are driven to be all or nothing, black or white, right or wrong. It is in our nature to fit everything into a neat little cubby-hole so we can grasp it. PC tries to eliminate this. But at what cost?

As has been said a thousand times, there is no free lunch. For everything gained, something is lost. I'd like to think we have evolved over the centuries, but I have my doubts.

Go back 100 years ago and compare and contrast. For the most part, people are much more tolerant of 'different' (race, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation) then they were back then. A huge step forward IMHO. But today we have pornographic and irreverant art displays (some on tax payer money), underage girls who can get abortions without there parent's consent, school shootings, drugs, the list is endless.

Back then, women didn't work. If they did, they would never work side by side with a man, nor would they be paid the same. Blacks were held back (as were MANY other immigrants). Abortions were done in back alleys and women often died.

Have we progressed, or regressed? I don't know. But I do know that I wouldn't go back in time even if it were possible. Perhaps I've answered my own question?

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767909 - 04/19/02 03:34 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
i'd go back to the American West of the 1820s. i'd be a mountain man and trapper and have fun at those springtime rendezvous (rendezvouses?) and tell lots of lies around the campfire at night. i think it would be grand. i wouldn't miss civilization one teeny tiny bit. \:D
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767910 - 04/19/02 03:41 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
You wouldn't miss the Grotian? Mountain men DO NOT play grand pianos.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767911 - 04/19/02 06:19 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
A totally politically incorrect regression I feel would make a tremendous difference in society today - ban women from the workplace.

That got your attention, didn't it! \:D

Now to be a bit more serious. I DO believe that much of the coarsening of society can be blamed on the absence of the mother in the home. And I believe the absence of that lady within the home can be blamed on two major events of the 60s - The Pill and LBJ's Great Society.

First, the pill. The coming of a reliable, cheap method of birth control gave women complete control of the sexual process and the procreation of the species. For the first time, families could reliably control timing and spacing of children. This in turn led to more women in the workforce and the advent of the two-paycheck family. Americans, being the spoiled brats we are, wanted bigger homes with two car garages and nice cars to fill those spaces. We wanted every latest bauble.

The problem with ever wanting more is the accumulation of debt. But debt did not matter, we had two paychecks. But we must have those two paychecks to pay the debt, not just one. Therefore, instead of a mother leaving the workforce for a while to raise her children, she is forced to return as soon as possible in order to service debt obligations. Somebody else spends much of the time raising her children, daycare, etc.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the women of lower socio-economic means. But The Great Society creates a welfare state, and whether the consequences are intended or not, marginalizes the importance of the father in the home.

Folks, there was a reason for shotgun weddings. The bride's family could not afford to continue to support her and the coming offspring. Therefore, the gentleman responsible for the lady's "delicate condition", had to step up to the plate and assume responsibility for his actions. With the advent of LBJ's programs, the normal patriarchal role in the family was assumed by the government and assured the absence of the father, since his provider role had been usurped. But unless the family stayed on welfare forever, the mother had to return to the workforce, alone. And many single mothers do the best they can for their children, but there is no substitute for two parents.

Now, I do not really advocate banning women from trhe workplace. But there has to be some mechanism in this society that will allow the children the benefit of their mother's influence. Kids do not need "quality time", they need "quantity time", and they need the steadying, moral, influence of their mothers. They need somebody to continually show them right from wrong. Someone to guide them. Someone to explain to them that Southpark is not normal behavior, or that Howard Stern's show is not suitable for them to watch. Someone to teach them religion, manners,responsibility, kindness, common coutersy and all the other little things that oil the machinery of a successful society.

Flamesuit on, do your best! :p :p :p
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767912 - 04/19/02 08:52 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
and fathers don't make good moral guides? why not ban men from the workplace so they can stay home with their children?
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767913 - 04/19/02 10:18 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
I don't have a problem with the idea of one parent staying home to take care of the children. I feel that it is very beneficial. I do have a problem with the assumption that it should be the mother. In fact, my husband would be THRILLED if I told him I wanted to be the breadwinner, and he could be the homemaker. (The reason we don't do this, is that his job has greater earning potential per hours worked than what I chose as a profession. Plus, I like being the homemaker \:\) ) Just my .02 Jodi

Top
#767914 - 04/19/02 10:33 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
OK, here are the flames. \:\) Read these two paragraphs (both from Jolly's post, above):

"At the other end of the spectrum we have the women of lower socio-economic means. But The Great Society creates a welfare state, and whether the consequences are intended or not, marginalizes the importance of the father in the home."

"Now, I do not really advocate banning women from the workplace. But there has to be some mechanism in this society that will allow the children the benefit of their mother's influence. Kids do not need "quality time", they need "quantity time", and they need the steadying, moral, influence of their mothers."

Whats wrong with this picture? Are you not, with your second paragraph, marginalizing the importance of the father in the home?

- with all due respect, because I really do like you, Jolly \:\) Jodi

Top
#767915 - 04/19/02 10:46 PM Re: A Decision
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
Yeah, this threads on its way. You know, by and large, Ive come to regard the bunch of you as about the brightest bulbs in the known universe. Thanks.
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#767916 - 04/20/02 01:03 AM Re: A Decision
Eldon Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 597
Loc: Illinois
Jolly,
Your last post sounded like it was written by a lady that lives fairly close to me. You may have heard of her......Phyliss Schafly ;\)

Pique,
I'd head for the 1820's with you! Gosh, all those horses... riders and buggy horses. mmmmmmmmmm \:D
We might not have a Grotrian. But we would have some kind of keyboard instrument, right? And don't forget singing around those campfires. \:\)
_________________________
Sincerely,
Eldon

Top
#767917 - 04/20/02 10:10 AM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
touche', jodi.

and as far as music in the West of the 1820s, i may have to go back to playing the flute. yeah, i might miss the grotrian, but think of the immense privilege of living in that time and place, and as part of the trapper society. might not even need music to soothe the savage breast. \:\)
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767918 - 04/20/02 10:31 AM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by David Burton:

Our society is rotten. [/b]
Wow! What a negative, cynical observation! You raise a number of excellent issues to consider and then, based I assume on your own consideration of thes eissues, you reach this conclusion of such despair, obviously seeing so much bad and so little good that you would make such a declarative statement. I am truly sorry that your life experience and observations have led you to such a desparate, condemnatory view of your own society.

I cannot imagine what sort of people you have personally come in contact with that you have decided this society is rotten. Based on the people I know and my life experience, I find most to be good decent people, struggling to do what they think is right -- and they live in a society that allows them to do this. You, obviously, see things much differently and so much more negatively.

There are those, however, who would argue that if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. My question to you, then, is what are you doing about this "rotten" society or have you just thrown up your hands and decided it is too far gone and therefore have simply retrenched?

Top
#767919 - 04/20/02 04:16 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Folks, you are getting soft in your old age. ;\)


Do I marginalize the role of the Father? No I think not. But I feel that the Mother has a larger role in the shaping of a "well- rounded" child, than does the Father. Although they are both needed to achieve success.

To give a horse illustration: When comparing riding a horse to raising a child, a Mother controls by steady firm pressure with the knees, while the Father tends to jerk on the reins.

And by the way, Eldon, I kinda like Phyllis.... :p :p :p
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767920 - 04/20/02 04:57 PM Re: A Decision
fmelliott Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 894
Loc: Virginia
Societies which cannot determine right from wrong, have no moral compass, believe every type of behavior is acceptable, either exist off of slavery, as the later Emperial Romans, or are slaves. Which will we become?
People who cannot control their own behavior have it controlled for them. The children in the government sponsored ghetto near me have no parental care and no moral compass. A policeman will determine their future. What a terrible thing their parents didn't love them enough to teach them.
If you love your children you will give them morality and structure and religion. If you don't, some dictator will. After all he may be able to make the trains run on time.
PC is death.

Top
#767921 - 04/20/02 05:43 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
"To give a horse illustration: When comparing riding a horse to raising a child, a Mother controls by steady firm pressure with the knees, while the Father tends to jerk on the reins."

Whoa! This may be your idea of dad, but it certainly is not mine. Nor my husbands. He and I traded the colicky baby back and forth while we tried to finish our supper. He and I trade who gets up when my daughter sleep walks. He has shared equally with the child raising, specifically picking jobs that allow him to be around his children as they grow up. The kids rely on us both for support, love, and comfort. This isn't something that is only innate in a mother, fathers have it too. It's what good parenting is all about. Jodi

Top
#767922 - 04/20/02 11:54 PM Re: A Decision
Eldon Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 597
Loc: Illinois
Thanks Jodi, your response was excellent.
BTW....Jolly, I've encountered many mothers that do indeed "jerk on the reins".
_________________________
Sincerely,
Eldon

Top
#767923 - 04/21/02 01:32 AM Re: A Decision
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
 Quote:
Originally posted by George061875:
There are those, however, who would argue that if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. My question to you, then, is what are you doing about this "rotten" society or have you just thrown up your hands and decided it is too far gone and therefore have simply retrenched?[/b]
In regard to society vs. people we know personally, I think we have to make some distinctions. While the people we know may be good decent people, struggling to do what they think is right, they are probably not representative of the society writ large. I would have been more comfortable with good decent people, struggling to do what they KNOW is right.

There used to be moral standards. People knew what was right and wrong. People also knew what represented good taste and poor taste, notice I didnt say rich taste and poor taste. We got caught up in a spiral that devalued marriage, then the family, then children, and with it everything has lost what used to be intrinsic value. Maybe it was phony but people used to respect authority from the president on down, people used to respect church leaders too, and teachers. They used to be ranked as a profession along with doctors and lawyers. My daughter asked me, hey Dad, since you know so much, why dont you become a teacher? I responded by telling her that I wouldnt teach in a public school ever, couldnt put up with the BS, PC and all the other stuff that is to me indicative of the rottenness of society.

Im cynical, sure and I think I have a right to be. Ive lived long enough to have experienced better. 1959 was a pretty good year for American society. Everything has degenerated since then.

You suggest that I should be doing something about it. As it turns out I am. Im involved right now, up to my eyeballs, in two efforts that are so politically incorrect that I wont bother going into them except to say that one involves Pro-Life and the other Homeland Defense.

Here are some basic changes that I advocate to turn American society around:

A Constitutional amendment making English the ONLY official language in the US and establishing an American Academy of Language to determine what is and is not correct English. It would be mandatory for a sound curriculum in English to be established in every public school.

A Constitutional amendment creating a permanent separation between magistrates and counselors as is the case in France. I dont care at all for their Napoleonic code which makes the accused guilty until proven innocent, but I like it that money paid for a case is strictly limited. Want to make society better? Curtail the power of lawyers who as a class have a disproportionate say in the affairs of state.

A Constitutional amendment changing the words, cruel and unusual punishment to the punishment shall fit the crime. It is high time that we take seriously the cause of crime in this country; criminals. These people have decided to do what they please to others without consideration for the consequences. I can forgive them anything, but their actions must have consequences. If you kill someone on purpose, you shall die and quickly, as Thomas Jefferson tried to have enacted. He said that if a condemned murderer couldnt get his case appealed within 30 days he should be hanged and publicly. One of the great causes of rot in this society, besides criminality that passes for everyday ways of doing things, is bleeding heart sentiment. It is one thing to be soft hearted, but soft headed is never good.

To those who say that capital punishment doesnt prevent crime I cry out loud that their argument is irrelevant. I have said so so often to district attorneys, etc. A crime has been committed, the price for justice must be paid. I am also pretty sick and tired of the death by legal injection method. Hang em! and do it publicly!

This may sound contradictory, but it isnt: repeal the drug laws. Force the trade out into the open. Prohibition was a social disaster. The drug laws are just the same. Decriminalize marijuana and let all those who can be gainfully employed, whose only offense was selling this stuff, out of jail. As for the hard stuff, make it a government monopoly and a criminal offense to sell it. Make the penalties hard; life in prison. Mao wanted to end the opium trade in China. He offered clinics to users and had all the dealers he could find shot. That ended the problem. Every hard drug user, and thats everything but marijuana and its derivative products, would have to register and the only place they could use it legally would be within a public clinic. This would allow us to keep an eye on diseases that spread through this population. In time this scourge could be diminished and eventually wiped out.

Keep abortion legal, because someone is going to need to have it done, but make it more difficult to justify; the second time someone asks for an abortion they get themselves sterilized. Since I find the whole thing highly repugnant, make it about as socially respectable as cigarette smoking is right now. There would in time be far fewer abortions, no excuses, take responsibility.

More young women should say no to sex and the entertainment industry should stop pushing it. Ive been trying to figure out just why theyre doing it. Any ideas on why sex in this society is pushed to such a great extent would be helpful.

Homosexuals are special people. There are other classes of special people too, but none with quite the same characteristics as gay people. Their decision, for whatever reasons, makes them different in this regard from the rest of us. Many are highly artistic, highly gifted, etc. OK fine. For the record Im not a homophobe. I just happen to find what they do disgusting and dont particularly want it spread openly in society. What they do among themselves is none of my business or my concern. They want to have the same privileges as heterosexual couples have; shared healthcare benefits, marriage tax breaks, the ability to adopt children. But marriage is primarily a religiously sanctioned thing. I have trouble with the idea of the state being able to marry anyone. Theres supposed to be a division between church and state in this country and for any state authority to marry anyone is really stepping over the boundary. So the laws here need to be changed too. Heres what I propose. For everyone, married or cohabitating, gay or strait, I would set up a special kind of legal entity like a business partnership with its own tax status, asset sharing rules, etc. Dissolving such an entity would be the same as a divorce. Id make it easy to get one of these and harder to dissolve one. If you want to be married, you do that socially in a church, synagogue, temple or what have you. If you are married, you may apply and get a cohabitation corporation for want of a better name. If you are a homosexual couple, you can apply for one of these too. It would allow the sharing of any health benefits, tax breaks, etc. Gay or strait, you will pay a nominal fee to get one and a much larger fee to dissolve one. We do want to promote social stability and this would confer all the rights of marriage under the law without offending some of us by calling it gay marriage. I have to draw the line somewhere and I do with allowing homosexuals to rear children. Sorry folks, this is a bad idea. I dont mind gay teachers, as long as they keep their hands off the kids, but raising them, no. And I dont really like gays in the military either, sorry. That has to go.

The greatest evil in society is pedophilia. Since I am Catholic, I can tell you that contrary to what many would like to believe, very few priests are pedophiles, but there is a pedophile network and once a pedophile, always a pedophile, there is no cure. Homosexuals have fought for a long time to get the recognition they have now, far too much as a percentage of their numbers in my opinion. Behind it has been a pedophile agenda. It was the celibacy rule that made it attractive for pedophiles to become priests not the other way around. To be gay may be permissible, to be a pedophile is unpardonable. What to do with them? Put them in with the hardest hard core criminals, may of whom owe the root causes of their criminality to being the victims of pedophiles. Theyll know what to do with them. I know a psychiatrist in Florida, one of the very few whom I approve of, who has a belt into which she punches holes for every pedophile she succeeds in sending to prison. They plead with her, tell her theyll be killed. She signs them away to maximum security, among the hardest of the hard. It isnt long before she hears of their deaths.

Of all criminal types, pedophiles should be shown no mercy. They are a plague upon every society. They must be culled out and eliminated. It is probable that the pedophile network runs to the highest places and the lowest depths in society. When I was growing up, one never had to worry about ones children. One shouldnt have to now. This is one of the biggest changes in society, the corrupting of youth on a mass scale. And who is behind it? Pedophiles. By the way, in a previous incarnation, I was an officer in a group based in NYC called SAVE, which stood for Sexual Abuse Victims Empowered. I was involved in at least 50 cases throughout the country. We were not very effective. Our only realistic advice was to RUN. There is a wealthy and well run pedophile network. It is a terrorist network and it must be crushed!!!

One reason this society is rotten is that there is no justice. Justice is not made of a bunch of legal mush that can be mangled by any court, judge, jury or lawyer for the right price. Justice to be justice must be exact, well defined, pure and well deserved. Eliminate all the phony attempts to make an issue out of something that isnt; there is no such thing as social justice, economic justice, racial justice, gender justice or any of that stuff. People advocating such ROT should have been laughed off the social stage long ago. But we dont. We are PC. And the rot spreads. And you know what? Rot stinks!!! Not only that, it kills.
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#767924 - 04/21/02 01:58 AM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
david,
there are many things i like about you when it comes to music and art. when it comes to your ideas of social justice, i shudder.

1959 was a great year? i think of that period of american history as a time of terrible repression. there's a good reason the sixties happened. people were being suffocated in this society. just ask my mother. she would have given anything to have had the kind of opportunities i had as a young woman as a result of that social revolution.

the thing that is most troubling about what you have written is that you seem to think you have the answers for everyone else, and you would like to dictate them from on high. it is a very intolerant attitude. if it is from this perspective that you are so cynical, then i'm really glad that society is, in your eyes, such a cesspool. at least it is a free society, and at bottom, that is what matters.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767925 - 04/21/02 02:24 AM Re: A Decision
T2 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 341
Before we crank up the melodrama on this thread I'd like to re-state one of George's statements: most people are talking about what they think about society, not what actions they have taken to change it. Asking what you have done can be a pretty humbling question. But a lot of times those actions are really very close to home. Any interest in such a tangent?

Top
#767926 - 04/21/02 04:25 AM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
George

I agree with David, “ Our society is rotten”. I do not think that his opinion reflects negativity, I think that it is a realistic opinion.

I want to say that I believe in God. I believe that there is only one god. I believe that every human being that believes in a Spiritual Being, believes in the same god, no matter what he is called.

Man is separated from animals only by his free will, his ability to choose between what is right and wrong. Not what is right or wrong according to mans law, what is right or wrong according to Gods law. “THOU SHALL NOT”

I agree with most of what David believes in, but not everything.

I do not agree in the legalization of marijuana. WHY, why do we need a mind-enhancing drug of any kind? The old marijuana has been cultured to the point where its potency approaches that of some of the hard drugs, and this will continue, legal or illegal. I would be open to the arguments for its use in medicine, but I would hope that our scientist would be able to come up with a better solution than that. If you leave the door open an inch someone will want it open 2 inches and then 3. Legalizing marijuana is the first step in legalizing all drugs.

I do not believe in any process legal or not that promotes or legitimizes homosexuality. It is morally wrong. No one is perfect, every human has some quirk in their nature that gives them the propensity to do something that is morally wrong. The free will that separates man from animals, allows them the choice to either suppress this quirk, or to succumb to it.

I think that David's position on abortion is lot more liberal than mine. I think that no abortion should be allowed unless the mother's physical life is threatened. I think that anyone that conceives a child while using any drug or substance than could cause that child to be born with birth defects should be sterilized and imprisoned. A child is a child from the moment of conception, and to abuse it in the womb is no different than abusing or violating it after it is born.

I think that the statement “OUR SOCIETY IS ROTTEN” is not a negative statement, nor is it an act of retrenchment. I see it as a shout for everyone to open their eyes and to see what is happening around us. What is socially acceptable today was legally and morally wrong just a few years ago, and it is morally wrong today, social acceptance or not.

Religion is constantly being changed and adapted to fit our changing society, but the commandments have not changed. If you believe in a god read them and think hard about them.

lb

Top
#767927 - 04/21/02 10:57 AM Re: A Decision
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
Well, I wish I could convince pique and others that I am not some horrible old crank for certainly I am not. My conception of freedom is a lot more liberal than most, on marijuana, which is still a softer drug than alcohol, itself a MAJOR contributor to health and social problems, on homosexuality because some people are just not going to be anything but homosexual, and many have confided in me honestly what a terrible lifestyle it is, on abortion, which is at bottom one of the worst things I can imagine. My views would be considered to the left of lbs for instance.

We have a tradition in Western civilization, separation of religion and the state, that allows us not only freedom of thought but freedom to be skeptical, the ultimate trait of any good scientist. Where I differ from my friends on the political left, and oh yes I have them, is that I draw certain definite limits within which one can pretty much do what one pleases. I would actually tend to agree with piques mother concerning opportunities for women nowadays compared with 1959, but so far, with all the extra freedom, what have we as a society accomplished that in any way promotes the betterment of human consciousness? Are we better human beings individually and as a society because we have more freedom? I have serious doubts.

We could take many areas but lets take music as an example. I play classical music, I memorize a lot of it. It takes discipline to do this. Discipline involves following instructions, orders if you will, given by the composer. Once one has followed the orders printed on the page and internalized them one is free within those parameters to interpret the music and make of it part of oneself ultimately to be shared with others. If one wants to make transcriptions, arrangements, etc. of a piece then it becomes something else. If all the music were nothing but transcriptions and arrangements it would soon loose its intrinsic qualities. Freedom to do as one pleases does not always produce the best results.

Without following instructions, doing what one is told, knowing right from wrong, not just from a legal perspective but from an interiorized moral one, one is frankly incapable of utilizing ones freedom for any practical accomplishment of any kind. If you required surgery would you prefer a doctor who practiced based on his freedom to do as they please or one who is disciplined to know what he or she is doing? An accomplished person didnt get that way by placing freedom above discipline. Our society has fallen away from this critical balance. PC is an obstacle to finding the truth when and where it needs to be defined in critical terms; A is not equal to or better than B, therefore B must be improved if it ever hopes to be the equal of A, not that A must be ashamed of being better than B and should therefore not excel. IF PC promotes greater freedom, explain to me why PC prefers the tacit support of criminal dictators to run countries (Cuba, China, Zimbabwe or North Korea for instance) to democratically elected leaders in a LIMITED government? There are far too many lies that are not openly questioned. Its time for a counter-revolution and one is surely coming. Be hopeful that it does not go to the right of my reasonable perspective on freedom else I will have to find somewhere else to go myself. And there are no more empty continents left. To the moon.
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#767928 - 04/21/02 11:32 AM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


David, let me comment on each of your propositions, if I may.

Re: the lack of values. I disagree we lack values. What I see this society doing is undergoing a debate about what are our values and how are they defined. It is moving from defining values as a set of rules outlined in a Calvinistic interpretation of Christian Scripture (or a Jansenistic view, if we consider Catholicism) -- primarily the Old Testament -- to the actual values behind those rules (which are more defined in the New Testament than the Old) and also tend to be the same values that are common among almost all religious Scriptures.

This is a good thing -- but it does require people to take personal responsibility for their actions, rather than rely on some "authority" to define for them what their actions ought to be. To me, this is a necessary evolution for a society that wants to recognize the inherent dignity and freedom of each human being -- which is the most basic value that this society is coming to. It is messy work, but we are grappling mightily to figure out a way to get there.

Re: People having known what is right and wrong in the past. I disagree. People have never known what was right and wrong. They have never had to figure it out before because they simply accepted what was told to them -- now they do. Now we have a more educated people, often more so even in morality, philosophy and theology than those who would set themselves up as moral authorities. In the past, people bought in to what these authorities said was right or wrong and any disagreement with these authoritarian dictates was rooted out and suppressed with a vengance.

Now they are being faced with making this decision themselves because they have access through education based on academic freedom, the media, the Internet and many other ways to see and understand rules different from what they were told are the "true rules."

The authorities of the past have found their positions diminished because their rules were too often in conflict with the values they claimed to espouse. Thus their credibility is weakened as people have access to the information that shows the hypocrisy of many of these positions.

Re: 1959 as the year to go back to. I would not go back to any year. But I think the most important and positive time in my lifetime was the mid to late sixties -- it was the time when we began to cut the bonds of the "rule" based society and began to look at our base values and attempt to move society in that direction. It has been a long struggle and continues to be messy and difficult. We are not there yet. But we continue to move in the right direction -- and will end up in a society which is far better off than it was in 1959. But also one which will be far more open to individual expression and individual rights than 1959 was. That means that it is going to be a much harder society for people who want rules as the guideposts to live in.

Re: Your involvement in the Pro-Life movement and Homeland Defense. While this is not where I spend my time, my hat goes off to you for actually doing something rather than just whining about it. My respect for you has grown immeasurably.

Re: English as the official language. I see no need for a constitutional amendment. This is happening anyway, thanks to modern communications. I suspect that 100 years from now, English will be the primary language throughout the world. The others will be around but seen quaint throwbacks to an age when the world divided itself in meaningless ways -- such aS religion, culture, language and political boundaries. Well, maybe 200 years, but it is coming.

Re: separating magistrates from counselors. I can buy this. I agree lawyers have a disproportionate share of power in this society. The problem though is not the lawyers so much as the way law is practiced -- primarily through an adversarial system. This automatically sets up and "us versus them" mentality in society -- rather than a "we are all in this together" mentality. I am not sure what group, if any, I would place in the positions lawyers now have. I would probably not give any group this position --I would rather tear down the barriers to individual expression, move us away from thinking we need some sort of uniform way of living and move towards a unity of people for the benefit of the individual.

Re: "Punishment fits the crime" I can also agree with this. But where we might differ is that right now I see the laws are being far too stringent -- the punishment far exceeds the crime. I suspect that many people would not be real pleased to find the crime laws becoming more lax -- but this is what I think would happen if we moved to a system where the punishment fits the crime. We would not be trying 14 yo's as adults, applying the death penalty to mentally retarded individuals, the majority of prisoners in our prison system would not be drug offenders, we would have no "three strikes" laws, judicial discretion would be brought back and mercy and understanding of the circumstances that led to the crime would again be part of our system.

Re: the death penalty. To ignore the debate over whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is to say that society should take a major stand without having a goal for it. The debate on the death penalty is a debate about goals -- what is the goal of the death penalty and does it achieve that goal -- and is this a goal we even want? In any major societal issue, I believe we need to define a common goal. The closest I have seen of a common goal when discussing the death penalty is to make society safer. Some want the goal to be punishment, but there is no common acceptance of this. If making the society safer is the most common goal we have, there are many ways to do this short of killing people for their crimes.

Re: the drug laws. I basically agree with you on your proposals. Make them legal, but controlled. We may differ in the steps to this, but not in the basic premise.

Re: abortion. I basically agree with you on this as well. As Clinton advocated it should be "legal, safe and rare."

Re: pushing sex. I do not fault the entertainment industry here. I do not see them as pushing anything, other than making a dollar for their stockholders and employees.

If there is fault to be laid, it is at the feet of our religious and moral institutions who have refused to acknowledge the changing attitudes towards sex and provide moral guidelines for those changing attitudes. Rather, they continue to want to make sex evil unless it is within a heterosexual marriage.

In a society which has obviously chosen to accept sex outside of hetersexual marriage (as many other societies have before us), it is more important to set moral guidelines dealing with the dignity of sexual expression in all forms and with the morality of commitment rather than with worrying about rules of when sex is allowed or not allowed.

I also believe we, as a society, must move past seeing sexual morality as the ultimate form of morality. It is not. There are far more important moral principles for human beings than whether or not two or more people people satisfy their lust in a particular way or within the confines of a particular narrow relationship.

I completely agree with you that the State has NO right to define or permit marriage. It is a religious act and should stay religious. The laws we have now are simply the codification of certain civil rules and regulations to protect the economic interests of those who have chosen to join their lives and property together and to protect any children that come from this union. They are intended to make sure that people do not all have to write their own contracts for such unions or to make sure that each couple does not have to "reinvent the wheel" with every committed relationship. We should recognize that this is all the marriage laws do and thus can be readily applied to any and all couples or groups who choose to join together in some formal partnership. Although I am not the one who is going to call the 700 Club or Dr. Laura to tell them this! LOL!!

I am not sure that I would argue pedophilia is the greatest crime of all. Mainly because I would take your premise and make it broader. Severe abuse of children or any of the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly and the mentally impaired -- be it sexual, physical or pschological -- is the greatest crime of all. To prey on the weakest and to damage them so severely is the most depraved of human actions.

If we are ever able to share a bottle of wine, David, and spend many hours talking in these terms, I would feel very honored.

Top
#767929 - 04/21/02 12:40 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
Bravo! All of you! This is an excellent discussion - even better than the one that got archived! I am always amazed at how I can have similar thoughts on certain issues with a particular person, and vastly different thoughts on other issues. \:\) Jodi

Top
#767930 - 04/21/02 02:11 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by jodi:
Bravo! All of you! This is an excellent discussion - even better than the one that got archived! I am always amazed at how I can have similar thoughts on certain issues with a particular person, and vastly different thoughts on other issues. \:\) Jodi[/b]
I decided to join this discussion not only because it interests me, but also because I wanted to see what now happens.

If people felt their children were threatened by the abortion discussion, this one is even more threatening.

We now have advocates for marriage being eliminated as a legal institution and for the society to develop a morality not only allowing sex outside of marriage, but also between members of the same gender and even in groups! People are encouraging the repeal of drug laws and the government becoming the primary "dealer". Ideas are being presented for the melding of all of the world's cpmmon religious values, with no special position being given to Christianity.

The real threat, of course, is that this is being done in civil and intelligent conversation. How does one explain to their kids that people's ideas and values are inherently evil when that person presents their views in a rational way, explains a legitimate basis for their views and is not presenting a screaming tirade? And then base it on a moral system to boot while speaking with respect for religion? The kids are not stupid and will immediately recognize that not everyone who disagrees with Mom and Dad are bad people going to hell -- so maybe Mom and Dad do not have the only acceptable view on certain topics and maybe the kids can choose among alternative moral and religious options.

So, we'll see how long this discussion is allowed to go on. And yes, I have phrased this purposely to be a dare to those who would suppress the open sharing of ideas! If you wish to disagree with me or anyone else, do it in the light, in front of everyone and explain why your views are superior to ours. It'll be good for your kids to see you espouse your own ideas and support them when challenged. Don't go into the shadows and anonymously act a second time. Have the courage of your own convictions. Your kids deserve no less from their parents.

Top
#767931 - 04/21/02 03:02 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Excuse me, but did someone say homosexuality is a choice? What have you people been smoking???

I know a number of homosexuals and let me tell you, it is NOT a choice. If you believe it to be a choice then you must have made the choice to be heterosexual. Or, to put it another way, you had the choice to be homosexual, but you decided to be heterosexual. Come on people, you are smarter than that.

Who in their right mind would CHOSE to be a member of one of the most hated minorities on the face of the earth?

Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, have a choice to have sex or not have sex. That is the choice, that is the only choice. Any psychologist will tell you the that. Do you like brussel sprouts? If not, did you DECIDE not to like them, or do you just not like them? It's the same thing with being gay. I know I'm going to get my butt kicked for this, but this 'choice' thinking irks me.

Looking at the issue from 30,000 feet; there are 2 kinds of homosexuals in the world, just like there are 2 kinds of any other group of people in the world. There are are the "in your face" homosexuals, and the "normal" homosexuals. My best friend is gay. He is what I call a "normal" homosexual. I never knew it until years later after he swallowed a bottle of pills in an attempt to end his life because he couldn't bear who he was.

Since then, he's come to accept who he is but behaves in a very "normal" manner. I have no problem going out with him for a few beers or going fishing, camping, whatever with him. He's a guy who happens to be attracted to men. Period.

Society is very heterosexually orientated, as well it should be; most people are heterosexual. But society also tells us that homosexuality is horrible, not normal, deviant, you will burn in hell for it. Those ideas got into my friends mind and convinced him he was the scum of the earth. He tells me that feelings of worthlessness are not uncommon among gays; because of what society has taught all of us.

His story has opened my eyes and I am now much more in tune to the subtle, negative, anti-gay, messages delivered every day in so many different ways.

Trent Lott made the statement that "homosexuals are simply criminals commiting crimes against the American family" (not an exact quote, but very close). Now substitute in Jews or Blacks or Muslems for homosexuals and screams would be heard around the world. Yet Mr. Lott, and many others, get away with this kind of garbage. My friend is not "anti-family values" in any way shape or form. I don't think most homosexuals are. If anything, they'd like to have as much of a "normal" family as possible.

Getting back to the 2 kinds of homosexuals. The "in your face" gays make news. They are the ones that I wouldn't want my children seeing - the bizarre, the freaks. One might ask is "Rosie O'Donnell an in your face homosexual?" My answer is "absolutely not". She is a kind, good-hearted woman, with some strong political opinions who happens to be gay. Now that she just came out, it's news so now you will hear about it. Eventually it will die down because she doesn't flaunt it.

The topic of priests and pedophelia came up. As was stated, not all priests are pedophiles. Most are good men, stick to their vows, and help many people. The few that are pedophiles, make news. Some people are painting all priests as pedophiles. Obviously, this is not fair. The same is true of gays. Some are bizarre people, out on the fringes, but most are not. Why crucify all for the action of a few?

David said:

 Quote:
Since I am Catholic, I can tell you that contrary to what many would like to believe, very few priests are pedophiles, but there is a pedophile network and once a pedophile, always a pedophile, there is no cure. Homosexuals have fought for a long time to get the recognition they have now, far too much as a percentage of their numbers in my opinion. Behind it has been a pedophile agenda. [/b]
Let's get another thing straight folks, ask any psychologist... Pedophilia is not about having sex with children, it's about control. Just like rape is not about sex, it is also about control. It just so happens that pedophile priests have easier access to boys more than girls. Pedophiles aren't interested in the sex of the child, they are interested in the fact that it is a child. Homosexuality does not figure into it; at least not up until a child enters puberty.

Another fact you may find interesting is that among the general population, more heterosexuals (percentage based on total population) are pedophiles than are homosexuals. Of course this is hotly debated because no one really knows what percentage of the population is homosexual because people are ashamed and will not admit their sexual orientation. Why? Because of some of the opinions stated in this forum; "it's morally reprehensible".

To insinuate that homosexuals are pedophiles is ridiculous. I would have no trouble sending my son off to an overnight camping event with my friend. Or to leave him in his care. Ok, I don't have a kid, but I'm just saying it is not an issue. He would not abuse the boy, or talk to him about 'gay' things. He'd treat the kid as an innocent child and leave that kind of education up to the parent's.

I've known him for years. I know his values. Other than his sexual orientation, he is more conservative than most people on this forum. Anti-abortion, goes to church (in spite of the preaching), log-cabin Republican (gay group that supports Republicans), loves Bush, hated Clinton, the list goes on and on...

Feel free to have your opinion, but don't say it's a choice. It ain't. I didn't 'decide' to be heterosexual nor have I ever had a homosexual thought in my life - I have zippo interest. If it were a choice, then I would have thought about it and pushed it out of my mind for one reason or another.

When people say "it's a choice" but are confronted with the question: "So evidently you've thought about having a homosexual experience but have pushed it out of your mind?" They are horrified. OF COURSE THEY HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT. But then how did they KNOW it was a choice? They don't. They are just stating an opinion that has no basis in reality.

Their opinion is based on the bible. Very similar to what the Muslims base their religion on. Some become extremists taking everything literally. So too with you 'Christians'.

How many women on this forum go to church? Those who do, how many cover your heads in church? I bet ZERO. Guess what, according to the bible you should be stoned to death. Anyone ever practice birth control? Guess what, you're going to hell. And my favorite subject, greedy CEO's. Greed, one of the seven deadly sins, according to the bible, these people are going to hell. But many of you have defended greedy CEO's to the death. Why? I have absolutely no idea because, according to your bible, the one you take so literally, IT'S A SIN.

Do homosexuals deserve rights? Yes. Do they have too many now? Absolutely not. There is no equal treatment of gays. If gays are teachers in NY state they can be fired. Tenured or not. And no, they don't have to do anything overtly gay, they just have to be found out. If the school board wants them out, they are out.

And what about those Boy Scouts? Are all men really created equal? I think not. If the Boy Scouts decided that they didn't want any blacks would the Supreme Court have ruled the same way? Of course not. The screams, again, would be heard around the world. Yet the Supreme Court said that the Boy Scouts are a private group and can exclude anyone they want to exclude.

Of course those that argue homosexuality is a choice will say that being black is not a choice. So what? Why not ban blacks from the Boy Scouts? The Supreme Court did not rule on matters of choice, they ruled on the right of a private organization to exclude.

Keep in mind, that 40 years ago, blacks were banned, held back, etc... just because they were black. And many white people thought this was right. Now we are "enlightened" (compared to 40 years ago). But when it comes to gays "oh no, we don't want any of them around here".

Remember the brown eyed/blue eyed experiment a teacher did back in the 60's? Perhaps some haven't heard of it.

A teacher decided to divide the class basically in half - brown eyed kids and blue eyed kids. For the first week the brown eyed kids were wonderful, they could do no wrong. She helped them, she told them how great they were. Meanwhile she told the blue eyed kids how stupid they were, how they were no good, how no one liked them.

Shortly the brown eyed kids got very dominant and agressive. They pushed the blue-eyed kids around. Beat them up on the playground. The blue-eyed kids cried and hated school their grades dropped. The following week it was time for the brown-eyed kids to be the dregs of society. Same thing happened in reverse. Blue-eyed kids soared, brown-eyed kids felt like garbage.

Just like they didn't have an eye-color choice, there is no gay/straight choice. You are or you aren't.

Tell me how many of those brown-eyed kids, the week when they are the special ones, would have CHOSEN to be blue-eyed and be ridiculed?

Let's get our heads out of the bible and stop taking every word literally and start treating people like people. I am really surprised at what some of you wrote in this thread.

God will decide who has been bad or good. And, according to the bible, God did say, "let he who be without sin cast the first stone".

I doubt there are any future Mother Theresa's on this forum, but many of you are throwing boulders with your judgemental attitudes.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767932 - 04/21/02 04:53 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
YOU GO, DERICK! \:\) Can't think of anything to add to that. One of my best friends is a lesbian. She didn't pick that any more than she picked her height, or the color of her eyes.

On another note, did any of you catch the AP article in the newspaper about the high school in Georgia that is FINALLY having a single prom for both it's black and white students? And I thought Idaho was backwards. Jodi

Top
#767933 - 04/21/02 07:06 PM Re: A Decision
Steve Miller Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 3290
Loc: Yorba Linda, CA
YES![/b]

David, in one post you have managed to hit nearly every topic that divides people today, and did so in a way that that practically cries out for further discussion!

Long live this thread! On the other hand, some of these topics surely deserve their own thread - the length of the responses so far are surely proof of that and they are bound to get longer. I propose chopping these discussions in to individual threads to make it easier to consider them.

When my mind stops reeling from some of what has been said here, I will break out a couple of them myself. AND, you can be sure my kids will be reading it - they need to hear this stuff. Indeed, I would hope that all will feel compelled to contribute to the discussion, by the nature of the diviseness of the topics at and, and the need for a full public airing of opinion on a regular basis.

Bravo!
_________________________
Defender of the Landfill Piano

Top
#767934 - 04/21/02 09:04 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Hi Jodi,

No, I didn't catch that AP story.

I sure hope they don't jump into such a liberal idea too quickly. I mean they are going to rope off the gymnasium to keep them separate right?

This world sure is going to the dogs. I imagine next they'll be letting them drink out of the same water fountain...

Damn liberals.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767935 - 04/21/02 10:12 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
hurrah for derick. both my husband's and my family have had homosexuals in every generation on our mothers' sides (the men in my family, the women in his). there is no question in our minds that this is a genetic trait. because we have multiple generations, every straight person in our families has had a gay brother or sister, aunt or uncle, or cousin. to us it seems pretty normal. uncle joe always brings his "friend" harry to thanksgiving. aunt sue and her "friend" jean, who happen to live together, are always home for christmas. my mother's best friend is a lesbian. i've had tons of lesbian friends.

the only thing that isn't normal to us is the horrendously unjust way this society treats gay people.

what is really sad is our families have many times been the only holiday haven available for numerous gay men and women who have been excommunicated from their own families for the heinous crime of just being who they are.

believe me, these poor people would make themselves straight in a heartbeat, if only it were possible... they wish desperately that they could be like everybody else.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767936 - 04/21/02 11:08 PM Re: A Decision
Steve Miller Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 3290
Loc: Yorba Linda, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:

I do not believe in any process legal or not that promotes or legitimizes homosexuality. It is morally wrong. [/b]
On what do you base this statement?
_________________________
Defender of the Landfill Piano

Top
#767937 - 04/22/02 11:35 AM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
I agree with Ib that homosexuality is inherently morally wrong. I base that on the Judeo-Christian roots of the founding of this country, and the accepted norms of societal behaviour within that group. I also agree that government should take no steps to promote or recognize the practice.

On the other hand, there should be no government persecution or "singling-out, of homosexuals.

A lot of what this discussion boils down to is whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition. I think it can be both. There are some people who would be gay, no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to when young. There are also other people, however, who are on the fence, and can fall on either side, depending upon acceptance. Therefore, I think it is still within the best interests of Society to withold that complete acceptance.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767938 - 04/22/02 12:58 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
"A lot of what this discussion boils down to is whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition. I think it can be both. There are some people who would be gay, no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to when young. There are also other people, however, who are on the fence, and can fall on either side, depending upon acceptance."

I actually agree with this, Jolly. I know people in both categories. What I don't understand, is how you can call someone "morally wrong", who has obviously been born to be nothing else. I am guessing this comes from a religious upbringing, and honestly, this type of thinking is part of the reason I am NOT religious. What, exactly, is morally wrong about loving another person, and wanting to be with him or her for the rest of your life? I can understand peoples "distaste" and certain activities associated with being homosexual. But I am sure that there are things that some heterosexual couples do that you or I might find distasteful as well. Jodi

Top
#767939 - 04/22/02 02:05 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
jodi,

Yes, in my case religion and personal belief systems do color my perception of the World. but then, I think that is true for everyone.

As an 18 year old, back when I had all the answers, I would have said that Biblically it was wrong and probably deserved stoning. The problem with getting older, and seeing things in my profession that would make your head spin, tends to temper extremism, somewhat. Also, the juxtaposition of Faith, Justice and the concepts of Sin.

Is being a practicing homosexual a sin? Biblically, there is no doubt, yes it is. And with the coming of The White Throne Judgement, that sin will be judged, along with many others. Where does it rank on the scale? Above gluttony? Below blasphemy? I have no clue, and I suspect no one else does either. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Are some people born homosexual? I don't have a definitive medical study I can quote for you. Independent, and non-biased studies have been contradictory. My gut feeling is that it is probable. Therefore, one must abstain from the practice of homosexuality, in order to remain free from the sin.

I think what bothers me the most is the promulagation of the thought that homosexuality is normal behavior. To me, what is inherently "wrong", cannot be normalized. That gay couples should have the same benefits as married heterosexual couple, seems to legitimize the behavior. Also, as I stated before, I think some people could be either homosexual or heterosexual, and the normalization of the behavior by society at large and by the government, only legitimizes and encourages a lifestyle that otherwise would not be followed.

To address the point about two people living together: if a homosexual couple wants to live together and maintain a monogamous relationship, that is their business. What happens between two consenting adults, in the privacy of one's home, is none of my business. The problem comes when the gay couple wants all of the rights and privledges of the heterosexual couple, under law. A monogamous heterosexual couple has been decided upon by our society to be the most stable family unit and one that should be encouraged. The society shall ultimately determine what other alliances between people will constitute families, and which ones will be encouraged, tolerated or discouraged. As has been stated in another thread, the next civil war in this country will not be about slavery and state's rights, but about the personal rights of the individual.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767940 - 04/22/02 02:07 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Jolly,

The accepted norms of societal behavior within a group is hardly a model on which to base ones beliefs. In an earlier post you mentioned several accepted societal behaviors that you dislike:

 Quote:
First, the pill. The coming of a reliable, cheap method of birth control gave women complete control of the sexual process and the procreation of the species. For the first time, families could reliably control timing and spacing of children. This in turn led to more women in the workforce and the advent of the two-paycheck family. Americans, being the spoiled brats we are, wanted bigger homes with two car garages and nice cars to fill those spaces. We wanted every latest bauble.
You dislike these societal norms, but embrace societal norms when it comes to homosexuality? You are not being consistent.

You also make the following statement:

 Quote:
A lot of what this discussion boils down to is whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition. I think it can be both. There are some people who would be gay, no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to when young.
Can you tell me how either a lifestyle 'choice' or a medical condition applies to someone who would be gay no matter what upbringing or influences they were exposed to? If someone will be gay no matter what, then where's the choice? Where's the medical condition?

Your last statement:

 Quote:
There are also other people, however, who are on the fence, and can fall on either side, depending upon acceptance. Therefore, I think it is still within the best interests of Society to withold that complete acceptance.
Do you really believe this? People will do whatever they are most inclined to do no matter what pressure society puts on them. We are SO far off from 'complete acceptance' it isn't funny. But even if one could wave a magic wand and suddenly society blesses homosexuality, how many of those 'on the fence' would fall into the 'gay' yard who would have otherwise fallen into the 'straight' yard? Not many. And, by the way, if they didn't like the yard they fell into, what's to stop them from climbing the fence to live on the other side?

When it is within one's ability to make a choice, then acceptance will lead to more people making that choice. But when it is not a choice, as 99.9% of psychologists will tell you, acceptance is not going to lead more people into becoming 'one'.

I don't care how socially acceptable it is to like brussel sprouts, be attracted to men, or help my wife pick out wallpaper. I'm not doing any of those things. But if you like all three, let me give you my phone number so you can help my wife with the wallpaper. ;\)

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767941 - 04/22/02 03:42 PM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Steve

You asked what I base my feelings about homosexuality.

Before I could answer jolly did a better job of saying what I feel than I could.

For the record though, Liviticus 18.22 & 20.13 gives the bibles version of it.

Derick

Corinthians 11.2,10 explains about the covering of the head in church. My version of the bible says nothing about stoning to death. I may have missed it, could you refer me to the Chapter and Verse that says this.

I said in my first post that every human has the propensity to commit an immoral act. This includes murder, adultery, homophobia, etc. Our God given free will lets us chose whether we commit these acts. Having the propensity for homophobia is not a choice, but committing the act is.

It is a choice, everything in life is a choice.

lb

Top
#767942 - 04/22/02 05:05 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Dear Derick,

1. I am not attracted to men.

2. I do like Brussel sprouts.

3. What does your wife look like? ;\)

You are confusing two arguments. In one, an observation is made about children and the effect upon them by not having a parent, specifically a mother, at home raising the child. In the other, we are talking about societal acceptance of homosexuality and the role this has in inducing behavior that is otherwise considered taboo.

You ask about whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or a medical condition? Wish I had a definitive answer for you, I don't. It might be both, or either. The independent study to answer all questions once and forever has not been done. There are multiple theories about upbringing, chromosomal abnormalities, brain developmental experiments, MRI studies, gender ID crisis - I could name more. The bottom line, is that with my belief system the practice of homosexuality is wrong and constitutes a sin. Period.

This does not mean that homosexuals are to be publicly shunned, although I do denounce that aspect of their behavior. Hate the sin, not the sinner. The argument I was making is that the practice should not be glorified nor invested with acceptance by the government.

Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767943 - 04/22/02 05:25 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?[/b]
damn straight.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767944 - 04/22/02 05:53 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:

Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?[/b]
Yes.

Although pique's "damned straight[/b]" is a much wittier answer than mine!

As justification, I would give you the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, which is what governs this nation, not 2 or 3 verses from one religion's sacred books. (To mix two threads in one!)

Top
#767945 - 04/22/02 06:07 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Jolly,

You said:

 Quote:
Am I to take it that you believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, adoption, child-rearing, property division, and other familial legal actions?
In response...

Marriage:
Yes, from a legal standpoint. Churches are under no obligation to recognize such a marriage.

Adoption:
Perhaps. I think the most stable environment for a child is one with a mother and father; not one with two mothers or two fathers. However, just because a couple is heterosexual does not mean they will be better parent's or create a more stable environment than will two gay parents. Is a child better off with two, very loving, happy, gay parents who get along, or with a straight couple that don't like each other and fight like cats and dogs?

Property division, and other familial legal actions:

Absolutely. Look if two people make a life together, buy a house, furniture, food, etc... what right does the family have to step in between this. In the case of the death of one partner, should not the property be passed on to the other partner? How would you feel if, God forbid, your wife died and her family wanted half of your house?

I'll email you my phone number. There's another marathon wall-paper search and seek mission next Saturday. I'll stay home and make the brussel sprouts. ;\)

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767946 - 04/22/02 06:10 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Then Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to politically oppose you.

Stack your duds, and grease your skids, cuz politics ain't beanbag! ;\)
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767947 - 04/22/02 06:10 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
pique, George, others - man you guys are fast. Usually I write a 1000 word essay, trim it down and post the least feeble of my ramblings.

Just letting you know I'm not ignoring your posts, I didn't see them until I made mine.

Oh yeah, one more thing, WAY TO GO!

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767948 - 04/22/02 06:21 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:
Steve

You asked what I base my feelings about homosexuality.

Before I could answer jolly did a better job of saying what I feel than I could.

For the record though, Liviticus 18.22 & 20.13 gives the bibles version of it.

Derick

Corinthians 11.2,10 explains about the covering of the head in church. My version of the bible says nothing about stoning to death. I may have missed it, could you refer me to the Chapter and Verse that says this.
[/b]
The problem with taking a verse from the Bible and simply applying it as a moral standard today as it is written, is that one ends up with ludicrous thinking, like the following. This is obviously social satire, but like any satire, it shows the inherent ridiculousness of taking, say,Leviticus 18.22 & 20.13 as word for word from the mouth of God, Him/Herself!

This has been around the Net a while, so if you have seen it before, feel free to go right past it.
----------------
Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Top
#767949 - 04/22/02 06:22 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Derick,

Just a little Tony's and some lemon juice on the sprouts.

As for the wallpaper - women physiologically have much better color vision than males. Have your wife pick out a major feature in her room she wants to coordinate; a sofa, or drapes, perhaps. Most decorator or P/P shops will let you check out two or three wallpaper books from the shop. Match a dominant color in the paper to the furniture or desired home item. Or use a coordinating color to complement the sofa, etc. And don't worry so much about taste, it will be out of style long before it wears out!

Just remember the creed of Jolly's Decorating Emporium:

Answers: 10 cents.

Right Answers: 10 dollars.

Dumb looks: free.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767950 - 04/22/02 06:51 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
lb,

I linked historical records of the time with sections of the bible to conclude that women who pray without covering their heads should be stoned.

1 Corinthians 11

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved.

In those days, women with shaved heads were adulters and were stoned to death. So from "it is just as though her head were shaved", I conclude that such a women be stoned.

But if I'm making too big a leap, there are a few other quotes from the bible that don't require any 'leaping'.

Here's a few every man should remind his wife of:

Corinthians 11:3-AV But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Corinthians 14:34-AV Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Ephesians 5:22-AV Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Timothy 2:11-AV Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

The following refers to rape victim and the rapist:

[Deuteronomy 22:23-24] If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The bible also forbids, jewelry, make-up, high-heels, tatoos, the list goes on and on.

The Muslim extremists would be considered tame by comparison if Christians followed the bible to the letter. Maybe they are right, we are infidels and should be sent to our death. After all, we pick and choose what we want to follow.

If homosexuality is even remotely suggested, a good Christians' eyes will pop wide open taking in every word. And Jerry Falwell with his Rolex and that blonde/purple/pink woman with tons of make-up (with the Boesendorfer, art-case piano in the background) can tell us how much of a sin it is.

I think they should pay a little more attention to their own sins before condemning someone else.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767951 - 04/23/02 12:44 AM Re: A Decision
Steve Miller Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 3290
Loc: Yorba Linda, CA
 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:
Steve

You asked what I base my feelings about homosexuality.

For the record though, Liviticus 18.22 & 20.13 gives the bibles version of it.

[/b]
I kinda figured that is where it came from.

Two verses in Leviticus, offered as ample reason - or perhaps a mandate - to condemn a huge group of people to a life of scorn and shame for something with which they had little or nothing to do. Two verses from the same Old Testament as so many other admonitions that are used as weapons to divide. The same Old Testament that is filled with other admonitions that are freely ignored.

Those of you who have heard me play piano know that I play mostly hymns. These are Baptist hymns, folks - the religion of my youth. The religion that no longer has any place for me, if indeed it ever did. The selective use of passages from the Old Testament which have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ - and indeed run contrary to it - drove me away.

Breaking your neighbor's furniture does not make your furniture look any better. Using sacred text as justification for breaking it makes your own furniture look worse in the process.

WWJD?
_________________________
Defender of the Landfill Piano

Top
#767952 - 04/23/02 06:42 AM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Steve

You kind of cut and snipped my post. That is like selecting passages from the bible.

I said that this is the Bibles version of it. I also said that Jolly expressed my feelings better than I could.

I expressed my opinion, you have the right to express yours. I did not in any way attack anyone for there opinion,thats kind of like breaking your neighbors furniture aint it. I also do not condemn anyone for their lifestyle, that is not for me to do.

I do not believe in glamorizing and legitimizing a sexual practice that has been abhored by every society and religion since the begining of time.

lb

Top
#767953 - 04/23/02 07:05 AM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Derick

I'm glad to see that this was your interpretation and it really wasn't what was actually said in the bible.

You said "I think they should pay a little more attention to their own sins before condemning someone else."

I have not condemned anyone. I stated my opinion on legitimizing homosexuality. You have the right to express yours as well. I have not attacked anyone for their opinion, I do not see why you have to attack other opinions to give yours credibility. As Steve said in his post, “ break your neighbors furniture to make yours look better”

I did not cloud this thread with feminism either. This thread is long enough, if you want to discuss feminism, you should start another thread

lb

Top
#767954 - 04/23/02 08:29 AM Re: A Decision
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
You have posted some very funny stuff here George. I really have to hand it to you. Of course, these folks bring it on themselves when the use the Old Testament and Leviticus in particular to make their point. Much that is contained therein can only accurately be described as archaic. That being said, I can say that, for my part, I find homosexuality to be repulsive but that, in and of itself, is not enough to justify proscribing their lifestyle. There may be any number of things about my neighbor's life style that I may find repulsive (and they, mine) but as long as they do not cause harm (defined very narrowly) to society in general I am bound by the rules of civil society to tolerate their behavior.

George mentions equal protection and I have to agree that gay people should enjoy the same benefits under the 14th Amendment as all other Americans. However, it seems to me that some of the more activist members of the gay community are asking for a kind of "enhanced" protection. In other words, they seem to believe that they should be protected from all sorts of criticism or that people whose beliefs do not countenance homosexuality should, in some way, be legally censured. There are no other groups or individuals who enjoy such protection and it should not be extended to any particular group or individual. Certainly, if harm should come to them from others they should receive the same legal protections as anyone. However, there are people whose only "crime" is an outspoken belief that homosexuality is wrong and they should be entitled to their beliefs. Just as members of the gay community are entitled to their outspoken belief that such people are backward and wrong.

There has been much made of the murder of Matthew Shepard as far as a justification for hate crimes legislation. However, the two individuals who murdered Matthew Shepard were not some sort religious fanatics but lowlife scum. They have no more to do with religion than Charles Manson. What they did was murder and there are already laws against that. It seems that, in general, anything that is covered by hate crimes legislation that is not already outside the law amounts to legislating people's beliefs and that should not be tolerated in civil society.

Does equal protection extend to the realm of civil unions? It might. I can see there being a case to be made for the fact that people entering freely into a relationship are not accorded the same types of legal and financial benefits of ordinary married couples. I see no harm done to society in general in allowing gay people to enter into the same sorts of civil contracts as married people and enjoying the same benefits vs-a-vis the state. It is not as if some religious imprimatur is being affixed although, if it is allowed within the beliefs of a particular religion, there is no reason why that would be impossible.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#767955 - 04/23/02 08:58 AM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by lb:

I do not believe in glamorizing and legitimizing a sexual practice that has been abhored by every society and religion since the begining of time.

lb[/b]
This, of course, is the crux of the problem. When people think "gay" they think "sex activites" and that alone. The problem with this is that being gay is far more than what one does with one's body with another human being.

For a heterosexual man/woman, they find completeness as human beings with a member of the opposite gender. They find another human being with whom they can be soulmates, with whom they can speak their innermost thoughts and fears and doubts, they find a human being who they wish to share their life with, make plans with, grow old with. They are able to develop an intimate partnership -- mentally, emotionally, psychologically and physically -- with a member of the opposite gender that they cannot find with a member of their own. In short, the heterosexual man is made whole by his love for a woman and the heterosexual woman is made whole by her love for a man. This is what it means for a man and woman to be in love and we all know this.

When one sees a man and woman together in a life partnership no one thinks immediately of what they do in bed, or how they express their intimacy physically. No, they consider how the two of them struggle through life together, how they laugh together, cry together fight together and can be so intimately hurt by each other because they know each other so well. How they raise children together, share each other's interests. In short, how they love each other in a complete way. A straight man or woman cannot not find such fulfillment for who they are or for their humanness with a member of their own gender.

And yet, when a man is gay or a woman lesbian, the focus is soley on the sexual activites of these people. Dismissive comments such as we ave already seen on this thread are made "I don't care what they do in bed within the privacy of their own home" as if this is the totality of their partnership. But sexual expression is not the point.

The point is that gay men and lesbians cannot find fulfillment as human beings with a member of the opposite gender any more than a straight person could find it with a member of the same gender. The point is not about who arouses gay men and lesbians sexually. The point is who they need to have to complete their lives. Who are they drawn to to express their love -- in all of its forms, of which sex is simply an expression, not a basis.

Gay men and lesbians have long argued that their search for fulfillment of themselves with a life partner is the same as the straight person's search and their satisfaction when they find that one person is the same as a straight person's. And this is true.

When love is talked about between a husband and wife, it is not defined as sex. When love is talked about between two male life partners it is only defined as sex.

This is all gays and lesbians are really arguing for....recognition that they too have a right to be happy and to be accepted and to be condoned in their fulfillment with another human being in the same way that straight people are happy, accepted and condoned in their fulfillment with another human being.

Can any of us really condemn anyone for wanting to love and be loved? For wanting to be fulfilled as a human being and for fulfilling someone else as a human being? For seeking a partner and for seeking completeness in life? Or for being someone else's partner and giving that person completeness?

When we define a human being's drive to love and be loved simply in terms of a certain physical expression of that love, we deny the very humanity of that person. To deny their humanity is to deny the glory of the God who created them -- whether or not He/She created them gay, straight or otherwise -- the God who loves each of us so fully, so completely, so intimately because we are each His/Her creation.

Top
#767956 - 04/23/02 09:29 AM Re: A Decision
DT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 1478
Loc: Illinois
Okay, I'm old and don't keep up on the language as much as I used to. I remember when gay meant light-hearted, happy, etc. Then, it was morphed into meaning homosexual, in a nice way, as opposed to queer, which morphed earlier to mean homosexual in a derogatory way. Now, I find out that it's morphed again to mean a male[/b] homosexual. All these constantly changing euphemisms are too much for a sane person to worry about. Plus, any labels are divisive.[/b]

DT-a straight, white, married, Euroamerican male Christian
(the most detested segment of society)
_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Top
#767957 - 04/23/02 11:55 AM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
lb,

I rambled in my post and went from addressing you to talking about Jerry Falwell. So it was not my intention to imply that you were condemning anyone, rather Jerry Falwell, and others like him, are the ones that condemn.

The quotations I extracted from the bible were not meant to open up the feminism issue, they were merely meant to point out how utterly ridiculous many of the things said in the bible are.

I have a tattoo, I trim my beard, I get a haircut, I wear a gold chain (with a religious medal on it) a watch and a wedding ring. All of those things are forbidden in the bible. Yet people who quote the bible regarding homosexuality conveniently skip over those things that they do that are forbidden in the bible; shaving, wearing jewelry, getting a haircut, etc...

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767958 - 04/23/02 12:13 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
George - That was beautiful. Thank you. Jodi

Top
#767959 - 04/23/02 12:22 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
However, it seems to me that some of the more activist members of the gay community are asking for a kind of "enhanced" protection. In other words, they seem to believe that they should be protected from all sorts of criticism or that people whose beliefs do not countenance homosexuality should, in some way, be legally censured. There are no other groups or individuals who enjoy such protection and it should not be extended to any particular group or individual. Certainly, if harm should come to them from others they should receive the same legal protections as anyone. However, there are people whose only "crime" is an outspoken belief that homosexuality is wrong and they should be entitled to their beliefs. Just as members of the gay community are entitled to their outspoken belief that such people are backward and wrong. [/b]
I agree with you completely on this. No, gays should not have special rights and yes, they should have the same rights.

Most legislation that is proposed that is considered "pro-gay" is very simple. It simply says that one cannot be discrimated against because of sexual orientation. This type of legislation is then attacked as giving gays special rights. However....

Gays throughout this society are routinely fired frorm jobs simply because they are gay. Should we be surprised then that gays ask for legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else.

Gays throughout this society are denied the ability to rent or buy homes or are evicted from their homes simply because they are gay. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays who are in lifetime partnerships are often told they are not a "relative" of someone seriously ill or dying in a hospital and they are not allowed to visit or be with the one they have given their life to in a time of crisis. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays too often find that upon the death of their life partner, they have no immediate right to inheritance or to determine what happens to that person's estate or how that person is to be memorialized and interred. Should we be surprised then that they seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

Gays who have children love them as dearly as any straight parent. They need them in their lives as much as straight parents. And their children need the love and guidance of their gay parents as much as chidlren need the love and guidance of their straight parents. And yet, too often we read of a gay parent being denied custody or visitiation or any of the other rights a parent would have simply because they are gay. How wrenching to both the parent and the children this is! Should we be surprised then that gays seek legislation to keep this from happening and to ensure they are treated like everyone else?

The Federal government and state governments have many statutes which treat heterosexual life partners in specific ways -- and often extend these benefits to common law marriages. Gays are simply saying that their life partnerships are as legally valid as any other life partnership and they seek to have them treated as such.

This is the type of thing that is happening all over the place in this society and gays are simply seeking to have legislation passed to ensure they are treated like all others in the same situation. The majority of gays and lesbians are not asking for special treatment, they are asking for equal treatment.

The actions of the society is the cause for gays seeking to be specifically identified in anti-discrimination legislation. If they were routinely given equal treatment in such areas as I have outlined above, there would be no need for such legislation.

When the Supreme Court of Vermont declared the states marriage laws as unconstitutional under the State's equal protection clauses, gays did not demand a change in the definition of marriage in Vermont. They were well satisfied with establishing a separate designation of civil unions for those outside of a state-defined marriage.

I do not believe the definition of marriage need be changed. But I believe all committed partnerships should be treated the same legally.

No, there should be no special treatment of gays. But if we need legislation to keep discrimination from occuring, then we need legislation.

I disagree with much of the radical gay agenda. I do not believe elementary students need be taught that a gay life partnership is"normal" since it clearly is outside of the norm. But I see no problem in children being taught that two people who love each other, are committed to each other and who bind their lives together are to be respected for the commitment they have made.

I do not believe there should be special gay oriented educational materials forced upon all children any more than there should be special religious or poltiical oriented materials forced upoin children. But I do believe such information should be made available -- be it on sexual orientation, religious viewpoints, political viewpoints or whatever -- to those children seeking it when it is age appropriate.

I do not believe that government run high schools should be required to have "gay" clubs. But I do believe that if they are going to have clubs based on common interests of the members, and if gay teenagers want to band together in such a club and meet the requirements of all other clubs, they should be allowed.

I do not believe that government run high schools should be required to have dances and proms and similar social events. But I do believe that if they are held and the kids can bring dates of their own choice, they should be allowed to bring the date of their choice -- be that person the same gender or a different gender

As far as hate crimes are concerned, I agree with you except.....

We have court decisions that allow for more severe penalties when there are "special circumstances." Indeed, for the death penalty to be applied, special circumstances must be shown. Crimes stemming from hate are an affront and an attack on the very freedom we hold dear in this country. They are an attack on our most basic values of equality. Because they attack the core of our political values, I have no trouble adding "hate as a motivation" as a special circumstance to allow for a more severe punishment. But I do not single out hate crimes against gays for this. I single out simply hate -- against anyone or any lifestyle or any belief system as a special circumstance.

There are radical gays who seek more than this and I disagree with them. I do not think they have any special rights. In the same way I do not think ethnic groups should have any special rights nor do I believe any group bound by common beliefs should have any special rights.

Perhap, one of these days, we as a society will actually begin to see people as people and will treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve simply as human beings and will no longer need laws to ensure equal treatment of all under the law. Unfortunately, we are not there yet. And so, as a freedom loving people, we need laws to enforce our most basic political values against those who would deny these political values.

Top
#767960 - 04/23/02 12:27 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
yes, george, that was very beautiful. thank you for putting it so well.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767961 - 04/23/02 12:37 PM Re: A Decision
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
George,

I can't really take issue with anything you have said here. We may disagree as to degree but on substance we are probably closer than either of us would have expected. I am opposed to enacting laws creating a new class or protected group as I believe existing law should apply to all with regard to discrimination or other such abuses. However, it is possible that there are some areas that are not adequately covered by existing law and I would not be opposed to addressing any such narrowly defined areas with legislation.

As far as hate crimes, if you are suggesting that hate as a motivation be introduced as an aggravating factor in sentencing, I am not opposed to that. I am frightened by proposed legislation that seems aimed at making the expression of an offensive point of view by itself a crime or used to magnify an otherwise mudane offense into a capital crime. I can see where abuses could result.
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#767962 - 04/23/02 12:47 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
George,

As far as hate crimes, if you are suggesting that hate as a motivation be introduced as an aggravating factor in sentencing, I am not opposed to that. I am frightened by proposed legislation that seems aimed at making the expression of an offensive point of view by itself a crime or used to magnify an otherwise mudane offense into a capital crime. I can see where abuses could result.[/b]
Agreed. Completely and totally.

And, JBryan, this scares me that we are agreeing so much! What is wrong with me? I must be slipping! LOL!!!

Top
#767963 - 04/23/02 02:32 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Sorry, I am opposed to what is called "hate" crimes.

For instance, is murder a crime or not? In my state we execute people for murder. Shall we kill them twice just because the perpetrator commited a crime against a certain select group of people? A crime is a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted no matter what or who the victim is.

Do you want justice, or does the mob just want an extra pound of flesh?

On another note - Do any of you actually hire and fire people? Or is this just so much hot air and posturing? You CAN'T fire someone just because he is gay. You can be compelled by law to furnish proof of why you would not hire a qualified gay job applicant. Just because someone is homosexual, does not mean that all discrimination laws do not apply to them. They have rights - the same rights as any other American.

Do you propose creating another "special" group of Americans to satisfy a vocal minority of the population? Do the words Balkanization mean anything to anybody?
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767964 - 04/23/02 03:14 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Oh yes you can fire someone just for being gay.

Choose a career in the military and you are found out, goodbye. Any NYS employee can be fired JUST because they are gay.

I own a condo that I rent out. If I wanted to, I absolutely could refuse to rent to someone because they were gay.

FYI... I just did a quick search on NYS, gay and discrimination and came across this:

"Currently, it is perfectly legal in New York State to be fired from your job, evicted from your apartment, refused service in a restaurant, or denied a home loan simply because you are gay or perceived to be gay. The Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act would remedy this by amending the already-existing state human rights laws to include sexual orientation. The law already protects against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and marital status for employment, housing, public accomodations, education, and credit."

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767965 - 04/23/02 03:22 PM Re: A Decision
Eldon Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 597
Loc: Illinois
George,
I just have to say that you said it way better than I could have. Truly excellent! \:D

Jolly,
People ARE fired because they are in fact gay....including many teachers.
_________________________
Sincerely,
Eldon

Top
#767966 - 04/23/02 03:31 PM Re: A Decision
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
 Quote:
And, JBryan, this scares me that we are agreeing so much! What is wrong with me? I must be slipping! LOL!!! [/b]
I know. Frightening isn't it. \:D
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#767967 - 04/23/02 04:38 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
i must say that i find it very gratifying that we are (with a couple of exceptions) finding unusual common ground on this topic. this is an issue that means a great deal to me personally and it might actually be just too hard for me to hang out with a bunch of known gay-bashers, so i am glad it turns out that most of us are pretty tolerant folks.

thanks for the dr. laura excerpt. i'd seen it before, but it fit perfectly here, and i'm glad someone sought to address the ludicrous "word of the bible" thing with some humor. i had to stop myself from writing something i might regret and i'm glad others stepped in with a lighter tone. ;\)
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767968 - 04/23/02 06:12 PM Re: A Decision
Bernard Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/06/01
Posts: 3857
Loc: North Groton, NH
George and Derrik, et. al. you've all said everything so well, and I second pique's sentiment of thanks that you did so with humor and a level head. I wanted to respond last evening but knew myself well enough to wait at least a day.

From lb:
 Quote:
It is a choice, everything in life is a choice.
 Quote:
I do not believe in glamorizing and legitimizing a sexual practice that has been abhored by every society and religion since the begining of time.
Am I correct in presuming the next time you have hiccups you'll realize the sillyness of it and choose to stop immediately. And, then I suggest you ask a person suffering with OCD how much choice he/she has over their behavior, or someone with turrets syndrone. There are lot's of things in life that are not choices.

Actually, some Native Americans (I wouldn't be surprised if there were others) considered homosexuality to be a gift from god.
_________________________
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown

Top
#767969 - 04/23/02 10:50 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Uh, Larry....
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767970 - 04/23/02 11:01 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
My original question stands. Who hires and fires?

I've got 32 folks I make the schedule and sign the payroll for. I have one that spends his leisure time as a drag queen. What he does on his time is his business. However, if his lifestyle or sexual preference, impinges on his ability to do his job, yes, he will be canned. For performance issues and no others.

I wish I had U.S. and State Labor Law in front of me right now to quote from, but I'll bet my next paycheck that if I did have to fire this person, it could not be on the grounds of sexual preference.

Yes, the military is different. Anything, and I mean anything that adversely effects unit cohesion, and the ability to kill the enemy cannot be tolerated. But that, folks is another thread.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767971 - 04/23/02 11:20 PM Re: A Decision
jodi Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 6959
Loc: The Evergreen State (WA)
Yes, where the heck IS Larry, anyway? I miss his colorful commentary. ;\) Jodi

Top
#767972 - 04/24/02 01:14 AM Re: A Decision
T2 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 341
Out here in California we get a bad rap when people say that we are so tolerant. Not true. We simply re-direct all our intolerance into anti-smoking sentiment.

Top
#767973 - 04/24/02 10:57 AM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Jolly,

I am not involved in the hiring or firing of anyone. Nevertheless, as I said before, it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in many states/areas of the US. Your state being one of them. In fact, your state had such a prohibition in effect until 1996 when it expired and was not renewed. New Orleans, however, is much more tolerant than the rest of the state.

The states where you cannot use someone's sexual orientation as grounds for firing are:

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

There are also individual counties within states that will not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. Albany county, in NY, has implemented this policy.

Now I'm going to stop searching on 'gay' and 'state' before people start looking at me funny. But I am looking forward to your next paycheck! ;\)

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767974 - 04/24/02 11:47 AM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Jolly:
My original question stands. Who hires and fires?

I've got 32 folks I make the schedule and sign the payroll for. I have one that spends his leisure time as a drag queen. [/b]
If this is all you know about his private erotic life, then you probably cannot fire him for being gay because he is probably straight. Most cross dressers are. As are most pedophiles, most pornographers and pornographic actors/actresses, and most practitioners of beastiality and sado-masochism.

This fact is finally being recognized. The straight agenda is finally being seen for what it is -- a perniciously subtle but thorough campaign to lead our children into sexual depravity.

Don't let all those nice pictures in text books, shows on TV, movies and all the other ways the straights inundate our children fool you. These images and fantasies are just the hook they use to fool our children, just the smoke screen for the real straight agenda, which is to lead our children into all sorts of sexual perversion. They are leading our children directly into the arms of Satan himself so they will burn for all eternity in everlasting fire!

Can one even doubt that the current droughts in this country, the earthquakes (now even in the northeast!), the current war and the way America is being treated around the world are only the warning signs that God's righteous anger is overflowing upon America for allowing the straight agenda to so permeate our society. Can any true believer not see that He has decided to smite this country for allowing such peversions brought on by the straight perpetrators of evil!

Isn't it time America rejects the perversions and sin of the straight agenda and go back to the roots of western thought and morality -- the ancient Greeks who recognized that male/male love was the purest and highest form of love and that heterosexual sex (certainly one can't call it love!) is simply needed to create children?!

America! Turn away from sin! See the straight agenda for what it is! Turn back to God! Oust these evil straights and send them back into the hell holes where they belong!

Top
#767975 - 04/24/02 12:15 PM Re: A Decision
Sam_dup1 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 01/12/02
Posts: 239
Loc: NYC
George,

Your last post stumped me. I am not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. BTW, good job everyone. Jolly, I do hire and fire people, and i know for sure that it is possible to fire ANYONE, for WHATEVER reason. There many ways it can be done.

Top
#767976 - 04/24/02 12:57 PM Re: A Decision
Anonymous
Unregistered


 Quote:
Originally posted by Sam:
George,

Your last post stumped me. I am not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.
[/b]
It does sound a bit ludicrous when all one does is replace the word "gay" with the word "straight," doesn't it Sam?

Top
#767977 - 04/24/02 01:05 PM Re: A Decision
DT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 1478
Loc: Illinois
Of course, but that does not prove anything other than the latter is ludicrous. The former will have to stand on its own merit. One could replace the word 'murder' with 'mercy' and end up with ludicrous statements about mercy that may be exactly correct about murder. (I'm only commenting about the logic/semantics of the argument. I am not making any statement about gay versus straight or equating gay with murder.)
_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Top
#767978 - 04/24/02 01:23 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
George wrote a brilliant, albeit ludicrous, stinging, commentary which is just as ludicrous when one replaces straight with gay.

If you'd like to hear the original, uncensored, version, go to church on Sunday, watch the 700 Club, or listen to conservative talk-show hosts on AM radio.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767979 - 04/24/02 02:24 PM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Derick

I read one of your earlier post to me, and I had to tell you this.

I have quite often been in the position to interview and select people to be hired. Guess what, I discriminate. I would venture to say that most people in this position do also.

Some of the things I don't like are:

Overweight, tattoo, beards, long hair(on a Guy),opinionated,

Any one of these, and you ain't going to get hired. Gay? Irrelevant, it makes no difference.

I recently interviewed about 20 people for two positions in a company. The two I hired, both gay. One man and one woman. Their sexual preference was never a factor.

It looks like I would choose a homosexual over a big mouth guy with a beard and tattoo's don't it.
;\) ;\) ;\)

lb
I forgot body piercing, except earrings on women.

Top
#767980 - 04/24/02 02:29 PM Re: A Decision
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
Would you hold my nose ring against me? Oh, and I prefer the comfort and freedom of wearing only sunglasses and cowboy boots to work. Would that be okay? \:D
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#767981 - 04/24/02 02:31 PM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Pique

Where is your unbiased journalism here. I haven't seen anyone here bashing homosexuals. If you want to start name calling I,m up to the task.

lb

Top
#767982 - 04/24/02 02:50 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
lb,

First of all, I'm not overweight and you'd have to roll up my sleeve almost to my shoulder to see my tattoo; I'm assuming you probably don't do that during job interviews. My beard is neatly trimmed as is my hair. My appearance has never been an issue with any company I have interviewed with. If anything, I am criticized for being "too appearance conscious".

I would never be opinionated on an interview, I wait until after I get hired to smack people around.

So 'recently' you hired two gay people, but their sexual preference wasn't a factor. If that is the case, then how do you know they are gay? Did they make an announcement?

Actually, I don't care. The point is you COULD have NOT hired them because they were gay. Just because you hired them, knowing it or not, doesn't mean that everyone would have.

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767983 - 04/24/02 02:53 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Ya'll realize that T2's last comment may have been the most insightful of all.

Short. Sweet. True.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767984 - 04/24/02 02:56 PM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
Jolly,

When can I expect that paycheck??? ;\)

Derick
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767985 - 04/24/02 03:29 PM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Derick

I was completely aware before they were hired, it just wasn't a factor.

After they are hired,if someone gains weight, gets a tattoo, grows a beard, or mouths off, there is always the layoff in slow times. \:D \:D

lb

Top
#767986 - 04/24/02 04:43 PM Re: A Decision
wghornsby Offline
Full Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 201
Loc: KY
 Quote:
Originally posted by jodi:
I am guessing this comes from a religious upbringing, and honestly, this type of thinking is part of the reason I am NOT religious.[/b]
Jodi---

I found a solution to this dilemma... become a Presbyterian!! \:\)
_________________________
wgh

Top
#767987 - 04/24/02 05:38 PM Re: A Decision
Jolly Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/20/01
Posts: 14051
Loc: Louisiana
Jolly has been driven to the lawbooks. Proof is coming.

Don't spend the money.
_________________________
www.coffee-room.com

Over 1,000,000 posts where pianists discuss everything. And nothing.

Top
#767988 - 04/24/02 09:39 PM Re: A Decision
the artist Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/05/02
Posts: 757
Loc: Tulsa, OK
the latest news:
Job Discrimination Bill

Top
#767989 - 04/24/02 10:26 PM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
 Quote:
Pique

Where is your unbiased journalism here. I haven't seen anyone here bashing homosexuals. If you want to start name calling I,m up to the task.

lb
jeez, can't a scribe ever get a day off around here? sheesh! ;\)

ib, did you miss the discussion about how there is no such thing as unbiased journalism?

how's this for an illustration:

 Quote:
I do not believe in any process legal or not that promotes or legitimizes homosexuality. It is morally wrong. No one is perfect, every human has some quirk in their nature that gives them the propensity to do something that is morally wrong. The free will that separates man from animals, allows them the choice to either suppress this quirk, or to succumb to it.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767990 - 04/25/02 05:46 AM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Bernard

I have never had the hiccups, so I can't answer that. If you have a different analogy to fit your opinion I would be glad to hear it. From what I understand though hiccups are caused from eating or drinking something the wrong way. Since the manner of your eating or drinking is a choice, and if you are afflicted with it, I would find out the proper way to avoid them and choose that method.

I have never heard of homophobia referred to as a gift from God before, and from the discussion here I don't think that anyone would consider it a gift.

You do make a good point though. I agree that homophobia, as well as OCD and Turrets Syndrome come from God. I stated this before in my first post. I know and have worked with several people afflicted with OCD. OCD manifests itself in many ways, some of them would be repulsive in public. One man I know has the urge to expose himself in public. This harms no one, right, everyone has seen it before. Wrong, this behavior is not acceptable to society, even if it is caused by an affliction. Although everyone I know is dealing with OCD, it is a tough everyday battle, but they are choosing to deal with it.

Homophobia is a terrible affliction, and has to be dealt with, but on a personal level not legislated.

lb

Top
#767991 - 04/25/02 06:21 AM Re: A Decision
lb Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 1731
Loc: Indiana
Pique

This has been the most civil thread on a controversial subject that I have ever seen. Except for your attitude everyone has addressed each other in a most courteous manner.

I have never discriminated against homosexuality in any manner in my life. I, as well as everyone else here, have expressed their opinions in a very reasonable manner. You are the first one here to degrade to the point of vicious labeling.

I would suggest some strong personal analysis in the least, professional at best.

With this said I would defer to Proverbs 20.3 and depart this thread.

lb

Top
#767992 - 04/25/02 09:23 AM Re: A Decision
DT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 1478
Loc: Illinois
Who ever came up with the term "homophobe"? As a prefix, homo- means same, so homophobia is an unreasonable fear of sameness? As a noun, homo means mankind or human being. Thus, I guess homophobia is an unreasonable fear of humans. There simply is no logic for this made-up word to mean what it does in "common" usage, i.e., a homophobe is not anyone who says or thinks anything that is not in complete agreement with the gay/lesbian community.

The English language is not evolving. Entropy increase.
_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Top
#767993 - 04/25/02 10:20 AM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
i think ib means homosexuality, not homophobia. homophobia is what some people feel towards homosexuals--fear. i find it ironic that ib mistakenly uses this word and calls it a terrible affliction when actually the word describes his own attitude towards homosexuality.

am i the only one baffled by ib's castigation of me? perhaps, ib, you aren't familiar with the term "gay bashing" as it is conventionally used by gay people. it's not "vicious labeling." it is a description of an attitude towards gay people, which you evidently share. homophobia is another description of the same thing.

i'm not familiar with Proverbs, so that is lost on me, too.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767994 - 04/25/02 10:27 AM Re: A Decision
the artist Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/05/02
Posts: 757
Loc: Tulsa, OK
 Quote:
Originally posted by pique:
i'm not familiar with Proverbs, so that is lost on me, too.[/b]
Proverbs 20:3 "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife; but every fool will be quarreling."

Top
#767995 - 04/25/02 10:36 AM Re: A Decision
Eldon Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 597
Loc: Illinois
It must have missed something. I can't recall ANYTHING wrong with Pique's attitude in this thread. I guess I'll have to reread this thread. :rolleyes:
_________________________
Sincerely,
Eldon

Top
#767996 - 04/25/02 10:39 AM Re: A Decision
DT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/01/01
Posts: 1478
Loc: Illinois
I was neither questioning lb's use of the word nor asking for a definition. As you can see from my earlier post, I know how the word is used and I am sure the lb does, too. (Yes, the original quote from Bernard did say homosexuality.) I was simply pointing out the illogic of the derivation.

It's one of those words, like racist or sexist, that is used, frequently with no real basis, to throw the other person on his/her heels; just another ad hominem which lacks clarity.
_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

Top
#767997 - 04/25/02 10:56 AM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
p.s.
i just want to say i think i've used a lot of restraint in this thread. if i wanted to resort to name calling i can think of a lot of choice ones for people who would keep homosexuals separated from their civil rights.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#767998 - 04/25/02 11:21 AM Re: A Decision
Derick Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 3290
Loc: New York
I think pique has been very polite as well. Perhaps lb is looking at remarks she has made in other threads? She really has never been impolite, she's quick witted and has a bit of a sharp tongue, I like that in a woman. Provided she's not my wife!

Actually, everyone has been very polite. Maybe the discussion got heated but everyone played nicely.

Derick

P.S. Jolly WHERE'S MY MONEY?????????????? ;\)
_________________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.

Top
#767999 - 04/25/02 05:48 PM Re: A Decision
Bernard Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/06/01
Posts: 3857
Loc: North Groton, NH
lb, what are you talking about? I never said homophobia was a gift from god. And I never never, said OCD and turrets syndrome were from god either. Please re-read my post.
_________________________
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown

Top
#768000 - 04/25/02 05:56 PM Re: A Decision
Bernard Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/06/01
Posts: 3857
Loc: North Groton, NH
Oh, and also, what do you mean that homophobia should be dealt with on a personal level not legislated? Are you talking about hate-crime laws? I think this is less about criminalizing homophobia than it is about meting out a more severe punishment for crimes, (i.e., not homophobia) that are motivated by a group hatred. Personally, I've not made up my mind about hate-crime legislation. Part of me doesn't think it is necessary. It seems to me that most reasonable people, when they hear that a person killed someone because they were homosexual, sympathize with the victim. If there is already punishment for bludgeoning or murder, I do not see that extra punishment is the answer. But I'm not decided yet.
_________________________
"Hunger for growth will come to you in the form of a problem." -- unknown

Top
#768001 - 05/02/02 03:06 AM Re: A Decision
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
The discussion has been for the most part first rate. What I have learned is a great deal about some of you. Id generally feel more comfortable in the company of those with more liberal political views than those whose moral outlook is tied to a specific scripture. On the subject of homosexuals I find myself in most sympathy with George and pique.

I remember saying that homosexuals are special people. So are the mentally ill, the physically handicapped, those with horrific chronic physically disabling diseases, the artistic idiot savants and the truly psychic. I guess Id have to throw in the truly mystical as well. Each of these types of people are uncommon enough that their differences are noticed as uncommon by the vast majority of common types of people.

A note of very important clarification: when I suggested that the pedophiles were behind the radical gay agenda, I did not mean to imply that pedophiles and homosexuals were the same. They are not. I didnt make my statement rashly. One of my friends, Ed Eichel, knows far more about this than I do. Hes written at length on the subject, knows first hand its international scope and how powerful, well connected and rich the international pedophilia network is. It was planned as long ago as the end of WWII to push a gay civil rights agenda in the West, hoping that society would get so used to the normalcy of homosexuality as to eventually permit open pedophilia. Doing up children as sexy in the media is no accident. It is part of the plan. As has been stated, most pedophiles are heterosexual or just interested in children no matter what gender they are. Homosexuals as far as I know are rarely predators. All pedophilia is predatory. Pedophiles have more in common with rapists and other socio-sexual deviants than with any homosexuals I have ever known or heard of. Pedophiles are not special people, they are the lowest criminal class who may not even deserve to be called people. Their behavior cannot be altered by any known means save lobotomy. Recidivism among them is higher than for any other common criminal activity including drug addiction. Since there is no cure, these predators must be eliminated from society. Since most of them deep down inside feel that they have a right to prey on children, we have a right to prove them wrong by mercilessly hunting them down, rooting them out and killing every last one we can lay our hands on! Since that is not going to happen, the best we can do is lock them up with those who once were their victims and as the saying goes, let nature take its course.

They shoot mad dogs dont they? Some humans are worse than mad dogs.

Now then about special people: What we, as the most tolerant and open society yet to exist, and this is really true, must decide is how we are going to protect these peoples basic human rights. Pique used civil rights, as under a civil code, whereas Im speaking more broadly about human rights. Our decisions will determine what we think of as being truly human, in some cases perhaps humane or humanitarian are better words.

One of the things we must NOT expect is freedom from the rights of others to make jokes at their expense. Sorry, this to me is at the root of political correctness, what is unreasonable, inhuman and blurs the truth. Political correctness is humorless. It has changed even the most casual humorous remark into a threat to someone or some group and in the process has increased rather than decreased hostility generally. For with every joke, in order to be funny, there must be a grain of truth.

I happen to be legally blind. I do not take offense when someone points out that something Im desperately looking for happens to lie right under my nose. I also love any opportunities I have, and I do have them, to find something a normal fully sighted person cant find. I then have the right to ask with a smirk, hey, whats the matter with you, you blind?

As Ive said in a few other posts, I have more than usual contact with a number of Jewish people. There are as everyone knows many jokes about Jews that turn on their extreme thriftiness;

Q: Why did the Jews wander around for 40 years in the desert?
A: Someone dropped a quarter.

The reason this is funny is that many Jews by their own admission are excessively thrifty where others would be extravagant.

There have been many other groups that have had jokes made about them. Four of the most clever I know of describe the people from the British Isles. See if you dont see why these are funny:

The Scotsman keeps the Sabbath and everything else he can get his hands on.
The Welshman prays on his knees and on his neighbors. (requires a subtle play on the words pray and prey)
The Irishman doesnt know what he believes and will fight for it.
The Englishman is a self made man and worships his creator.

Alas there have been far too few jokes about Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and Fins and probably far too many about Poles. Heres a Polish joke:

Two Poles.

Get it?

OK, so humor is one concern, or the loss of it so that WE DONT HURT OTHER PEOPLES FEELINGS! There are plenty of people out there who not only deserve to have their feelings hurt, for what they have done, or not done, but who would benefit enormously from having their feelings hurt. Saving peoples feelings at the expense of valuable practical instruction in the ways of life is for children not adults, to wit, political correctness is merely a means to turn a sanguine healthy adult nation into a bunch of whimpering children, more precisely spoiled brats. The government isnt so much big brother as big mother. Think about it.

I have a few more things to get off my chest too.

Let me pick on the Christians for a change, the fundamentalist kind will do nicely.

As the Dr. Laura letter correctly pointed out, the asinine and blatantly false notion that the King James Version of the Bible, or any other version for that matter, is the authoritative Word of God needs to be as thoroughly diminished in our society as is possible. People like Jerry Fallwell are buffoons who dont even deserve the time of day. But why not? This country is chalk full of buffoons of every kind and description. The fundamentalist notion was historically based on a political rebellion, within a religious entity that is still around (the Roman Catholic Church), that took place within 16th century Europe. Granted, this is America and one can jolly well believe what one wants to, even if it is demonstrably incorrect, provided one does not force ones beliefs on another. Only problem is, many people were raised in fundamentalist homes where they were taught from the time they could read that this nonsense was so. Those who are brought up believing the Bible is the inerrant Word of God find it very hard to give up what they were taught. The same is just as true of political leftists by the way.

My personal belief is that if an entity worthy of being worshipped as God really exists, God would have to be fundamentally so different from a human being and far greater than the distance between one of us and an ant, or maybe a microbe as it to be unimaginable that God would put words into one finite and obviously self-contradictory book.

Now I have no doubt that God exists, and I have no doubt that God may have influenced the Bible, but it is quite a leap to suggest that the Bible is or ever could be the inerrant Word of God. If I were picking on the Catholics Id poke fun at their notions of the importance of papal succession, papal or even magisterial authority, a celibate priesthood, or the idea that the Mass is some sort of recreation of Judaic or pagan sacrifices, even though I personally feel these have more legitimacy than the fundamentalist reliance on their Bible.

These are mere fetishes that cover and obscure the truth put forth by these religions, to wit, a belief in the life, reputed words, deeds, death, resurrection and much else of one extraordinary man who we now call Jesus Christ, from whose appearance on this earth most of the wide commercial world still reckons time. Ever look up the word cult? Christianity is the foremost cult in all the world.

Say what you like, religion is one mans word against anothers about matters that are beyond being mysterious. They dont know what they believe and will fight for it. Nay, they know what they believe and will KILL for it, despite any rational proof that anything they say is true.

The Jews say Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew. They are generally, with the exception of a few astute rabbis, unaware that Jesus fulfilled their own prophets and further that what their own prophets foretold how the nation of Jews would react to him. However they do not think that Jesus was special in any way. So far it is not possible to prove otherwise.

The Moslems relegate Jesus to their list of prophets with Mohammed (peace be upon him) as the greatest prophet of Allah, the only one true God. Their biggest problem however is that they too are fundamentalists to an uncommon degree. They believe that their holy book really is the Word of God and that God emphatically says that no non-Muslim should be allowed to live; convert or die is their message. You will not hear any Moslem of any rank or prestige in Islam say a word against Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat or any of the rest of them because to do so would be to open themselves to personal attack from other Moslems as infidels to the one true faith. I frankly find the hardest facts concerning Islam to run quite counter to all my generally friendly dealings with Arabs and other Moslem people. I have never felt more satisfied then when I was invited to share a meal in the home of a Moslem friend. Few have the natural gift of hospitality as they do.

I am a skeptic on one hand and deeply mystical on the other. The greatest truth I know of, aside from mathematics, is in music, specifically the classics. There is wonder and great truth in a simple Bach prelude.

As a skeptic, I like to poke fun at those who are so sure of their ideas as never to admit the possibility of something quite different being the basis of their reality. One of my favorite targets is science, which as currently practiced has turned into another religious faith. As a mystic, I like to accept the mysterious for what it is and just let myself enjoy it. As the person who must live in the here and now, neither skeptical nor mystical, I must reckon with rational methods of obtaining some sort of reliable useful truth for living and enjoying this human life.

When I said I would prefer people KNOWING right from wrong, I wasnt making a pitch for any particular religion. Morality in the truest human sense is not written in any book. What is really right and really wrong are written in the human heart. What is moral is what is useful and safe, not only for oneself but for everyone else in society. Those without such a rational moral compass are in some sense aliens; there used to be tribes of headhunters, cannibals, who prized deceit and betrayal as moral goods, others who practiced weird forms of frenzied eroticism often involving murder. What did their societies accomplish? Nothing worthwhile in the long term scheme of things. Upon contact with more advanced societies, their cultures became extinct, their practices were eliminated, they were assimilated or died out. Despite the conceits of some anthropologists to the contrary, It was a good thing for us and for them that this was so.

Now, what if I were to suggest that something similar might as easily happen to us, not as a nation, nor even as a civilization, but as an entire planet? What if a superior race, not only technologically but morally superior to us were to appear and take an interest in this planet? These beings would superficially look like us, perhaps a bit taller and more majestic in appearance, but human in form, with one important difference; vastly longer lifespans. What if they had known us from a long time ago? What if they had in fact been our real creators, made us in their image and likeness, and had fashioned not just us but manipulated virtually every other species on earth, not just single species either but entire ecosystems? What if they had not done this but one time but many dozens of times in the history of the planet? What if they suddenly came back and dismayed by how we had ravaged their planet, decided it was time to give us the choice, assimilate or perish? What if in addition to all this they had a science that was capable of bridging the gap between what we often think of as materiality and spirituality? Is this any more far fetched than the discredited but hotly defended theory of evolution? No my friends, a science, so called, that believes this is the only and best answer to the questions who are we, why are we here and where are we going, isnt much of a science, just another religion.

What humanity needs is a true science, a deep skeptical probing science that boldly says, I dont know when faced with the biggest mysteries that are all around us, a science that dares probe into the spiritual and mystical as well as the material.

Any comments?
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#768002 - 05/02/02 11:15 AM Re: A Decision
piqué Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/15/01
Posts: 5484
david, what an epistle! \:\)

one comment, since i am on deadline and have no business being here:

if you haven't already, please read "the cosmic serpent." i forget the name of the anthropologist who wrote it, but it is readily available by title at amazon.com. i'd love to know what you think of this book.
_________________________
piqué

now in paperback:


Grand Obsession: A Piano Odyssey

Top
#768003 - 05/03/02 12:39 AM Re: A Decision
Kathleen Offline
Full Member

Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 39
Loc: Washington
David, your post is amazing.
You ask for comments, and I'm not sure where to start. There is so much that I agree with in what you've written, and so much insight.

I suppose my comment is on the views you have expressed about science. Contrary to what I sense from you, mysticism and science are not inapposite. A wise friend told me long ago that people become what they need to become. People become therapists because they need help (the wise friend happened to be a therapist). People become firemen because they need to rescue other people. People become scientists because they need to understand. They need to understand how the universe works. Or they need to understand how a single cell becomes a person. Or they need to understand why are we and not the monkeys here running the earth into the ground. Whatever it is, they don't understand and they need to understand.

When I talk about science, I am talking about an endeavor far beyond the fact memorization many of us were subjected to in high school and college. I'm talking about those who do true research into the UNKNOWN for a living (a poor one, scrabbling for grant money, in most cases). And the best scientists are also mystics. They wonder, imagine, hypothesize, and try to understand. At some level, aren't we all scientists? Aren't you a scientist?

It's frustrating to not have the answers, or to have only incomplete information. For example, evolution cannot really be observed on the time scale we live, only the results that are evolution are evident. Science is about trying to set up explanations for our world in a way that can be disproven. You can never really know that something is true (although you can feel it), but you can know what is not true.

Enough rambling, back to my motorcycle maintenance correspondence course.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >

What's Hot!!

Trade Regrets:
Barry "Bear" Arnaut

(ad) Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
Yamaha CP Music Rest Promo
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Knabe Pianos
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
(ad) Piano Music Sale - Dover Publications
Piano Music Sale
Sheet Music Plus (125)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Mark your calendars!
by Rich Galassini
11/26/14 07:30 AM
Why single note intonation came from Russia but not USA?
by Hakki
11/26/14 06:46 AM
Problem with mothergoosetools.com website
by daniokeeper
11/26/14 02:33 AM
New piano student
by IWG.
11/26/14 01:18 AM
Technique for holding down chords
by DeadPoets
11/25/14 11:07 PM
Forum Stats
77053 Members
42 Forums
159361 Topics
2340963 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
Gift Ideas for Music Lovers!
Find the Perfect Gift for the Music Lovers on your List!
Visit our online store today.

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission