TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And for the record, I don't give two craps about a creator's personal views as long as the comic is enjoyable to read. For better or for worse, I am a big supporter of free speech, and it's not my job to be the thought police. All I can do is choose to buy or not buy a product.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casual Notice

Damn skippy, you know what you're talking about regarding the Bible and chimerism, at the same time. That's refreshing.

He's a parasitic pain in the ass... err... sibling. All that's noticeably left of him for the lay observer to notice is a solitary nipple and his stupid hormones affecting me. His presence is obvious enough that my mom actually said, "That explains a lot," with a sigh of relief when I finally found out what was going on with my body.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vaslittlecrow thank you for sharing some of your personal story. Not from the standpoint that "that supports one side over another in this thread" but from the standpoint that it takes courage to kind of throw one's self out there on a forum and it's always a risk to share personal details with strangers. I admire that and I hope it makes us all less of strangers to each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas and mcmasters, thank you for the praise and warnings, but neither is necessary. As long as I am volunteering and you are not prying, I see no issue.

Look at it from my perspective. No one tells men and women that sharing their gender is a private issue. As a matter of fact it is expected social protocol that you define yourself as one or the other, publicly and almost continuously. Even our language is very dependent on gender, with pronouns like he and she ("zie" is what I use) and possessive pronouns his or her (I use "zir", since "its" feels too dehumanizing). Men and women casually talk about their gender-dependent biological functions (most prominently pregnancy, attraction and urination) without any fear.

I am and should be no different beyond the fact that my biological gender isn't male or female. And yet, I am expected to lie and pick one or the other as a course of matter. I can't in good conscience, as a Christian, live like that. As I said before, I am operating on the basis of my primary expressed gender traits in terms of how I understand my faith, so that's where I am at now. I wrote a comic blog about this years ago, and although the character is a very exaggerated dramatization, the sentiment zie expressed is very much in line with where I am at.

If I continue to pass as female as I did for most of my life, then I am just as guilty of perpetuating ignorance about the fact that gender and sexual orientation aren't as neatly definable issues as people expect them to be, as is the biggest religious fanatic. I normally don't bring this type of thing up, but in this discussion I feel it is important. I am a perfect example of someone who has an atypical form of sexual/gender expression and could be adversely affected by gender/sexual-orientation based civil marriage laws due to potential unintended consequences.

Sexual identity and gender are surprisingly misunderstood to this day, and it's not even universally agreed upon as to what exactly is male or female. For example, if you are a gay male in Muslim Iran, you are considered to be a deformed female in need of medical help and you will be given a free sex-change operation. In the conservative Christian portion of the United States, the same gay male will be considered to be morally flawed. An European atheist who works as a scientist will look as the gay male as just a gay male. In Asia and many Amerindian cultures, the gay male will be deemed a separate gender all together. In Chucki society the gay male will be deemed a holy being and pressured to become a shaman. For this reason, I don't feel like scientific understanding and cultural consensus are sufficient for a melting pot society such as the United States to legislate marriage based on expressed gender and sexual orientation. As I said before, the ideal would be that marriage be deemed solely a religious and personal matter and that the government stay out all together.

Anyway, back to Superman.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casual Notice wrote:
I think the point marscaleb was trying to make, as erroneous as his statistics may have been, was that there are levels and degrees to what we consider "marriage" in the United States, and various applicable definitions.


I'm a college student. We're made to hold to the research-everything rule and having somewhat thought out arguments and facts before writing anything. Having figures that skewed and even grammar and spelling mistakes are damaging to the argument. I know I need to give lee-way because it's the internet, but there would be a lot less garbage like Fox News out there if more people researched.

As for the discussion on gender and superman, Kudos Vas for the post. It reiterates many things that I've learned already and is an informative first hand perspective in the issues.

And for Superman, I already said my thoughts. It's a bit dumb in my opinion to boycott before seeing if he's even going to try and push an agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casual Notice wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! whew...you have to warn me before you tell one like that. I've got safe money that everyone here went through at least one year of college. The rule for undergrads is, "Kiss your TA's ass enough and feed him(her) back the same bullshit he tried to feed you." Research is only acceptable if it reinforces the predetermined opinion of the instructors.


Nope. The point is to learn to think for yourselves. The professors tend to inspire debate and it is actual professors who do the teaching- not teaching assistants. You're thinking of high school.

As much as those without degrees would love to deny it, degrees are actually important and the various programs at universities do actually teach their students meaningful information. Community colleges aren't always the greatest, but work well as stepping stones to even higher education. I myself have an AA from a community college that allowed me to get some of my general education requirements out of the way before I enrolled at my university. Both the liberal arts and the science departments don't focus only on facts and figures. The knowing of how to locate information, the ability to appraise the quality of sources, and using that information to construct a well thought-out thesis is just as important, if not more so, than the actual reading of books and number crunching.

The fine arts department at my university is held to the same standard and I'm willing to bet the fine art universities such as MCAD are as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casual Notice wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said or suggested any of what you accused me of suggesting. As for whether or not college teaches critical thinking, I would submit that if you haven't learned to think objectively and critically review your sources (all of them) by the time you reach college, nothing you experience there will encourage such independent thought.

I'm done with that digression, now. Back to Superman, the God-Hero and his continued relevance to humans.


So you're one of those who gets huffy when people defend themselves from one of your personal attacks. Noted for later.

On Topic: Superman may be doomed regardless of a boycott. There's plenty of other fish in the sea if you want a superhero comic. I think the Hawkeye Initiative will have a larger effect on the industry than the boycott.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lo (Aquapunk)



Joined: 09 Oct 2009
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:




I wasn't specifically replying to your position, rather the position some others in the general comicsphere discussion are taking regarding the morality of dictating Card's employability based upon his personal views, and therefore even a bigot shouldn't be put out of work and struggle to put food on the table or somesuch. (And for some reason this is in a world where contract comic book writers get royalties.)

It would follow that any financial support of a product is implicit endorsement and that any non-support of a product is implicit rejection, and moreover that no creator deserves to not receive a paycheck for any reason. (Not actually having a reason, it seems, is the only way not to be a heartless consumer according to this.)

There were a few people making this sort of argument here, but I don't remember who they were.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, it is most likely you don't understand the full meaning behind the construction of your sentences.

A personal attack

Quote:
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.


English Objective/Accusative Case

Quote:
A noun or pronoun is in the objective case when it is used as a direct object, an indirect object, or an object.

A noun which is directly affected by the action of a verb is put into the objective case. In English we call this noun the "direct object" which is a little more descriptive of its function. It's the direct object of some action.

Referring to the object in a sentence

Me
You
Him
Her
It
Us
Them
Whom


deride/mock

Quote:
de·ride ----transitive verb \di-ˈrīd, dē-\
de·rid·ed --- de·rid·ing
Definition of DERIDE
1: to laugh at contemptuously
2: to subject to usually bitter or contemptuous ridicule


Laughing at me or my circumstance (being a student) is a personal attack using mockery. Just because you chose the words to use doesn't mean you dictate who can or cannot feel insulted by said words. Much the same as when an acquaintance couldn't understand how her Puerto Rican friend was insulted by a joke about 'dirty Puerto Rican tacos' when the acquaintance and her friends found it funny.

If you didn't intend to insult you should have chosen different words and grammatical constructions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Assuming that you know what I know is an insult to my intelligence. I've had four years of it and have many to come since I will be going for a doctorate or post-doc. This is added to the fact that I'm not one that went to college straight out of high school. Between having to live/work in the 'real world,' the army, and now going to college, I think I would know the basic distinction between opinion and fact and know the realities of life- university or otherwise.

You say you didn't attack me through mockery and then acknowledge mocking me? Which is it? Using Fox News as an example doesn't mean that I hold any others as faultless. It just means I really don't like Fox News.

As for your 'life lessons,' the first one is, again, an insult to my intelligence and the second is one that you should learn as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
mcmasters wrote:
I'm really wondering how you make distinctions between right and wrong, thought-crimes and Not-thought crimes, and fair and unfair.
I'm not concerned with fair or unfair. Neither am I concerned with right or wrong. These are matters of opinion, therefore any law based on them must be a thought crime. Naturally, I have my own opinions, but I am not interested in forcing them on other people.

I am concerned with Rights. You have the right to an opinion of fairness, you have the right to an opinion on right or wrong. You have the right not to be beaten, or kidnapped, or murdered. One might call these things your Moral Property. I should not be allowed to take away your Moral Property without your consent. And so the only things which I feel should be rigorously penalized are infringement of rights. I am in agreement with CasualNotice here, that the government's only purpose is the enforcement of these contracts (and implicitly the protection of Moral Property when it is infringed upon).

So, (if I may take the liberty) I might summarize what it appears that you are saying as "Society should use social force for the Correct Opinion, but not an arbitrary opinion" (by all means, correct me if I am wrong), where my position would be "Society should use social force only for the prevention of force itself."

mcmasters wrote:
I'm having trouble unpacking this one. Forcing me to buy Superman comics...
From a Social Contract perspective, the ideal situation is that Mr. Card's beliefs should make no impact on your decision to buy (or not buy) Superman comics. If his opinion does not affect the final product, then you should buy (or not buy) the same as you do now. However, that is your personal decision, so Social Contract theory cannot make any binding moral judgment if you choose to buy less (or more) because of his opinions. However, the use of force to make you change your behavior would allow Social Contract theory to make a binding judgement.

vulpeslibertas wrote:
would be thought-crimes punishment to the same degree
I am sorry, the use of the words "to the same degree" is not very clear here. Forcing someone to buy Superman comics is wrong to the same degree as forcing someone to not write Superman comics. The wrongness is measured by the coerciveness of the force, not by the merit of the ideas.


I think there comes a point in a debate when one has to admit the other person has given more thought to a topic and is capable of a more nuanced and skillful understanding of the topic. This is that point. I am not a very systematic, organized, or formulaic thinker and frankly have trouble following what you are saying (I freely admit the fault is mine). My brain is good at producing drawings of God doing the YMCA dance (very NSFW) but consistent thinking on the proper role of the individual as relating to government, fellow citizens, moral judgments, boycotts, and social contracts...not so much.

I think it will be simpler to confess that my decision making does leave me open to charges of arbitrary thought and thought-crime tendencies. I guess. But I'm not uncomfortable with that, I'll swallow whatever label anyone wants to give.

Regarding gay marriage, I simply do not think the law is being applied equally to all citizens and that strikes me as a particular of a general rule and a general right I believe people should enjoy- equal treatment. That doesn't seem arbitrary to me, not in the sense of being completely pulled out of my ass, but again I'll take whatever label anyone wants to give.

And regarding boycotts, the principle that one should buy whatever product one desires to buy no matter what the creator's personal opinion of anything (that being his moral property and all)...I can buy that until a threshold is reached where the creator's moral property makes me want to vomit. Especially in the field of discretionary income and entertainment dollars! The writer of Superman has three drunk driving charges, multiple rape allegations against him, and openly advocates that textbooks teach that the Holocaust never happened? No problem, I just want to see how Supes outsmarts that bald guy. No, actually, screw him and he's not getting my money. And again that is probably a complete violation of this theory of proper decision making or that theory of proper decision making.

I may be misunderstanding the boycott thing but I am curious if there is any point after which you (and some other thread contributors) just would not buy a particular product that you desire. Someone mentioned something to the effect of “wait til Card shows if he injects the actual comic with an anti-gay agenda” before considering not buying it. But is there any point of odious reprehensible behavior that would make you say “hell no I'm not buying anything from that d-bag.” Wife beater? Dog-fighter? Any social theory or formula for avoiding the accusation of “correct thinking” that leaves me feeling guilty for boycotting a product from an individual or company that I find to be discriminatory is not a theory I want to follow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
As a relative bystander, you're coming off to me about on par with Marscaleb's "Allow me to offer you some illumination" comment.


My scoring has it roughly at a tie, but I want to hear somebody called a damn nazi before I make a final decision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My favorite question in the marriage debate is why can't someone marry their brother, or their dog, or more than one person? Shouldn't those people also have the equal freedom to marry whom they wish? Aren't we forcing those people not to marry because of our moral scruples, and how is that different from banning homosexual marriage because of moral scruples? This question is a great turing test to separate those who are making their decision based on logic, and those who make it based on opinion. Those who use logic will either have an answer or try to find one, those who do not will challenge the question as absurd.


Let me address this question, but I will specifically focus on civil marriage:

Why can't I marry my...

...Brother?
Because based upon the general scientific at the time the laws were made, fraternal incest was considered too much of a public health risk for the government and society to reasonably bear. Much like homosexuality was, before the condition was no longer considered to be a mental illness or the only way certain STIs such as HIV/AIDS could be transmitted. Because homosexuality in it of itself is no longer considered to be a threat to the public health, the public sentiment is changing. Although some scientists believe that incest isn't a major health threat, the majority of the scientific community and society as a whole disagrees. Part of the function of civil marriage being regulated is to maintain the public health.

...Dog?
Because as in the case of children below the age of consent and/or majority, a dog cannot legally grant consent or enter into a contract. Unlike children, a dog cannot grow out of its inability to grant consent. No consent = no legal marriage. Also, the risk of inter-species diseases that are sexually transmitted is too much for the public to bear. The last thing we need is another HIV/AIDS.

More than one person?
Considering that many single people engage in sexual relationships with multiple partners that result in out-of-wedlock children who suffer greatly because of it, and many religions consider polygamy acceptable, there is absolutely no logical or compelling social reason to continue outlawing civil marriage involving multiple partners. As a matter of fact, the continued prohibition of this type of marriage puts children from polygamous religions and cultures at risk, since a non-existent marriage cannot be regulated. Legalizing marriage among polygamous groups might also be the only way to deal with the welfare and financial fraud that run rampant among them.

Having said that, civil marriage and religious marriage should be two completely separate entities, for the exact same reason that government should stay out of marriage, period.
_________________


Last edited by vaslittlecrow on Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:48 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Again, I didn't mock you, I mocked your action. Not the same thing. And nothing I've said was in the same league as your fifty(ish)-word tirade against the stupidity and misapprehensions of those "without degrees," or your fixation on Marscaleb's errors after he had been corrected and admitted his mistake (that last sentence is a tu quoque argument, if you're still keeping score).


Quote:
Aren't you insulting him by assuming that he doesn't? This would be a pretty embarrassing statement to make if you found out that he's got a degree of his own. Moreso if it's a doctorate. Moreso if he has also spent time in the real world.


To attack a person's actions is to also attack the person themselves. And as I said before, if that wasn't your intention, you should have chosen your words better.

I was not assuming that he didn't have a degree. I was pointing out that knowing nothing about me will bot allow him to assume what I know or do not know. He could be the reincarnation of Einstein and have more degrees than all the people on this board combined for all I care. The fact that he knows nothing about me except a screen name and what information I've posted on this board, but thinks he is able to discern my knowledge on a given subject is ridiculous and insulting.

Quote:
Continue ranting if you wish, but don't expect a reply.


You're running out of excuses so I'm not sure there would be much else you could reply with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Brother...
You mention the majority of the scientific community, but that there are some dissenting voices. Are rights subject to the whim of the majority? Is it any of those scientist's business? Science does not work by majority. It is a good indicator, but is it good enough to deprive someone of their fundamental human-ness? Science once said that black people were inferior to white people, because they were less evolved. Is a majority of scientists enough to justify oppression?


With the exception of collective rights, rights are not and should not determined by the majority, as they are inherent. Personal rights are not collective, they are individual; unfortunately rights are often conflated with privilege -- even I make that mistake. Marriage is a social privilege, not a right. The whole point of science is that it is constantly changing and improving itself. Science in spite of its imperfection can often uncover the humanness of marginalized groups who should be participating in society, just as easily as being used to marginalize people. Much like religion in some ways.

If you want to be really legally technical and somewhat creepy, what marriage does is cause two parties to become adopted into two families. So, husband and wife are technically brother and sister in the eyes of the law,(hence the relative in-law titles). Marrying a sibling would be a redundant contract in some ways, and additionally, because of the health risks, there is no compelling reason to entertain this duplicate privilege any further.

Quote:
Ok, sure, the dog can't consent. But all of the people in the relationship can. It makes no difference to my dog. And my dog loves me. I have full legal authority to make binding decisions for my dog such as living accommodations, food, medical care, and euthanasia. I can already choose what other dog it can breed with. Why not marriage?


Because dogs are property and do not have equal status with humans because of our speciesist privilege. If the owner can grant consent for something like marriage without boundaries, then what's stopping the dog owner from marrying his kids, even though it's underage incest, or his sofa since he can grant consent on their behalf at his whim. Also, unless we want to go back to the days where women solely married men so they could be classed as property unable to enjoy rights of any sort, that's not a good legal precedent to follow. I can very easily see property-based civil marriage being turned against the autonomy of women and submissive male partners. That is already happening in many middle Eastern countries like Iraq that used to be secular but were taken over by religious zealotry. Also, if a person wants to have sex with an animal, no one can stop that person in spite of the risk. However, as in the case with marrying a sibling, there is no compelling reason to legitimize granting property the ability to marry.

Quote:
You make this very point regarding polygamous relationships. If we can ban an individual's behavior because of a racial or demographic tendency, then what can't we ban? Not to mention that this is all done for the individual's "own good", against their will. Why should you be allowed to choose who you will marry, but I cannot? Is that fair? Man-woman marriages also lead to disease, and also wife-beating, shouldn't we ban that?


I personally do think civil marriage should be banned since it's a blatant violation of state vs. church separation precedent. But, since we are talking about civil marriage, beyond the rights of property versus the rights of humans, there are some key difference between polygamy, incest and bestiality.

1) There are compelling reasons to grant the privilege of marriage to polygamous groups:

- Regulation of the age of who can join a polygamous arrangement.
- Prevention of welfare fraud and financial fraud that can't be addressed unless there is a marital certificate.
- The ability to uphold freedom of religion.
- Children in homes where there is more than one parent in a household, are more likely to thrive our society, than in a home where the child is in a latchkey situation. Single parents can be great parents, but children will have an easier time thriving in a home with more than one person responsible to their upbringing.


Quote:
Polygamous...
I can't counter your position on polygamous marriages, because you've basically agreed with my statement. I could give the opposite argument, but I think if I started flip-flopping positions in the middle of an argument, that might get confusing.


Understood.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.