After careful consideration, I came to a definite conclusion re: Warren.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Defense or whitewashing of Rick Warren, or of the stupid pandering to him by Obama, means instant addition to my shit list with extreme prejudice. No ifs, whys, or buts.

For that purpose, I'm using the buddy list feature. Not the ignore list -- you can't alert on ignored posts.

Discuss.

[Deja Q]

1. Stalking rawks.

:)

[polichick]

2. imo willful blindness is incredibly dangerous, so I get why you'd do this.

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. damn that Melissa Ethridge

if she were really gay she'd have kicked Warren in the balls
she's must be faking it to sell albums
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html

[rawtribe]

7. Plantation Mentality

[Clovis Sangrail]

11. EXACTLY

the plantations were literally FILLED with white folks pretending to be black slaves just to get a little sympathy.

fuckin' posuers

[rawtribe]

15. Self deleted

[sundog]

13. she represents the most privileged of the gay community

i don't hate her or anything, but her perspective of life is much different from most of us

[Clovis Sangrail]

19. sorta like how our congress people represent the elite of our society?

I don't hate them or anything (no... wait.. I do hate them) but their perspective of life is so much different from most of us.

[sundog]

26. not really, since she doesn't have any legislative power

hating her doesn't really help me though

her social standing allows her pass in places where many of us cannot, but that's part of the package in life

our anger over the warren selection stems from the spot where most glbt folks stand

because etheridge exists in a different social realm than the majority of us, anger may not be her immediate reaction to this all

so be it, but i'm definitely not crazy about her defending that douchebag & attempting to somehow justify the selection of warren... that was a bit ridiculous imo

[Clovis Sangrail]

28. hating people rarely helps any situation

I understand the anger over Warren... I'm not thrilled about it either.
(I think any inclusion of religion at the inauguration is fucking wrong)

However, I think Etheridge makes some very valid points that transcend her position in the lofty air of society's elite.

I see this not as a signal that Obama is 'caving' to the religious right - I see it as completely in line with his politics of inclusion in order to get past partisanship.
It appears she sees the same thing.

I really don't understand how this comes as a surprise to anybody who has read his books.

[Maven]

17. Melissa Etheridge doesn't think for me and neither do you.

[Clovis Sangrail]

18. WOW! and here I thought she was the official spokesperson for Gay America

she probably just wishes she had the same pull as the official Progressive America spokespeople that say we have to boycott the inauguration.

well... I guess we don't have to but I'm told they'll take away our Progressives of America membership cards if we don't.

[yardwork]

30. Melissa Etheridge is one person. She doesn't speak for anybody but herself.

The attitude that "all gays think alike" is pretty lame.

[Clovis Sangrail]

33. you need to work on your self righteuos indignation.. it doesn't sound nearly angry enough

there's plenty of threads around DU lately that can serve as templates for you

[yardwork]

37. Sorry to let you down in your assumption that all gays are self-righteous.

[Clovis Sangrail]

39. that's a *little better

but it's still missing something

You seem to have the essentials down - anger - misrepresenting what the other person said - but the self righteous part just isn't working for me.
maybe you should change your avatar to something more ... confrontational ... the the moon is kinda bland
it just doesn't reach out there as say "this is who I am!"
:shrug:

I realize that it's hard to pull off 'self righteous' in so few words but if you look around you can see that it can be done.

[NoPasaran]

4. Nothing says "open mind" like bragging about one's enemies list

[Bake]

9. I'm guessing you just got added to the list......

Just a thought.

:hi:

Bake

[NoPasaran]

25. As the man who was being tarred and feathered said

If it wasn't for the honor, I'd just as soon skip this ceremony

:hi:

[Clovis Sangrail]

34. LOL

I like that

[sundog]

10. self righteous scolding says it better

[NoPasaran]

27. Don't taze me bro!

[yardwork]

31. As a pagan, I'm intrigued by your sign line. Do you have a problem with witches?

[Clovis Sangrail]

35. Obviously

I think it's clear that NoPasaran's hatred of witches is of epic proportions.

Rather than share the invention of the time machine with the world (which would have been a great boon to mankind) NoPasaran went back in time and convinced Thomas Jefferson that comparison to witches was the absolute best way to decry the Sedition act.

I have it on good authority that after this NoPasaran dismantled the machine with a ball peen hammer and then buried its remains in 12 separate hidden locations.

[yardwork]

36. Are you NoPasaran's sock puppet?

[Clovis Sangrail]

38. Obviously

I think it's clear that NoPasaran, upon seeing your post, went back to the 12 hidden locations and gathered up the mangled parts of the time machine.

After significant work with yet another ball peen hammer (this one a bit smaller) the time machine was reassembled - at which point NoPasaran went back in time again but this time just a few years and created the Clovis Sangrail DU persona on DU to respond to you.
To make everything seem as legitimate as possible NoPasaran had to return to numerous times throughout the last 7 years and plant 'seed' posts to throw any nosey investigators off the scent.

After RE-disassembling the time machine (this time with a tire iron) NoPasaran RE-buried it's remains in 13 separate hidden locations.

All that to disparage witches and, as an afterthought, to give you grief.

[asthmaticeog]

5. asthmaticeog's addendum to CPD's shit list principle:

Anyone crying "religious intolerance" when called out for their bigotry is a doubly-hateful taintbreather, is to be despised no less than Rick Warren himself, and is to be especially targeted for cathartic, unabashed scorn.

[gcomeau]

6. Posting for your convenience...

...so you can just add me to your little list now. I won't bother explaining how ridiculous and unfounded your characterization of those who disagree with you is on this, since you don't appear to be interested in serious discussion of the matter. So just go right ahead and stalk me all over the forums looking for me to say something you don't like so you can send your alerts. I'll wave when I see you. Of course I anticipate the moderators likely eventually throwing you off the forums for driving them insane with pointless unending complaints about people not having the same opinion as you, considering you just described Skinner in your post since he has himself posted that both sides have what can be considered legitimate grounds for their positions on this.

[xfundy]

20. What's to discuss?

Honestly?

You either support equality for all, and the inherent worth of everyone, even if you don't "agree" with their "lifestyle" or the very nature of their being. How does equality for all negatively affect you, at all?

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but, again, you're either for equality for ALL, or you're not.

[cali]

24. uh, some people- like Etheridge and Dionne- support

equality for all and disgree that having Warren do the invocation is a bad thing.

[gcomeau]

40. Your statement is both true, and misses the point.

"You're either for equality for ALL, or you're not". Well yes. True. Pretty much by definition.

The problem is nobody is arguing otherwise. Have you seen anyone here argue Warren's views on gay marriage should be embraced or something? Or that Warren is actually in favor of equality for all? Seriously? I haven't. I'm sure it's possible some ignorant jackass did post something along those lines somewhere and I missed it, I certainly don't read every post on the board and the internet is packed with idiots but I've been through enough of the threads on this topic to know what the general patterns are and I haven't seen any sign of that one.

What I have seen is a lot of people trying to point out that Warren's views are not Obama's views... and that the manner in which Obama extended the invitation and accompanying explanation of it left no doubt about that and removed and rational justification for arguing that Warren's participation at the inauguration could be portrayed as an endorsement or validation of his gay rights position. When Obama issues a statement to the national press saying, in summary "I think Warren is wrong about this but he's being invited anyway" to turn around and say Obama is sending a message that Warren is somehow right is just ridiculous.

[readmoreoften]

41. Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Skinner as Authority.

Skinner owns this website he is not the God of All Truth posted here. That doesn't mean he is an infallible source of wisdom. He posted his opinion. It is still only an opinion, and your argument is still an illogical and emotional "appeal to authority" and not one based on logic or reason.

[gcomeau]

42. Ahem... try again.

If I was appealing to him as an authority on whether an argument was valid or not you would have a point.

Appealing to him as the authority on what the moderators of his board will consider an alertable offense on the other hand is like appealing to the rulebook to see what's against the damn rules. That is hardly a logical fallacy.

[readmoreoften]

44. Ahem... but that's not what you said. "Legimate grounds" is not "not getting deleted"

<<considering you just described Skinner in your post since he has himself posted that both sides have what can be considered legitimate grounds for their positions on this.>>

If you are appealing to him as an authority on what the mods consider as an alertable offense, then yes, the writer of the rulebook most likely adheres to the rules.

But you have appealled to him as a basis for "what can be considered legitimate grounds" for positions. Skinner does not have the authority to defy logic. And the position that "Rick Warren's comments are mere opinion, not false statements" is not a factually correct statement.

[gcomeau]

45. Sigh...

...the "position" I was addressing was the OPs stated intent to ALERT MODERATION on any poster who disagreed with him on Warren.

Get it?

[Bake]

8. Don't put me on your list!!

I hate that sorry fucker.

:hi:

Bake

[snooper2]

12. Six Billion People in the World

and little you have your little list on a little website out of billions

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

[Zuiderelle]

14. I've been using my buddy list for a while now.

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

16. Let's have a moment of silence for the Patron Saints of Enemies Lists.

[Cheap_Trick]

21. After careful consideration, I've come to a definite conclusion re: The Enemies List

Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

[Marr]

22. Let me get this straight-- you're going to follow people around the forums,

alerting moderators to their posts when you *disagree* with them?

Don't you think you're going to be banned fairly quickly?

[cali]

23. how very self-important of you.

I'm just soooo impressed.

:rofl:

[yardwork]

29. Wise move. We all stand together or we fall apart.

Throughout history, when times get hard, the majority starts looking for scapegoats. The latest scapegoat group are gay people. We are affluent and racist, according to the whisper campaign. We care only about ourselves, and we already have more than everybody else.

Not only are we undeserving of equal rights, we're actually in possession of more than our fair share. We are dangerous and must be stopped.

First they dehumanize us, then they come round us up.

[NorthernSpy]

32. Sign me up, tough guy.

And let the backlash against all this melodrama begin.


:eyes:

[readmoreoften]

43. Analogy: if 30% of the population demands that 2+2=5 would a mathematician have grounds for outrage?

Premise 1:

If the following are all factually incorrect:

Blacks are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger
Latinos are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger
Whites are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger
Jews are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger
Tall persons are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger
Short persons are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger
Persons with AB- blood type are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger
Left-handed persons are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger

Then one can infer that "statements which equate a person's inborn difference with pedophilia and characterize them as a danger to society based on this claim are false" as a premise.

Based on this premise, we can deduce that, all such statements are equally factually incorrect since they all contain zero facticity.

From this premise and previous deductions based on this premise we can deduce that the statement " Homosexuals are equal to pedophiles and socially dangerous" is factually untrue, i.e. false.

Axiom 1: A false statement is a false statement.
Deduction: A false statement is not a true statement.
Deduction: A false statement is not beyond truth or falsity.
Deduction: A false statement is not an opinion, which is beyond truth or falsity.

Conclusion:

The statement "Homosexuals are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger" is equivalent to "Males are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger" and "Jews are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger".

The statements: "Males are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger" and "Jews are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger" are false.

Ergo the statement "Homosexuals are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger" is false.

Since a false statement is false, and not true, or beyond false and true, the statement "Homosexuals are equal to pedophiles and thus a social danger" is not an opinion.

Ergo: Barack Obama is incorrect: Rick Warren's statements regarding homosexuality are not opinions.

Ergo: Skinner is incorrect, in that he accepts "as neither true nor false" the opinions of those who support Barack Obama's conclusion that Rick Warren's statements are mere opinions and not false statements.

The only possible critiques of such logic are in its axioms or premises:

1) Premise 1 is incorrect: Blacks and/or Latinos and/or person with AB- bloodtype and/or the Tall...etc. are indeed equal to pedophiles.

I reject this critique.

2) That the inference "statements which equate a person's inborn difference with pedophilia and characterize them as a danger to society based on this claim are false" is false in that homosexuality is an inborn difference equal to pedophilia.

I reject this critique.

3) That homosexuality is not an inborn difference but a "moral choice" akin to pedophilia.

I reject this critique.

4) That all false statements are not false statement but true statements or statements that cannot possibly be true or false.

I reject this critique.

Ergo: I reject Barack Obama's assessment of the charge that homosexuals are pedophiles as mere "opinion" and I support the logical claim that Rick Warren's arguments are incorrect and irredeemable. I reject the support of Obama's false characterization of Rick Warren's false statements as "reasonable opinion" in the same way I would reject the notion that it is "reasonable opinion" to trust Barack Obama's statement that "2+2=5" is not incorrect but a "reasonable opinion."

Any comment saying "Skinner knows better than you" or "Skinner owns this site" or "Barack Obama is a good man and I trust him" is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Even worse is "Melissa Etheridge says so" which is an appeal to celebrity. Even if 99.99% of the LGBT community said Warren's comments were an opinion, it would still be a logical inaccuracy (it would also be a factual inaccuracy, but that would require another proof.)

Now, whether Barack Obama is supporting a false statement because (a) he is ignorant of the premises or has drawn illogical conclusions or (b) he knows Rick Warren's position is false and he is prevaricating for gain, cyncial or idealistic is, thus far, a mere matter of opinion as there is no evidence on which to base a reasonable critique.

And so a "melodrama" of mathematicians battling a portion of society who refuse to acknowledge 2+2=5 would be of a different moral weight than a "melodrama" of those who cling to logical fallacies battling those who demand a society based on reason.

[Clovis Sangrail]

46. DUDE...

:hippie: