May 14
thelyamhound commented on "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!".
More...
thelyamhound commented on "If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people!".
More...
May 13
thelyamhound commented on Judge Laughs Heartily, Denies Gov's "Frivolous" Attempt to Block Morning After Pill from Young Women.
I do not support any law that defines a fetus as an entity deserving legal protections, whatever questions I may still have as to how we ("we" being the community or communities to which I am bound by common moral or metaphysical concerns) should morally define personhood.
That distinction becomes muddier when comparing fetuses to children, who are sort of people and sort of not, and whose participation in the contract is contingent on, and filtered through, parents. But there is utility in drawing a line to define personhood, and birth is as sensible a place as any.
More...
thelyamhound commented on Judge Laughs Heartily, Denies Gov's "Frivolous" Attempt to Block Morning After Pill from Young Women.
How do you libs feel about this guy in Cleveland getting the death penalty for killing unborn babies?I reject the legal reasoning behind that, for sure. Inducing a miscarriage against the mother's will, or in a situation (like this) where consent is seriously compromised, is battery/aggravated assault/what-have-you, and the victim is the woman whose pregnancy is being forcefully terminated.
I do not support any law that defines a fetus as an entity deserving legal protections, whatever questions I may still have as to how we ("we" being the community or communities to which I am bound by common moral or metaphysical concerns) should morally define personhood.
I mean, they're just organic tissue without human value, amiright? He didn't kill a PERSON, just a fetus!For legal purposes yes.
This is outrageous that anyone should be charged with the death of these worthless lumps of tissue!"Worth" is not intrinsic; it is assigned, imposed. You and I only have worth because we value ourselves and, possibly, because others value us. The distinction between a fetus and, say, you is not that one has more objective worth than the other, since no one has objective worth; it's that you, as a conscious entity, are a party to the social contract in a way that the fetus is not.
That distinction becomes muddier when comparing fetuses to children, who are sort of people and sort of not, and whose participation in the contract is contingent on, and filtered through, parents. But there is utility in drawing a line to define personhood, and birth is as sensible a place as any.
I mean, they were the product of rape (one assumes) so the women didn't want them anyway!Maybe, maybe not. Shouldn't she be the one to make that call?
Hell, the 6 year old should be killed too, since the mother probably doesn't want her either!See above regarding "drawing a line." If you want to draw that line, say, after the child starts reading Sartre and listening to the Residents, I could possibly be convinced, but until then, I'm pretty satisfied with birth as a nice, bold demarcation.
And that is the end result of your sick twisted thinking regarding abortion. In a just world every abortion doctor would be standing beside Castro in that court for capital murder. In a just world the millions of human lives extinguished for maternal convenience in this nation would be listed in the books as the Holocaust or Pol Pot as an incomprehensible crime against humanity.I think we may actually reach such a level of understanding, though I think it would only come after provisions have been made to ensure that the compulsion to carry a pregnancy to term is attached to a corollary level of choice with regards to whether and how ambivalent mothers will participate in the raising of the child, and that the society that makes carrying that pregnancy to term compulsory takes on a greater responsibility for raising that child. The terms by which we do so, however, are going to need to come from a being with a capacity for moral reasoning far beyond your own.
May 11
thelyamhound commented on The Customer Service Problem at McDonald's Is a Symptom of a Much Bigger Problem.
thelyamhound commented on The Customer Service Problem at McDonald's Is a Symptom of a Much Bigger Problem.
@71 - Torture is one thing; "harm" is another. Why no moral imperative to avoid harming bacteria? What is the nature and basis of social contracts with species who do not have the common vocabulary to enter into those contracts consensually with us? Do wild predators recognize these contracts when we're in their habitat?
You toss axioms about like a fundamentalist. There are no self-evident truths.
You toss axioms about like a fundamentalist. There are no self-evident truths.
May 8
thelyamhound commented on The Customer Service Problem at McDonald's Is a Symptom of a Much Bigger Problem.
thelyamhound commented on The Customer Service Problem at McDonald's Is a Symptom of a Much Bigger Problem.
@56 - I admire your principles. But the same reasoning by which you determine that animal life isn't meaningfully distinct from, say, human life (reasoning with which I agree, by the way; more on that in a minute) is easily extended to say that it also isn't meaningfully distinct from plant life, or bacterial or viral organisms. Have you taken antibiotics? Used medicated shampoo to get rid of lice? Do you eat onions?
You may suggest that such equivalencies aren't to be taken seriously, but why are they less serious than asking us to assume that the life of a cow is something about which we should be morally concerned?
The fact is, the only reason I don't eat you, or you me, is that we have a social contract with one another. That is largely a function of our being the same species, thus sharing the same essential properties and modes of communication; there's no more reason that we should have a contract with the cow than there is for the lion to have a contract with the gazelle.
So kudos for your choices. But don't frame them as moral imperatives.
More...
You may suggest that such equivalencies aren't to be taken seriously, but why are they less serious than asking us to assume that the life of a cow is something about which we should be morally concerned?
The fact is, the only reason I don't eat you, or you me, is that we have a social contract with one another. That is largely a function of our being the same species, thus sharing the same essential properties and modes of communication; there's no more reason that we should have a contract with the cow than there is for the lion to have a contract with the gazelle.
So kudos for your choices. But don't frame them as moral imperatives.
May 8
thelyamhound commented on "Tattoos Are the Ultimate Branding Statement".
thelyamhound commented on "Tattoos Are the Ultimate Branding Statement".
For my (tattooed) part, I say ask, if you're curious. You'll get an answer. How long an answer will depend on a) my read on your tolerance for anecdote and b) my level of interest in your company and/or maintaining conversation with you.
I find it a little off-putting that I should have to address the notion that tattoos in general and my tattoos in particular are edgy/not edgy, meaningful/not meaningful, and so on. I like every design on my body, and for different reasons. None of them were done impulsively, and most of them were done after age 30.
I submit that it's not edgy/tired/narcissistic/passe/brave/conformist to have tattoos, except to the degree that the person who has them is edgy/tired/narcissistic/passe/brave/conformist in aggregate.
I find it a little off-putting that I should have to address the notion that tattoos in general and my tattoos in particular are edgy/not edgy, meaningful/not meaningful, and so on. I like every design on my body, and for different reasons. None of them were done impulsively, and most of them were done after age 30.
I submit that it's not edgy/tired/narcissistic/passe/brave/conformist to have tattoos, except to the degree that the person who has them is edgy/tired/narcissistic/passe/brave/conformist in aggregate.
Apr 21
thelyamhound commented on LGBT Antidiscrimination Bill in Pocatello, Idaho, Fails.
thelyamhound commented on LGBT Antidiscrimination Bill in Pocatello, Idaho, Fails.
Actually, Venomlash, I kind of do believe an assault on a police officer, for instance, should be treated as an equivalent crime to an assault on anyone else, which is my own misgiving with hate crime laws. Intent to kill matters, but intent is different from motive. Motive matters in sentencing. Intent matters in determining what, if any, crime has been committed. There is a broader and more interesting discussion to be had on this, but I think we can both agree that Seattleblues lacks the social grace and sense of moral nuance, if not indeed the intellectual capacity, to participate in that discussion.
As for you, Mr. Blues, the posts to which you do not respond and the questions you refuse to answer say more about you than the responses you do offer (however deficient the latter may be). Deny as you will, and have, but your neglect does start to look a bit like, if not concession, admission, at least, that you can elucidate no rational basis for your position.
Foremost among these: What privileges are homosexuals currently enjoying or currently seeking that you and I do not already enjoy?
More...
As for you, Mr. Blues, the posts to which you do not respond and the questions you refuse to answer say more about you than the responses you do offer (however deficient the latter may be). Deny as you will, and have, but your neglect does start to look a bit like, if not concession, admission, at least, that you can elucidate no rational basis for your position.
Foremost among these: What privileges are homosexuals currently enjoying or currently seeking that you and I do not already enjoy?
Apr 19
thelyamhound commented on LGBT Antidiscrimination Bill in Pocatello, Idaho, Fails.
More...
thelyamhound commented on LGBT Antidiscrimination Bill in Pocatello, Idaho, Fails.
Want to keep your deviant perversions in the privacy of your home, and I really could care less. Were there a move to criminalize the perversions involved in homosexuality among consenting adults I'd fight that as vociferously as I do the move to canonize gay citizens as special people with more rights than others.What rights to gay citizens have or seek that you or I do not enjoy? Please be specific.
It's only when the fags and dykes make war on core institutions like family and marriage that I fight back.What empirically measurable damage--or, indeed, what empirically measurable effect of any kind--does protecting LGBT individuals from loss of housing or employment on the basis of sexual orientation or consensual sexual behavior (or, if you insist on conflating all LGBT matters on every thread where they're mentioned, the extension of marital rights and privileges to same-sex couples) do to core insitutions (read: malleable social constructs) like family and marriage?
My marriage is between a man and a woman. Throughout history, accross divergent cultures, this is what marriage has always meant. The number of wives or husbands has changed. The idea of love as the basis of marriage or money or politics has changed. But always it has been the natural joining of a man and woman.Exceptions have existed, but they've been outliers, to be sure. Of course, the mixing of races and the inclusion of the disable in the social contract have also been exceptions, rather than the rule, in most cultures.
Fags and dykes redefine marriage for their convenience at the expense of the institution.If anyone other than a foreign national attempting to get a green card is marrying for "convenience," I will gladly tell them, from my happily married position, that "convenient" is not a word I'd use to describe marriage.
Making the legal adjustment to abolish laws banning mixed race marriages merely affirmed the key nature of marriage.And what is the key nature of marriage (in terms of its status as a legally recognized contract)? Please be specific.
In that I have one at all?What evidence do we have of your having a moral code, of the other poster lacking one, or of your ability to discern what does or doesn't qualify as moral? Please be . . . ah, fuck, you know.
Apr 19
thelyamhound commented on After an Ultimatum, Gay Couple Sues Florist for Discrimination.
More...
thelyamhound commented on After an Ultimatum, Gay Couple Sues Florist for Discrimination.
Let decent Americans know that there really is no stopping point in your incessant demands to be priviledged citizens with the right to force others to your minority agenda. Yesterday marriage, today the thought police (albeit in flamboyant dress with a silly lisp...)What privileges do homosexuals currently enjoy, and/or what privileges are they requesting, that you and I do not currently enjoy? Please be specific, coherent, and prepared to respond cogently to would-be refutations.
Keep up your spirits, ma'am! Nom and all the other groups of good and decent Americans will give you moral and financial support as you fight the good fight against the perverts and deviants.Moral, perhaps, given that such a thing can only be subjectively defined. Financial, probably need. NOM and groups of its kind have essentially bankrupted themselves in recent years fighting a losing cultural battle.
They do choose the behavior which alone makes them different from anyone else. Granted such behavior hurts only them and those who care about them, so it isn't a matter for the criminal law.You actually cannot demonstrate that it does. Thus your mention of this "damage" is simply an attempt to enter speculation and subjective judgment as if it satisfied rules of evidence.
What I don't now and never will support is the right of fags and dykes to dictate legal and social terms for the 97% of their fellow citizens who aren't fags or dykes.No terms are being dictated. Your marriage means exactly what it did before the vote last November. Worth noting, also, that the vote could not have passed if the measure was relying entirely or even primarily on the gay vote.
First, I have no quarrel with what sex these men were born, just that two men born male seek to tell everyone else what marriage means.That two men can marry has no more bearing on what marriage means than any of the many features that distinguish my heterosexual marriage from yours. That is, the "definition of marriage" has always applied to the socio-spiritual aspect of marriage, not the legal contract.
Fag so called marriage seeks to redefine marriage in such broad terms as to make the term meaningless.I'm sorry the meaning you assign to your marriage is so weak and ill-founded that one of which you disapprove threatens it. My marriage retains its meaning not only in the face of same-sex marriage, but even in the face of whatever sorry excuse for a union would be so sick and sad as to allow you to be a party to it.
And you may love another guy, and have every right to express that love so long as you don't ask everyone else to give you legal and social approval.Again: Allowing access to a civic contract does not amount to social approval. Legal approval doesn't amount to anymore than Mormons tolerating the existence of liquor stores or Seventh Day Adventist tolerating the legal consumption of meat.
Prior to the attacks on family, morality, marriage and so on in the last election, I would never use words like that.So your principles are a matter of convenience? Interesting stance for someone who presents himself as something of a moral philosopher (through a proclivity for making moral pronouncements rather than through any demonstrated aptitude).
But if fags and dykes want to declare war on everything that makes our culture worthwhile, even that makes it work, then I feel no compunction in treating them with the contempt they deserve.On what have they declared war, and in what way? Please be specific.
There simply isn't a stopping point for 'fags and dykes are citizens with more rights than others' movement.Again: What rights do they have or seek that you or I currently lack?
Today a florist doesn't get to decide on grounds of principle whether she wants to sell her product to a pair of perverts.Is it your opinion that I, as a theater artist and personal trainer, should be allowed to refuse to sell a ticket, teach a class, or offer training services to an individual who believed in the Five Solas, or, being a Buddhist, to refuse such services to someone who I believed had "slandered" the Mystic Law?
Tomorrow a church will be sued to force them to host a fag so called marriage.If they're renting the space as a commercial service, yeah. Otherwise, no. How many non-Jews have synagogues been forced to marry?
Apr 19
thelyamhound commented on Obama Is Pissed, Calls Today a "Shameful Day for Washington".
thelyamhound commented on Obama Is Pissed, Calls Today a "Shameful Day for Washington".
As to your bigotry about religion, I need hardly note that most of the seminal thinkers in science and the arts and language (Divine Comedy, Sistine Chapel or any of the great universisties, mostly founded by religous orders ring a bell, moron?) have come from institutions of religion.If you actually cared about the statistics on science, the arts, and language, you'd also note that the majority of the great advances therein have also historically been made, at levels disproportionate to their representation in the population at large, by homosexuals.
Apr 16
thelyamhound commented on The Neverending Minimum Wage Machine.
thelyamhound commented on The Neverending Minimum Wage Machine.
@7 - Some hard-won job skills are not necessarily remunerated at a high market value. Many artists ply their trades for free or in hopes of lucky sale or occasional lucrative gigs, and will have to work jobs at lesser skill levels for sustenance. That's just a for-instance; many jobs employ at or near the minimum wage for which some skills are required (most office managers or secretaries, for instance, will still start around $10/hr.).
I don't think that every burger flipper should be able to buy a house, an SUV, and a garage to park it in, but I think an apartment, a flexible transit pass, food in the fridge, and dates on the weekends should be a reasonable expectation for anyone who works full-time, even at the humblest of tasks. This isn't possible at minimum wage; it's even highly difficult at half-again the minimum wage.
I don't think that every burger flipper should be able to buy a house, an SUV, and a garage to park it in, but I think an apartment, a flexible transit pass, food in the fridge, and dates on the weekends should be a reasonable expectation for anyone who works full-time, even at the humblest of tasks. This isn't possible at minimum wage; it's even highly difficult at half-again the minimum wage.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
As always, please be specific.
Castro committed assault on women that resulted in "amateur abortions." We don't have to--and, in my opinion, shouldn't--presuppose the personhood of the evicted embryos or fetuses in order to find his actions criminal.
Of course, we've already been over this. As usual, refusing to reply to posts that expose your ostensible "reasoning" for the paltry sophistry it is allows you carte blanche to continue posting the same smug, self-satisfied, intellectually threadbare drivel you've been peddling since day one.