Jaelithe's page

Tensor wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Tensor wrote:

The best martial arts movie I have ever seen.

Then you need to see Five Deadly Venoms.

I have. In fact, I have it >on VHS< .

Cool. I'll have to check it out since someone who's seen my favorite rates Ip Man over it.

I, however, am from Missouri. :)

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but ... I finally saw Ip Man a few months ago. It's really good ...

... but Five Deadly Venoms is better.

When my wife's family was stationed in Germany during this time. They dropped her off at the base theater. She thought she was seeing "Fantasia". Imagine her surprise.

She also freaked me out when she said she'd never seen "Star Wars" when we first began dating. Then she thought about it, and said she had. She then described a scene from "Spaceballs".

Cue early relationship doubts.

Did that mean other ... aspects ... of your relationship were far freakier than you initially imagined, mostly because she perceived them as normal?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Yeah, that's pretty much "as powerful as the story needs him to be", which means the Hulk beats him up, if that's what the story needs.

Which also means that Spider-Man, Daredevil and Auny May also beat him up if that's what the story needs.

The winning point is that when other characters manifest new powers, it's a contrivance. For Thor, it's a Thursday ... and every day is Thursday.

According to you, Thor's made Galactus "run like a little girl", which is definitely on the outlier end. (When was that actually? I don't remember anything like that, unless you're referring to King Thor in Aaron's run, which shouldn't really count, since it's a future Thor with a serious power upgrade.)

King Thor vs. Galactus was an interesting fight, but I hardly think it counts, either. Thor is essentially Odin, and then ups the ante even more.

I'll assume "according to you" is not an implication that I'm making s%@* up.

No, I'm going way back into the 60's, in Thor #161, when, having absorbed some sort of massive energy blast from Mjolnir, Galactus flees, saying something to the effect of, "Another such blow would kill me ... and Galactus must live!"

A lot of this, of course, is from a period before we had the Celestials, and the gods were quite a bit higher on the cosmic totem pole than they are now.

As for the "invent new powers on the fly", that was a common thing back in the early days, but it was thankfully mostly left in the past sometime in the 70s.

Actually, Thor's been doing it well into the 1990s (De Falco), 2000s (Jurgens), and even under Aarons earlier this decade, so ... which, in many ways, proves my point. It's normal for Thor to do such things.

And the Hulk's actual power set involves getting strong enough to beat whoever he's fighting.

Assuming the guy's not powerful enough to drop him like a bad habit first, which Thor is—if he wasn't constantly fighting precisely the way he needs to for the Hulk to beat him. Thor's ego is his own worst enemy: Anyone who stands toe-to-toe with the Hulk deserves to eventually find himself in Downtown Dreamland.

There's actually an odd rhythm to this. Traditionally, before the onset of the Sentry (a character I cannot stand), Blue Marvel, and a few others, Thor, Hulk and Silver Surfer stood alone at the top of the Marvel hierarchy. In face-to-face encounters, customarily, Silver Surfer gets the best of the Hulk, the Hulk does the same to Thor ... but Thor usually handles the Silver Surfer. Thus, a balance was maintained.

[Shrugs]

IIRC, during the Simonson run, when Bald[e]r suddenly discovered he had light-generating powers (after two or three *thousand* years of not knowing he could do this...), it was heavily implied, if not stated outright, that Odin had been siphoning off the power of the other Asgardians for his own use (and that the 'Odin-power' was the power of all the other Asgardian gods). In both his battle with Surtur, and a decade or so before, for a big fight with the Celestials while inhabiting the Destroyer and wielding the 'Odin-sword,' he'd siphoned off the life-forces of the other Asgardians as a 'power-up' before a big fight, so it's definitely a running theme with him.

Balder implies that he'd never before trained and pushed himself so hard for so long, which had him tapping powers he'd never knew lay deep inside him. Worked for me, but ... YMMV.

Certainly Thomas' run showed Odin at or near his exploitative and manipulative best, but Simonson's portrayed a much wiser and more grandfatherly Odin. I prefer the latter, but certainly understand the former. Odin doesn't steal anything under Simonson's watch, nor does he consider the gods his pawns so much as his children. As a matter of fact, he creates Stormbreaker for Beta Ray Bill, a not-insignificant expenditure of power, primarily out of gratitude, admiration and magnanimity.

The All-Father's vast power is in large measure as a result of his still-living brothers Vili and Ve voluntarily sacrificing their life force and giving it to their younger sibling, that he might function as the god of gods now that they were gone. That conflation of three deities' power became the Odin Force.

But you're picking outliers in Thor's presentation to justify it.

Again, nope. They're not "outliers" when it comes to Thor, because it's one of the character's main schticks to possess or invent new powers on the fly, as well as simply being as powerful as the situation requires to be victorious.

Deus ex machina is acceptable when you're a deus.

As to Superman vs. a Thor without his hammer and not having figured out what he can really do ... yeah, Supes would kick his ass.

Thor without the hammer is a somewhat different story. A lot of those "cosmic powers" are tied up in it as is the flight and much of the lightning.

(And Thor would lose easily to Superman, if Superman used all his powers and fought tactically - which he also rarely does. Superspeed is a gamechanger.)

Well, Thor and the hammer are a package deal (unless you're Jason Aarons, of course) ... and it's been strongly implied regularly, and explicitly stated on occasion (once each by Thor and Odin) that Thor's powers transcend that of Mjolnir. It's very likely that the hammer is more a focus or lens, rather than the source of power, in many cases. Obviously he can't be allowed to become what he could be, largely because he'd go from a demigod among men to a more-transcendent-and-wholly-uninteresting-as-a-comic-hero being.

As to Thor vs. Superman ... Nope. Not even close.

Superman has a chance in a solar system with a yellow sun. Elsewhere? Not so much. Thor is Thor everywhere; Superman's just some dude in much of the universe. ;)

Joking aside ... Thor's super speed is inconsistently written, but he possesses it, and certainly enough to likely neutralize Superman's advantage if the Man of Steel decided to "cheat" and employ it. It's not part of his customary schtick ... but it's there. We've seen him teach the speedsters Quicksilver, Hyperion (a Superman pastiche, note) and Zefra hard lessons, and he's thrown Mjolnir halfway across the galaxy only to have it return within seconds. We've seen him twirl his cape and create a tornado. I'm just scratching the surface, here.

On the other hand, Thor's also admitted that Wolverine is faster than he is. So ... yeah. I'd say Supes is faster than that version of Thor. :D

Ultimately, IMO, Thor has innumerable powers that leave him completely out of Superman's league. There's really nothing Supes could do to Galactus or the Celestials, for example ... and Thor's made the former run like a little girl and punched a hole in their executioner Exitar's battle armor, respectively.

First encounter, Superman beats Thor, until Thor understands that Supes can take it and dish it out. (Even Busiek, who really doesn't like Thor, says as much in JLA/Avengers, where he writes Superman knocking Thor out after a hard battle in which Thor leads with his chin and does nothing at all interesting.)

Going all out, Classic Thor beats, even disintegrates, post-Byrne Superman. Odinforce Thor (who can stop time, reassemble the moon molecule by molecule, et al.) beats any non-transcendent version of Superman, even planet-moving Silver Age Superman. As to the crazy powerful beings like Rune King Thor, Superman Prime/One Million/Cosmic Armor, who can say?

Ultimately, though, either you or I could write a plausible story in which the Man of Steel defeats the God of Thunder, and vice versa.

The only way in 616 the Hulk (or, for that matter, Superman or most any other hero) should win is if Thor stupidly goes toe-to-toe with him, leading with his chin and trading blows, and using only a bit of lightning for co[s]m[et]ic effect. Sadly, this is usually what happens, because in-universe Thor's ego won't allow him to admit that the Hulk's strength can surpass even his own. In addition (and in reality), the Hulk is more popular, and having him conclusively beaten by Thor—which is precisely what would occur if the Thunder God actually employed a couple of his cosmic powers and fought tactically—would ruffle too many Hulk fan-boy feathers. Thus, the writers never do it, IMO. ANY version of the Hulk should have virtually ZERO chance against any being with vastly superior transit powers and the ability to deliver the kind of damage that could potentially disintegrate him, like Thor, the Silver Surfer, Thanos, Black Bolt, the Sentry and a few others.

The MCU is another matter. No reason the Hulk shouldn't win. They're different versions of the characters. The, "I won, easily" comment was hilarious in context. Works for a "buddy" movie.

8. Thor.

You truly are mad.

Depends on the situation.

Doesn't it almost always?

It could make a very nice emotional capstone for a campaign.

I think you mean tombstone.

There would have to be a very good motivation and the Dauphin would have to owe you. Not be done lightly, but it could work.

I was referring to "loudly in open court," which is something from which it's likely even the Dauphin couldn't protect you, especially considering that the King of France is far less powerful in the twelfth century than he is a few centuries later. At this point, the King of England controls the best parts of France.

But some sort of low-key public declaration? You're right: It could work.

No worries, but it's the potential reliance on historical precedence to exclude them from existing that makes me bristle.

Honestly, I don't see how historical precedence could be used to exclude them. They're here now. They were there then.

It's one thing to say, "I really don't want to hear about your determined seduction of so-and-so. In short, you are successful; we fade to black." It's quite another to say, "You can't play a homosexual/transgender character, because they're not historically verifiable." That's so far beyond unreasonable I'm not sure how I'd respond if a DM told me that.

Now saying, "You're a hero(ine). But declaring your love for this person who happens to be the same sex as you in the Dauphin's throne room isn't the brightest idea in the world" is reasonable, historically speaking.

The fact that some don't like that is, frankly, TFB.

For those talking in terms of pre-modern or historical settings, I hope it's not just LGBTQ issues you avoid on those grounds. Women's lib is modern too. As are modern attitudes towards formal class structures. Widespread acceptance of slavery and/or serfdom. Noble classes with more legal rights than the masses. All or most of it understood to be ordained by God.

It's not just one, still controversial, subset of the differences between the modern world and a historical setting that beyond the pale, right?

I don't avoid the issue, per se, other than avoiding anything that becomes too overtly graphic, whether hetero-, homo-, bi- or omni-sexual, because it makes me uncomfortable in a public context. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I'd never deny someone the right to play a homosexual or transgendered character. They obviously existed during those periods. But if they began, with progressively more public actions, pushing for open acceptance of their character's inclinations in, say Fatamid Egypt or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, I'd have to seriously consider just how I'd handle it.

It's very possible that it wouldn't end well.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Obviously, there's an agenda: Paizo wants to write a setting where all minorities are represented, and has built their setting's traditions around this, and is willing to put aside some realism to make it work. I'm not sure why "agenda" would be a positive or negative quality. It's just what Paizo's chosen to do.

The word "agenda" often seems to imply that it's a deviation from something; e.g., there wouldn't be all these POC/LGBT/etc. in my fantasy world if not for their agenda.

What's often forgotten is that excluding these things involves an agenda as well.

No, it doesn't in the least. Not including something does not imply exclusion, but could have to do with it not occurring to you, it not being appropriate in context, or other reasons that haven't occurred to us. It does not have to mean, "Mua ha ha, let's keep those people out." Posts in this thread are all the evidence one needs of that.

Paizo's policy of inclusiveness is in its way both laudable and a prudent manifestation of political correctness and business savvy, considering its primary marketing demographic. I tend to doubt that we'd see as much of this were it conclusively proven to hurt sales. It's a business, after all.

OTOH, if the one doing so is a great hero, obviously favored by Allah, just having saved the realm from the forces of evil, it might not end so badly. Not a good way to start your career though. :)

One of the drawbacks to running a quasi-historical game, at least using something like the PF system, is that you have to decide what God thinks of such things in your world. If the religion considers homosexuality sinful, as it tended to do historically to one degree or another, are they right? Is that reflected in a cleric getting or keeping his powers?

Crying anything but the call to prayer in that situation is not likely to end well. During the time I was stationed in Turkey, a US Air Force NCO in a drunken stupor did just that, breaking into a mosque, ascending to the summit of the minaret, and doing his worst imitation of a muezzin, bad mouthing both Islam and the Ataturk, Mustafa Kemal—founder of modern Turkey and something of a Moses-George Washington amalgam to Turks—at the top of his lungs. After begging him to come down, an oskir shot him dead and he toppled to the ground. When the US commander demanded of his counterpart an explanation of what he planned to do about the soldier's actions, the Turkish general replied, "I'm going to give him a medal for showing restraint and asking the man to come down three times before shooting him, when he would have been justified in killing him immediately. He profaned Islam and the Ataturk."

Actually, I really don't have to decide for Christians in this era. As clerical celibacy for singles had long been the required (though often not the practiced) norm (since at least the late fourth century and likely earlier), it wouldn't matter if one were hetero-, homo-, bi- or transsexual: You're not having sex of any kind without it being a sin unless you're married ... and since this is a period in which marriage to someone of the same sex would likely not even be considered because of the social stigma and subsequent opprobrium, not to mention the Church's censure, it's not an issue that would reasonably arise—unless, again, some player was looking to make a sociopolitical statement that would resonate for them in the real world.

I run a quasi-historical campaign set in mid-to-late twelfth century Northern Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Homosexuality and transgenderism are a presence therein, even as they were in our own historical reality. (Rumor has it, for example, that Richard I ["Couer de Lion"] may well have been homosexual or bisexual, though one of the current prevailing theories—one I think most likely—is that he was, for all intents and purposes, aresexual ["in love with war" {to coin a neologism}], and not much if at all interested in women or men.) I'm not desirous, however, of watching players push their real world socio-political agenda by attempting to force my hand in running an openly gay or transgender character during this era. It's fairly obvious that in most cases such an attitude would rapidly become problematic. Anyone has the right to create a character and portray him, her or it however he or she wishes, within reason. I just don't think, to use an absurdly extreme example, climbing a minaret in Almohad North Africa and championing gay, bi or transgender rights at the top of one's lungs is likely to end well. On the other hand, quietly portraying a character who lives as he or she would wish in defiance of social and religious convention? That's stuff of which stories are made.

Jaelithe wrote:

I'll politely disagree, and give Avengers a slight edge.

I'd rank the films, thus far, in this order:
[snip]

I mostly agree, although I'd rank Hulk, the Thors, Age of Ultron and Iron Man 3 at the bottom, and uprank Captain America I and Iron Man 1 a bit.

Being a weirdo, one of my favorite Avengers scenes was the beginning 'Thin Man' sequence with Tony and Pepper snarking off of each other.

Thor's been my favorite super-hero since I was about eight or nine. (I still hear the guy who voiced him for the Incredible Hulk and the Marvel Men series, and consider that the truest voice of Thor.) Before that, I had the standard Superman obsession until about three, followed by Spider-Man until exposed to more of Marvel's stable, at which point and subsequently Thor had and will have my allegiance. (I've grown progressively more indignant at his dilution and figurative emasculation over the last decade-and-a-half or so.)

My bias in his favor likely disqualifies me to rate the two films in which he's the primary protagonist.

Then, again, even I didn't much like the second one.

Freehold DM wrote:

I saw it and it was awesome!!! Obviously better than Avengers. The only problem I had was the constant shrinking and growing in the fights - a little less and it would have been perfect, although the miniature fight was amazing.

I loved the transitions between heroically lifting 'giant' train pieces to throw, and then zooming out and the little toy goes 'clunk.' Very jarring, and also funny.

That was a good piece of film-making.

Obviously better than Avengers.

I'll politely disagree, and give Avengers a slight edge.

I'd rank the films, thus far, in this order:

1) Captain America: The Winter Soldier: ★★★★
2) Guardians of the Galaxy: ★★★½
3) Avengers: ★★★½
4) Ant-Man: ★★★½
5) Thor: ★★★
6) Captain America: The First Avenger: ★★★
7) Iron Man: ★★★
8) Incredible Hulk: ★★½
9) Avengers: Age of Ultron: ★★½
10) Thor: The Dark World: ★★½
11) Iron Man III: ★★½
12) Iron Man II: ★★

The fight with falcon was awesome and i loved what the director was doing with an amazing fight between the two "weakest" Avengers. I would have choreographed it differently and not had falcon be able to see him so readily -they never did get into how he detected him, though I am guessing it was by heat signature.

Perhaps he was detecting the tech?

I miss the New Gods and really wish ... Simonson would do a new series.

Simonson's Thor is the single best run on a comic I've ever read.

Although, not all artists who drew Banner drew him all wimpy. For quite a few artists, he's fairly athletic-looking.

Indeed. That's a reinterpretation which has never worked for me. It's like the Andrew Garfield Peter Parker/Spider-Man: Entirely too cooler-than-thou at that age to suit me. Garfield might well have been a good Parker in his twenties ... but not the one who'd just acquired his powers. Maguire easily outpointed him on that score.

Then, again, it's a different era. Perhaps I'm too old school and inflexible.

wow...I don't think I have yet to meet someone who thinks Norton is the best Banner...

I think he's by far the best Banner.

Ruffalo's acting is more than competent, but there's something brutish about his facial features that puts me off in this particular role. Banner should be bookish, slender and present a weak, almost effeminate appearance, the better to contrast with the Hulk. Mark really does look like a very attractive Neanderthal, and that doesn't really get it done, in my opinion. I suppose one could interpret it as the Hulk straining to be free at all times, but ... that doesn't work for me.

Cyrad wrote:

What's scry and fry?

This refers to a tactic wherein the party uses scrying magic, such as the scry spell, to find their enemies, watch them, then pop in via teleportation magic when their enemy is weak and the party is prepared, dodging all the encounters between the BBEG and the front door. The party then obliterates the BBEG and leaves with his loot, bypassing all the minions.

There are two sides to this: Like it or not, admit it or not, it's an entirely legitimate tactic if circumstance, convention and power allow it. On the other hand, it's also something the DM can employ against the party at any juncture, simply by creating a more powerful, tactically sound and equally ruthless group set on eliminating the PCs.

"S/He who lives by the sword," after all. Any player who whines or grouses when their character is eliminated by such maneuvers should be reminded of how often it served them. Doing it once or twice for dramatic purposes (perhaps in response to having it tried on them/replying preemptively to those known for such tactics) is one thing. Employing it as a matter of course should end when those who've been around longer and are better at it finally use it on them.

Also, in the first Avengers movie it is described that a suicide attempt by Bruce Banner of shooting himself at the brain ended up with the Hulk spitting the bullet out, so I wouldn't be surprised to fins his brain is invulnerable...

Alternately, it didn't work because the Hulk manifested unconsciously to prevent Banner's suicide, whereas a sniper might well be able to reduce the guy's head to a red mist because the Green Guy hadn't been tipped off beforehand.

I prefer this explanation. The other makes it functionally impossible to kill him, which I find wholly uninteresting.

Quote:

Read comic books? Watch Justice League animated?

Sure, but you can't assume the general public will, and so you can't relay on everyone knowing exactly who wonder woman or Aquaman is the same you can assume they do about Spiderman or Superman or Batman.

Quote:

You're in a vast minority about the last two.

*shrug*. Throughout most of history, majorities have been wrong about almost everything :)

And most crackpots assume they're visionaries. ;)

Generally if there's one player whose idea of fun is ruining the fun for the rest of the group, that player should adjust to the group style.

At last, the voice of genuine reason.

... and watch these titans of societal discourse have at it :-)

There's a reason most of the Titans are imprisoned in Tartarus.

So really, I think people should not be so easily offended regardless of the topic.

Ironically, the direction much of American society has taken, in my opinion, is to take offense, ofttimes where none is intended ... and even seek out opportunities to find it, the better to indulge a growing penchant for self-righteous indignation.

Jaelithe wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that sh!t down (after a gentle reminder or two is ignored) should be applauded.

I tend to prefer conversation to condemnation in that case as well. Ask what they like about the seemingly incompatible concept, and see if a setting appropriate equivalent can be arranged.

The first question I ask myself isn't "what's wrong with that player?", it's "can we both have fun?". As the DM, I can control the world, being inflexible seems so much smaller.

But the DM isn't being remotely inflexible in this case, despite your implication.

A previous agreement to remain within parameters has already been made, and the other participants are doing so. The idea that this player cannot have "fun" within that which has already been established is a specious one. Exercising creativity within certain constraints requires even more creativity, in many cases, and is thus ultimately more rewarding.

Your point about a setting-appropriate equivalent is reasonable, of course. I thought it self-evident, though. There's never a reason not to say, "Well, that doesn't work, but what about this similar but not campaign-verisimilitude-damaging concept?" I was referring to a case in which someone, knowing the setting, brings in "wildly inappropriate" and is totally inflexible about it—which does, unfortunately, happen.

Jaelithe wrote:

Scythia wrote:

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that s~~+ down should be applauded.

At the very least, I would ask them to save it for a more appropriate campaign.

Too quick for me, K. I added a qualifier 45 seconds later, and you'd already posted.

I gotta stop editing after initial post. You guys are like gunslingers. :)

I think less of DMs that go all Judge Dredd rather than working with a player who has an unusual character idea.

I'm not saying the answer should always be "yes", just that it shouldn't be "no". "Let's see if we can work something out" is ideal, I think.

Unless, of course, the player is pulling that "I know the campaign has a theme and we're supposed to work within its parameters, but this concept, despite being preposterously outside those bounds, is so kewl I have to be a special snowflake and an exception to what we all agreed on" crap.

Then, "I am the law" is entirely appropriate. As a matter of fact, a DM who slaps that sh!t down (after a gentle reminder or two is ignored) should be applauded.

Know what a tabletop forum doesn't need?

People arguing about Creationism v. Evolution.

In fact, that's something the species itself doesn't need.

We'll evolve out of it eventually.

Either that, or the Creator will replace us with a less argumentative model.

But, run a game here for me. Can you be...

A male and like to play tennis?
A female and like to play tennis?
A queer and like to play tennis?
A transgender who went trough five sex change operations and like tennis?

Why did this make me think of Renée Richards?

As for Thor: Ragnarok, eh. The last two Thor movies have been, IMO, lackluster. I'm not sure if Chris Hemsworth can actually act, but now would be a great time to start, if he wants to be something more than 'the guy who keeps taking his shirt off.'

I'm really not sure what Hemsworth could have done with the Thor character that he hasn't, insofar as characterization is concerned. He's the God of Thunder, larger than life, broader of expression and deeper of purpose. Hemsworth seems to be expressing that fairly well.

Now if you're referring to his work in other stuff, I can't speak to that, since I've never seen him as anyone other than Thor.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Mistreatment is indeed all too common, but kicking nine year olds out of school over being too girly is beyond mere mistreatment. Luckily the parents raised a stink and since the school was public it got fixed, partially, but that was still crossing the line more than I've seen against other fandoms.

Children of color get kicked out of school for having natural hair.

In kindergarten.

You will forgive my compassion going elsewhere.

I wasn't aware compassion is a limited resource.

Given the context, he may have been referring to e-cigarettes' vapor output.

I thought that as well.

Simon Legrande wrote:

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

Defenestration is no joke, yo.

It is a funny word, however.

It is. And rarely does a chance come up to use it in proper context. However, I would not advocate for defenestrating a guest as that's just bad form.

I'll have you know my defenestration form is superb - last time I did it, the Romanian judge gave me a 9.9, and even the notoriously hardnosed French judge gave me a 7.0!

And the judge from Prague?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

I'd love it if Vision sided with Captain America, despite being a Stark creation.

Could be a number of them: Black Widow ... Scarlet Witch ... War Machine ... Falcon ...

All I know is that Thor had better be on Cap's side, or it'll ruin the movie for me.

Huh. Can't say I entirely agree with some of the posts that got removed ... I can't tell what exactly about that conversation was so offensive it had to be removed.

I never requested that any post be removed, or even reviewed, so I don't know what to tell you.

I have to say that despite the argument about whether it's right or not to require people not to discriminate, it's encouraging that no one here has actually taken the stance that the ruling is bad in and of itself. No one here is arguing against same sex marriage or melting down in claims of how the Court has betrayed America.

Unlike some corners of the web.

And a goodly portion of the Supreme Court itself, it would seem. Have you read some of Justice Scalia's dissent? Yowsah. I think a Justice should have a little more dignity than that, though the "hippie" comment amused me for an instant. He and Justice Thomas seem to have disagreed via hair-raising and hair-splitting, respectively. I see the point the latter is making, but ... he certainly doesn't justify his ruling with his rhetoric, in my opinion.

I'm likely about to get myself in trouble with some of the posters here, but I do think that Chief Justice Roberts makes some excellent, worthwhile points in his dissent—ones that should give any thoughtful person on either side serious pause. As for Justice Alito's perspective, only time will tell.

Congratulations to all the folk of the fabulous persuasion!

Jaelithe wrote:

I'm a staunch Catholic who can't stand the imposition of my personal and my church's morality on those who don't share it. On sites like this, I'm a screwball theist, and on Catholic websites, I'm one of Satan's middle managers for not upholding the party line. Funny how much is relative, ain't it?

I think the decision is the only one that can be made by those who are not allowing inappropriate influences to sway them. The separation of church and state is, in my opinion, critical to the proper governance of a nation interested in protecting the minority from the will of an oppressive majority.

I'm pretty big on my Catholicism as well and I too agree this is one of the things we cannot in good conscience attempt to enforce in society (I have somewhat of a theological difference on the interpretation of gay marriage, which I think shouldn't constitute a sin under Catholic understanding).

And many other Catholics think the same way. For instance, it was a very Catholic president over here in Chile the one who set up the legal framework for gay marriage to happen (it's still in the Civil Union part, but should be regular marriage within 5 years or so, depending on legislative clockwork).

My hope is that this change in the US helps with two things: The key one which is the dignifying of human beings that happen to be gay, and the secondary, but very important for me at least, which is to help Catholics in particular and Christians in general (as there are some denominations that have already fixed that) finally understand that the usual "gay is evil" rhetoric goes against the very fundamentals of our religion.

I'd enjoy having you explicate your perspective. Perhaps you might PM me with it, or direct me to a website illustrating the rationale.

I mean do you really want to see me seize ultimate power and put whales in congress? The cost of the tanks alone...

If only Caligula really had made Incitatus a consul, this would have made for a great reference.

I'll settle for a George and Gracie aside.

If the government chose to distinguish between unions and marriages, with one a legal distinction and the other a religious one, I'd have no objection.

Then, again, if the government decided to strip all religions of their tax-free status, I'd have no objection to that, either.

My religion is a personal thing. I don't expect anyone to subscribe to its tenets. Nor do I think it deserves some special distinction in the secular world.

Thinking about it in that way, thus, I guess I'd have to concede that refusing to provide a service to a particular citizen or citizens that I would provide to any other citizen or citizens if I had no context means that I would be expecting my religion to afford me certain privileges that, in a nation that ideally provides separation of church and state, would be unacceptable.

Hadn't really thought about it that way before ... but it seems valid—assuming that the laws underpinning the requirements are just.

It's also striking me now that I doubt most of the people who see it as no big deal to discriminate against a group on something as objectively minor as say, buying a cake, have prolly never been discriminated against by a business before.

While it might not seem like a big deal from your armchair as you visit the situation in your imagination it is a deeply unpleasant experience, usually far from receiving a polite(?) "I can't sell to you because of my personally religious beliefs regarding your lifestyle."

But even if it was that nice(?) that is a damn awkward situation to be in and it makes it clear on no uncertain terms you are not welcome there, and perhaps not welcome in any business nearby, also making you wonder if you are not only unwelcome, but in danger.

It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

I think you explained it quite well.

See ... this gives me pause.

I would never have considered that refusing someone service because of your religious convictions might actually frighten the subject of your refusal. Perhaps that's lack of empathy on my part.

I myself would never wish to frighten anyone who's just trying to go about their business.

I must reconsider my position, in light of all that's been said here. Thank you for explaining how such makes you feel, Yuugasa. I'd rather hear that than all the veiled and unveiled accusations.

Jaelithe wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

So, a white baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being black should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?

Is race not proven a wholly artificial distinction? Has it not been shown nonexistent by the weight of scientific evidence? Is the baker not simply acting out of dislike for a skin color, which is wholly irrational, and not at all a part of his faith's genuine tenets?

Do you think the law and the courts should be in the business of determining what a faith's genuine tenets are?

There were plenty of Christian groups in the days of slavery and Jim Crow that used the Bible and their faith to justify their bigotry. There still are some.
I'm not interested in debating what "real Christians" should believe. That's not my job. I'd think, as a Catholic, you wouldn't want the courts determining what religious beliefs qualified as "genuine" either.

No, I just want, as a Catholic and a person concerned with not forcing anyone to act against their conscience, for people to employ some judiciousness rather than cramming their perspective down others' throats.

Considering that at least three people in this discussion have made clear that such is precisely what they wish to see happen, and that they'll take obnoxiously gleeful delight in it, I hardly think any position that does not wholly conform to "current wisdom" will be left unmolested.

I've not read anything here to move me one nanometer from my position, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer every post (and this is one of those discussions in which the dog-pile begins immediately when someone doesn't conform to the party line), so ... suffice it to say that I see the other side's perspective, and while respecting the underlying desire of many (if not most), disagree with some of its underpinnings as specious.

Jaelithe is right. Homosexuality is specifically called out in the catechism as inherently disordered behavior, an unnatural sin.

I'm cool with that, I just don't personally want the laws of the country I'm living in to be based on that.

And they shouldn't be. Laws should be to protect.

I don't care if the Catholic Church wouldn't marry me or give me communion I just want to be able to go to the only pharmacy in town and be able to pick up my diabetic medication with out being refused service for being disordered!

That would not only be ridiculous, it'd be horrifying. Anyone who would deny someone their medication because they disagree with their lifestyle is a monster ... and there's a clear distinction (whether people wish to admit it or not) between denying Yuugasa her insulin and refusing to custom bake her a wedding cake, or allow her wedding on your land.

So, a white baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being black should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?

Is race not proven a wholly artificial distinction? Has it not been shown nonexistent by the weight of scientific evidence? Is the baker not simply acting out of dislike for a skin color, which is wholly irrational, and not at all a part of his faith's genuine tenets?

So, a Baptist baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple for being Catholic should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?

So, a Catholic baker who denies a wedding cake to a couple because one them is getting remarried after a divorce should be treated with dignity and respect just because the baker says he has "deep religious beliefs"?

Are you saying that in no way should someone's conscientious objection hold sway in the manner in which they conduct themselves—that the instant they offer a public service that they are not allowed to draw any distinction in so doing? Is this a manner of all or nothing, or is there a consideration of degree?

To be completely honest, Ambrosia Slaad, were I said Catholic baker, I would not refuse to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, because I'd hold their actions and decisions as matters of conscience between each other and God. My conscience, personally, would not be so engaged. (I also have no objection to eating cake. [I'd imagine I'd have even less so were I a baker.])

On the other hand, I do understand the distinction drawn between, say, refusing someone the right to buy doughnuts (or even a wedding cake in a case) in a bakery when all they do is walk in to make a purchase, which is incomprehensible ... and refusing to be consciously complicit, however obliquely, in someone's union by custom baking the cake eaten at their reception after having been made aware of the particulars.

So, be completely honest here.

Had you lived a couple hundred years ago, when religious arguments were in abundant use in the U.S to justify separation of blacks from whites, would you have said the same about a couple of one black and one white wanting that cake?

While I cannot speak directly to something with which I have no experience with anything approaching certainty ...

... ideally, no, because discrimination against blacks was never about religious convictions easily traced to the teachings of Judaism and Christianity, whereas the condemnation of homosexuality's practice is explicitly laid out in both the Hebrew Scriptures and various books of the New Testament.

Might I have believed such about blacks during such a period because I was speaking in ignorance? Entirely possible. As a matter of fact, so might many of those challenging this, including you, because it was a different era, and not everyone had access to the repository of learning, which dispels ignorance, we do today.

What you seem to disregard in your image of a peaceful utopia is that never matter how you spin it or how you look at it, the inclusion of anti gay stances in a religion are a harmful thing.

Your opinion is noted. It's merely an assertion, though, and not a proven point. I am already on the record as being utterly opposed to state religion, state-sponsored discrimination based on religious principles, and the imposition of personal morality on others than don't share it. There is an accommodation here. Don't allow bitterness at past behaviors to obscure that.

There have been many (many, many, many) types of hatred that were once part of the christian religion and have been subdued in the western world in the past couple of centuries. For a religion that is not yet as subdued check out Judaism or Islam.

And those hatreds have been rejected by many Christians throughout history, with Scriptural and philosophical basis for so doing.

In time, as with misogyny, racism and a plethora of other outdated concepts from the various bibles, homophobia will diminish. You children's childrens will probably deny that Catholicism (true Catholicism of the modern kind they'll have, not the misguided interpretation of the 20th century, of course) ever had a problem with gays.

You're refusing to differentiate between that which is explicitly condemned by the basic tenets of the religion, within its Scripture, with biases that do not and are based upon other issues.

Conflating current culture, whether that of the 1st century or the 21st, with the basic teachings of a faith is logically flawed.

I can't wait until we reach the point where people have enough empathy for each other that a gay couple can walk into a baker and things can proceed apace:

"We're getting married. Will you do the cake for us?"

"I'm sorry, because of my religious convictions, I'm not comfortable with that. However, I recommend this bakery. They're very talented, and will be able to accommodate your needs as I in good conscience cannot."

"Oh. OK. We'll check them out! Thanks."

"You're very welcome. Take care."

Of course, I know that some will not find this acceptable, because it allows both sides their dignity and the courage of their convictions ... and when there's a chance to rub someone's face in something, we should probably go that way instead. [Rolls eyes.]

Religious organizations have pushed, and pushed, and PUSHED for years. They don't get to complain now that the group they've been shoving around can push back.

They most certainly do, whether you happen to like it or not. The principle most learn in their childhood about two wrongs not making a right applies here.

It seems to me that, on the surface at least, your argument in this and other recent posts above, stripped to its essentials, consists of, "Hah! Now those guys are gonna get theirs! I have no sympathy. In fact, I LOVE IT!" That's not exactly rational, no matter how eloquently couched, now is it?

All pushing and shoving should end. No group should get a free period of oppressive behavior because some other one had a day, week, month, year, decade or even millennium or three of doing so. It's condoning the imposition of (perceived) subjective morality, and to endorse it is to show that we as a people have learned nothing but pettiness in response to injustice, as opposed to the empathy that proves a catalyst for real change.

The goal is to have every person free to live their life as he or she sees fit, and that as soon as possible.

Well, I am an atheist and you don't sound at all like a screwball to me. You do sound like a theist though.

And you are an atheist that doesn't think "screwball" and "theist" are functional synonyms. Thank you for that.

There is an awful lot of Catholics and there is an awful lot of variety among them.

Indeed. I've found that haranguing people with either the Bible or the Catechism proves marginally less effective than "surprising" them with my Catholicism, i.e., "You seem so ... so reasonable for a Catholic!" :)

I too think there are an awful lot of Catholics ... and an awesome lot of them, too. Sadly, they're often housed under the same roof, especially on Sunday. (And even more sadly, I'm not always sure which type outnumbers the other. Let's just say it's in flux and leave it at that.)

I have been rather astonished by the new pope. In a good way, he sounds great. I am not surprised that there's a Catholic who thinks like that. But such a person being elected pope soon after the long reign of John Paul, an arch conservative who promoted other arch conservatives, seemed impossible.

His Boss tends to specialize in the impossible.

Jaelithe wrote:

Perhaps a little too handsome, but ... acceptable. It'll be nice to see a character approximately the proper age when portrayed on screen.

I thought Garfield too pretty and self-assured to be a young Spider-Man—a bit of a smirk jerk. Maguire was, to me, far more convincing. Spider-Man is a hero. He's not really "cool," per se, in particular early on in his career. He shouldn't be extremely good-looking, or suave with the ladies; that's a concession to movie-goers who can't abide the idea of good not being perfectly sexy. In those first years, he should be picked on, lose girls to hotter guys, sneeze snot into his mask, have Twitter and Facebook mocking him (as well as supporting him), and live on the edge of poverty because he won't use his powers for profit. If not, the character's essence is lost.

Spider-Man, along with Cap and Iron Man, are the most important heroes in Civil War. The tug-of-war between the latter two for him should be utterly compelling, if this film is to work.

Well, remember that MCU Civil War is not going to be the same as comics Civil War. Spiderman may not have a very large role in it seeing as how it's the first movie he appears in while Ironman and Captain America are two of the biggest in the franchise.

Too true. I guess I'd like to see it. There is of course no guarantee.