RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
You know, there's this one other thread I made so we'd have a place to discuss media bias.
|
|
Frankly, I don't see any more bias in Fox than I do in CNN and other equivalent news programs. But as I said before, Fox has the temerity to let their bias be conservative, so they're crucified for it. Whereas the equivalent amount of liberal bias isn't even really noticed anymore, because it's become the standard.CNN shows as much bias as Fox? The "standard" in media is a liberal bias? Come on; why don't you just call it the "Drive-by Media?" There's definitely some bias showing here, but I'm afraid it's yours.
Yeah, CNN and Fox are mirrors. MSNBC is just insane. The networks also show quite a bit of bias in favor of left leaning principles, and ignore quite a few uncomfortable stories that may shed a negative light on the current administration.
Hell, look at any AP story concerning a politician getting in trouble. If they're republican, it's mentioned in the first paragraph. If they're a dem, it's buried in the middle/end of the story or not mentioned at all.
Perception is the container that reality is poured in.
We often do not recognize bias when it matchs our own.
|
What is it that makes a person believe he or she can legislate how people live their lives?
This incident here goes quite a bit beyond mere legislation. In fact, by reading the legal filing, it looks like the law was just as brutally ravaged.
Two elements are prevalent here that goes beyond "right-left wing" bashing. 1) Gay bashing. 2) Elder bashing. It is, at its heart, prejudice that has nothing to do with political leanings. The peoples involved in this issue showed an absolute disregard for the individual of Mr. Greene.
I know that my own eyes are opened up a bit. Perhaps when I see that extremely large woman wearing spandex in the grocery store I won't roll my eyes and think something disparagingly. Maybe when I see that car driving 10 miles an hour under the speed limit, drive past and see an elderly man at the wheel I won't make a nasty comment about old coots.
Maybe when I see some guy running 2e, and I walk past and see an elderly man behind the screen I won't make a nasty comment about grognards.
Fixed for ya.
|
What I find most amusing is that Fox News is portrayed as so extremely biased, when MSNBC is far more extreme, but it gets a pass because it's bias is liberal. Conversely, Fox's biased is exaggerated because they have the utter temerity to have a conservative bias.
From what I've seen the press over here is biased one way or another. I read my news on BBC online because I want News not damned opinion. I don't give a crap about other people's opinions, they have a right to them. They do NOT on the other hand have the right to their own facts. I loathe FOX an MSNBC equally. MSNBC isn't far more extreme its just as extreme as Fox. It's a choose your facts farce for both sides! Ratings for advertising revenue! But why the for the life of me anyone takes Rush Limbaugh seriously is beyond me.
American's have a rough deal with their press. How can we call it the Land of the Free, when you can't get decent factual truth out of journalists.
Back on thread. I'm sick and tired of the do-gooder dunderheads who think gay marriage should be disallowed by the State! I mean if heterosexuals have to endure state sanctioned misery (er.. marriage) then homosexuals should be able to as well! ;)
It makes no dern difference to me if people of the same gender get married. Good for them! Why is it *my* business or anyone elses? It's beyond me.
It makes no dern difference to me if people of the same gender get married. Good for them! Why is it *my* business or anyone elses? It's beyond me.
I agree, as long as we are not giving any legal benefits for any relationship. Once the government takes an interest in the relationship, then well they have "business" in the relationship.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
You know, there's this one other thread I set up to talk about bias in the news.
You know, there's this one other thread I set up to talk about bias in the news.
I think there are more posts about the media in this thread than in the media thread.
Wasn't this thread about an elderly gay couple getting screwed over by their county goverment?Topic nazi!
Sorry late to the party.
|
|
You know, there's this one other thread I set up to talk about bias in the news.I think there are more posts about the media in this thread than in the media thread.
More likely then not.
On topic. This is a sad state of affairs. I may not support gay marriage but this man should sue the pants off of all of the people who put him through that.
As a supporter for marriage equality(shocking I know) I can't imagine this kind of horror happening to anybody.
I would like to have everyone just take a few seconds and don't worry about the fact it was two guys or whatever just place yourself in his shoes as a human being.
The person that you loved and devoted yourself to for over 20yrs died and because of someone else you didn't get a chance to say good-by or that final "I love you"
I think that beyond religion or politics or whatever we can all realize that this issue has to do with basic human dignity.
Now for short step onto my soapbox.
This is why I keep fighting for marriage rights, military rights,and all the other 2500 benefits that are automatically associated without question when the term Marriage is used but NOT when "Civil Union" is bandied about.
*steps down off soapbox*
|
|
I've never heard a decent argument against allowing gay marraige that didn't argue against the institution of marraige itself. Either make both okay, or stop recognizing both or come up with a legitimate reason one is okay while the other isn't. Quite a few people I know advocate either the first or second. No one ever has come up with a decent argument for the third.
I've never heard a decent argument against allowing gay marraige that didn't argue against the institution of marraige itself.
That's only because decent arguments for the special right of heterosexuals to marry depend on the assumption that homosexuals are an inferior species of humanity. Once you grant that assumption, it suddenly makes perfect sense.
CNN is the amount of liberal bias that has become standard.
MSNBC is hateful bile vomited forth from people who think that anyone with conservative leanings should be imprisoned. For example, Rachel Maddow is so utterly hateful that it sickens me.
But of course, it's ok, because she directs her hatred towards conservatives. Plus she's a lesbian, so she gets a automatic liberal get-out-of-jail-free card.
...?!
Ok, maybe I'm really missing something here. I never drank Ovaltine, so no decoder ring; I also never got "The Librul Gay Agenda" newsletter. It's bold statements like those above that make me wonder if I'm watching the same versions of cable news as others are.
Wait, doesn't your Rachel Maddow have a goatee and broadcast on the Terran Empire Nightly News? Doesn't your John Stewart slap an Agonizer on his guest for the nightly "Moment of Pain"?
|
Maybe I can weigh in on this as a gay married man. I think that first there's an arrogant belief that marriage is solely a christian created institution. And thats just plain false. Secondly there is an assumption that allowing gay marriage would redefine marriage. Which is also false. First off a well accredited psychologist and associate of Sigmund Freud studied this, his name was Carl Jung. Carl Jung in his studies went to africa and studied 18 distinct tribes. One thing he found constant was that they celebrated 3 events in a life time, these same 3 events were celbrated by every culture he studied BIRTH, MARRIAGE, and DEATH. Thats right these african tribes without the influence of christianity had marriage, and one of them *drumroll please* had gay marriage. Gay marriage isn't nearly as uncommon in history as people think, we even see mention of gay unions going back to ancient Egypt. The point is every single culture studied had a form of marriage, so one particular religion or culture, or country has no more right to define marriage than all the cultures before them. We have had gay marriage in Canada since 2005 and guess what, nothing bad happened. We didn't force churchs to marry us, that was just someones pure delusion, we didn't destroy heterosexual marriage (again pure delusion), and frankly most people forget it even happened. Churchs go on doing what they did before, life goes on except in the gay community where we feel for the first time ever we're equal. I can bring up in idle conversation the term "my husband" no one bats and eye. I can walk down the street holding his hand and no one cares. So why exactly do people think this is such a horrible thing?
|
|
Maybe I can weigh in on this as a gay married man. I think that first there's an arrogant belief that marriage is solely a christian created institution. And thats just plain false. Secondly there is an assumption that allowing gay marriage would redefine marriage. Which is also false. First off a well accredited psychologist and associate of Sigmund Freud studied this, his name was Carl Jung. Carl Jung in his studies went to africa and studied 18 distinct tribes. One thing he found constant was that they celebrated 3 events in a life time, these same 3 events were celbrated by every culture he studied BIRTH, MARRIAGE, and DEATH. Thats right these african tribes without the influence of christianity had marriage, and one of them *drumroll please* had gay marriage. Gay marriage isn't nearly as uncommon in history as people think, we even see mention of gay unions going back to ancient Egypt. The point is every single culture studied had a form of marriage, so one particular religion or culture, or country has no more right to define marriage than all the cultures before them. We have had gay marriage in Canada since 2005 and guess what, nothing bad happened. We didn't force churchs to marry us, that was just someones pure delusion, we didn't destroy heterosexual marriage (again pure delusion), and frankly most people forget it even happened. Churches go on doing what they did before, life goes on except in the gay community where we feel for the first time ever we're equal. I can bring up in idle conversation the term "my husband" no one bats and eye. I can walk down the street holding his hand and no one cares. So why exactly do people think this is such a horrible thing?
No idea. Just that some people are unable to change their viewpoints. That's the whole problem with "conservatism", the world changes but conservatives dream away in the Halcyon days of the past when every thing was "good and wholesome", and the Social Conservatives are the worst. They forget that the past wasn't any more good and wholesome than today, and indeed most of the time it was sad, bigoted and brutal, and was OK only provided you fitted into the "tyranny of the majority" mold, and didn't dare challenge the status quo
You only have to see the way they [conservatives] are demonizing liberals who are willing to embrace and ponder change (and I'm not saying all change is good) and at least allow people to be free (from Latin root "liberas" = freedom) to be themselves without persecution.
The Puritans and Catholics and various groups fled to the New World to get away from persecution in Europe. Then they started persecuting others for not being like them here in the US. Vicious spiral.
Recently they voted a disgraceful marriage amendment into State Law here in Virginia, to prevent gay couples from having a civil union akin to a marriage, because the religious "wrong" couldn't stand the thought of two people of the same gender being allowed to leave effects to their loved ones after death, or be named as next of kin, and often being denied the right to visit their sick loved one in hospital because they were not considered family.
I'm a Christian and I'm thoroughly sick of many Christians today who have become a disgrace to Christ. The God I believe in isn't anything like the one some of them do.
|
|
It makes no dern difference to me if people of the same gender get married. Good for them! Why is it *my* business or anyone elses? It's beyond me.I agree, as long as we are not giving any legal benefits for any relationship. Once the government takes an interest in the relationship, then well they have "business" in the relationship.
Legal benefits to inherit their spouses effects on death?
Legal benefits to visit their sick spouse in hospital?Legal benefits to parenting a child?
Legal benefits to own property together?
It's all about legality. You don't agree with me at all, you appear to be saying that they can do what they like providing they aren't allowed to be legally sanctioned in Law as married? I'm not talking Church here either. Churches can refuse, the State can't because it shouldn't be discriminating.
It makes no dern difference to me if people of the same gender get married. Good for them! Why is it *my* business or anyone elses? It's beyond me.I agree, as long as we are not giving any legal benefits for any relationship. Once the government takes an interest in the relationship, then well they have "business" in the relationship.Legal benefits to inherit their spouses effects on death?
Legal benefits to visit their sick spouse in hospital?
Legal benefits to parenting a child?
Legal benefits to own property together?It's all about legality. You don't agree with me at all, you appear to be saying that they can do what they like providing they aren't allowed to be legally sanctioned in Law as married? I'm not talking Church here either. Churches can refuse, the State can't because it shouldn't be discriminating.
All I'm saying is that you can't in one breath say "Other people should stay out of my business." And then in the next breath say, "Oh and I want some government backed benefits for my business." If you really don't want people in your business, then don't try to get the government involved in your business. If you want the government involved in your business, then you want people involved in your business.
|
|
All I'm saying is that you can't in one breath say "Other people should stay out of my business." And then in the next breath say, "Oh and I want some government backed benefits for my business." If you really don't want people in your business, then don't try to get the government involved in your business. If you want the government involved in your business, then you want people involved in your business.It makes no dern difference to me if people of the same gender get married. Good for them! Why is it *my* business or anyone elses? It's beyond me.I agree, as long as we are not giving any legal benefits for any relationship. Once the government takes an interest in the relationship, then well they have "business" in the relationship.Legal benefits to inherit their spouses effects on death?
Legal benefits to visit their sick spouse in hospital?
Legal benefits to parenting a child?
Legal benefits to own property together?It's all about legality. You don't agree with me at all, you appear to be saying that they can do what they like providing they aren't allowed to be legally sanctioned in Law as married? I'm not talking Church here either. Churches can refuse, the State can't because it shouldn't be discriminating.
Your are arguing semantics or misunderstanding me. In essence, I meant, it makes no difference to me if gay people are allowed to marry because it does not cause me or anyone else harm if two gay people marry and share their lives together. It does not make my marriage to my wife any less valid. There is no reason gay people can't have a legally sanctioned marriage so they may enjoy the same rights heterosexuals do, as I outlined above.
Marriage is a legally sanctioned state that in society can be carried out in a religious or secular manner (i.e. it can be performed by an religious/secular official). If two consenting adults of the same gender wish to enter this state then no-one else should have a right to deny or disallow it on ethical/moral/religious/<fill in the blank> grounds. The law does not proscribe two unrelated - meaning non close family, e.g. siblings - consenting adults (i.e. not minors) of the same/opposite genders from having a sexual relationship in the first instance, then ergo it should not proscribe either parties' mentioned above from being allowed to be married under legal sanction of the Law.
So my point was just because some people 'object' to it on personal or religious grounds or simply think it is icky for two consenting adults of the same gender being married, doesn't make it right to deny, by legal sanction, marriage of said individuals.
Constitutional Rights:
Separation of Church and State
Rights to Free Speech
Rights to Pursue Happiness
Rights for Minority not to be Tyrannized by Majority.
Pres Man is saying he would rather NOBODY - regardless of orientation or arrangement - have the government granting benefits arranged by marriage. Which is a position I certainly support.
In fact, I've often wondered how much of the current argument would simply vanish overnight if the government were to revoke the "bonuses" it grants to married couples, rather than extending them to same-sex couples and other non-standard pseudomarriage arrangements. Not all of it, I'm quite sure, but I have a feeling a decent-sized chunk of people would suddenly consider it no longer worth the effort.
Pres Man is saying he would rather NOBODY - regardless of orientation or arrangement - have the government granting benefits arranged by marriage. Which is a position I certainly support.
In fact, I've often wondered how much of the current argument would simply vanish overnight if the government were to revoke the "bonuses" it grants to married couples, rather than extending them to same-sex couples and other non-standard pseudomarriage arrangements. Not all of it, I'm quite sure, but I have a feeling a decent-sized chunk of people would suddenly consider it no longer worth the effort.
I tend to see this as an argument for smaller less intrusive government. Proponents of gay marriage point out that marital and family status impact thousands of legal issues. This creates government enforced discrimination against GLBT and poly-amorous adults. They are simply treated differently under the law, and I see no honest way to argue that unequal treatment under the law in these cases is not discrimination.
Does the fact that thousands of legal issues are impacted by state definitions of family suggest to anyone else that the state has far too much involvement in our lives?
I really think it's time to start cleaning many laws off of the books. Black letter law and case law have a nasty way of accumulating in unmanageable ways. Sodomy laws (broadly defined) are a great example of this. In many jurisdictions lots of acts between consenting adults are unlawful. Inexplicably the courts have failed to strike down sodomy laws as unconstitutional, so they are still on the books, but they are almost never enforced. Why keep the laws on the books if we refuse to enforce them? There are far too many stupid laws to list, and they tend to keep piling up, but this is basically a political non issue for both sides of the debate.
It just seems to me that the more control government has in our lives the more we have issues like this one.
I tend to see this as an argument for smaller less intrusive government.
...
Does the fact that thousands of legal issues are impacted by state definitions of family suggest to anyone else that the state has far too much involvement in our lives?
...
It just seems to me that the more control government has in our lives the more we have issues like this one.
Exactly!
You know what I'd really like right now? Some funky trance music.
|
|
You know what I'd really like right now? Some funky trance music.
not pressing the link because I fear being rickrolled.
|
|
You know what I'd really like right now? Some funky trance music.not pressing the link because I fear being rickrolled.
It's actually a DJ Tiesto-roll.
Your are arguing semantics or misunderstanding me. </SNIP>
Careful! "Semantics" is intellectual mumbo-jumbo 'round these here parts...I hear tell using it makes ya look foolish. :P
|
|
It's actually a DJ Tiesto-roll.You know what I'd really like right now? Some funky trance music.not pressing the link because I fear being rickrolled.
Somehow, that's worse. At least if it were a DJ Baby Anne roll, she's pretty hot and stuff. And DnB kicks Trance's ass all over the dance floor to boot.
|
|
You know what I'd really like right now? Some funky trance music.That is not funky. THIS is funky.
That's what I'm talking 'bout.
|
You know what I'd really like right now? Some funky trance music.That is not funky. THIS is funky.
Yeah Damn! Play that funky music 'til ya die!
Legal benefits to inherit their spouses effects on death?
Legal benefits to visit their sick spouse in hospital?
Legal benefits to parenting a child?
Legal benefits to own property together?
------------------------
...it makes no difference to me if gay people are allowed to marry because it does not cause me or anyone else harm if two gay people marry and share their lives together. It does not make my marriage to my wife any less valid. There is no reason gay people can't have a legally sanctioned marriage so they may enjoy the same rights heterosexuals do, as I outlined above.Marriage is a legally sanctioned state that in society can be carried out in a religious or secular manner (i.e. it can be performed by an religious/secular official). If two consenting adults of the same gender wish to enter this state then no-one else should have a right to deny or disallow it on ethical/moral/religious/<fill in the blank> grounds
+1
EDIT: Funky Town
You missed. I *AM* that grognard.Maybe when I see some guy running 2e, and I walk past and see an elderly man behind the screen I won't make a nasty comment about grognards.Fixed for ya.Grognards think 2e players need to get off of their lawns.
Get offa my lawn.
The Paizo boars are an ironic place to have grognard discussions (IMO) since more than a few of us are here because we didn't drink the 4E Koolaid.
(no edition war derail please!)
|
|
You missed. I *AM* that grognard.Maybe when I see some guy running 2e, and I walk past and see an elderly man behind the screen I won't make a nasty comment about grognards.Fixed for ya.Grognards think 2e players need to get off of their lawns.
Get offa my lawn.
The Paizo boars are an ironic place to have grognard discussions (IMO) since more than a few of us are here because we didn't drink the 4E Koolaid.
(no edition war derail please!)
I can't find a 1e group, gotta play something I guess.