Religion is a crutch for people too weak to behave morally without fear of punishment.

The only problem is crutches make such handy clubs.

And the first thing weak, fearful people do with a weapon is lash out at everybody they percive to be a threat.

I like Bill and his sacrastic attitude when pointing out hypocricy or the flaws in someones reasoning.

Did anyone see when he had Micheal Moore on?
Moore was going on abiut how men were to blame for everything including the decline if fish populations due to overfishing and Bill said "Right, because women don't eat fish"

At any rate this should befar more fun than Steins piece of shit 'expelled'.

I'm a Christian, and I've only heard one Christian speak out against charging interest - Dave Ramsey, a financial advisor who encourages people to live totally debt free. I'm impressed that Bill Maher brings this up. I enjoy thoughtful debate, so I probably will see this film. One point I'd like to make to Bill: yes, good deeds like feeding the hungry can happen without religion. But the same is true for war, bigotry and pedophilia - those things would certainly still exist without religion.

I saw this movie Friday night, and it is hilarious. I thought Maher was a little bit mean to the shopkeeper (heavier guy, wearing a green shirt, had a ceramic nativity scene for sale), but that was the only time I got that impression. He really was very nice to the people he interviewed. My favorite was a Catholic bishop, near the end of the movie.

But the same is true for war, bigotry and pedophilia - those things would certainly still exist without religion.

Posted by: Karen

But they wouldnt be so easily justified now would they?

I've seen outtakes from the Maher film: It preaches only to the choir. I can't imagine a worse two hours.

They say there's a new Tyler Perry movie.

But they wouldnt be so easily justified now would they? (lujlp)

Heh. Ask the victims of Mao about that one.

And why are the Christians who are all up in arms about the homos not all up in arms about charging interest? (Amy)

Because not all Christians are fundamentalists. In fact, most aren't. Christianity was originally a movement against Jewish fundamentalism. Lots of otherwise well-informed people still fail to grasp the implications of this fact.

It was no accident that liberal governance and science developed in the Christian West.

Also, being "up in arms about the homos" is very different than being up in arms about gay marriage.

>It was no accident that liberal governance and science developed in the Christian West.

Yep, thanks to them good ol' Christian Romans and Greeks.

Saw the movie last night. It's pretty entertaining, but no real surprises in it. But then I was reading Bertrand Russell at 14, so.... But if you think you may enjoy this type of movie, you will probably enjoy this movie.

I am so tired of the whole "religion ruins the world" thing. Yes, horrible things are done in the name of religion. So are wonderful things. Horrible things are done in the name of any number of things that aren't religion, as well. The basic fact is there are some shitty people on the planet, and some great ones. Take away religion as the basis for these shitty people to commit foul acts, and they will find another banner to march under.

I've said it before and I'll say it again-as a very firm christian-that gluttony is condemned 10 times as often as homosexuality in the bible. Something for the fatasses of the world to chew on.

And I was pro-gay-marriage, until Amy posted that link to the libertarian author discussing unintended consequences of social change. Now I am not so sure. Even societies where homosexuality was accepted didn't have marriage for them. In all the thousands of years of human cohabitation, no society has. Maybe there is a reason? Is it realy needed, to call it marriage? They can give themselves a lot of the rights they want-the right to visit in the hospital, make medical decisions, etc, by filling out some pretty simple legal contracts. I think the only thing they can't get is the tax break and employer-provided spousal medical insurance coverage. We can fix that without marriage. I just think maybe there does need to be a lot more thought on the subject.

Which article do you mean?

Karen -

I'm not a Christian, but I really wish I had discovered Ramsey a great many years ago.

momof3 -

Is it realy needed, to call it marriage?

No, which is why I would rather see marriage as a civil institution abolished completely.

What exactly is the problem with calling the legal joining of homosexuals marriage, if there is no difference in the rights provided?

I can't help more than it was in the last few months, in her blog here.

I am quite against getting rid of marriage. I've never heard of a society that didn't have some form of it. Therefor it must be useful. For one reason, we need to reproduce to continue our species, and everyone reading this blog knows 2 committed parents are best for kids. I do think it ought to be harder both to get into and out of. No-fault divorce was yet another area the feminists really fucked up.

Because the word "marriage" describes a sacrament same as the word "communion".

> being "up in arms about the homos"
> is very different than being up in
> arms about gay marriage.

Jeff, it's good to see someone thinking clearly about this on this blog. But as you can see from earlier discussion, being snarky to other people is a big part of the energy behind gay marriage advocacy.

Now, I hear you asking yourself: "But wait! Does he really mean that the energy of seventh graders --the twelve-year old's propensity to describe a classmate as being 'sooooo immature'-- is what propels this issue through our body politic?"

And that's it exactly. I dunno whether this is just leftover hurt from those years, where people have been waiting for decades to sting others with a taunt of sexual naiveté as they were once stung themselves, or whether it's a plain retreat to the simplistic thinking of childhood...

... But as Reynolds notes, lefties are psychographically incapable of considering the issue with an open mind: "They're emotionally committed to running against Elmer Gantry. It's central to their self-esteem."

> I would rather see marriage as
> a civil institution abolished
> completely.

Then you should be arguing that, instead of supporting gay marriage. It's an integrity thing.

> What exactly is the problem with
> calling the legal joining of
> homosexuals marriage, if there is no
> difference in the rights provided?

First of all, you're again bungling the math. (And it was short comment!) Rights aren't "provided", privileges are. And opponents of GM (often, at least) don't want same-sex couples to have the same privileges that straight couples do. Ceremonies with funny clothes, visitation, inheritance, OK: "marriage", no.

> everyone reading this blog knows 2
> committed parents are best for kids.

M3, within the next hours, someone will post a comment here completely discounting the impact of femininity in childrearing. (And by iimplication, masculinity was well.) You will be amazed, and you'll rub your eyes and doubt your internet connection, but it will really happen... Just wait and see.

I am one of the few in my demographic(republican and christian) that still enjoys Bill Maher. This is probably because I am more libertarian than repub, and more buddhist than christian.

He is a funny comedian, or at least he has good writers. Anyone that tried to watch real time last year during the writers strike noticed this immediately. Where he errs in his attack against religion is that he tries to pin EVERYBODY who claims to be a Christian as being a kook that believes in a talking snake. This makes him a weak opponent in the argument against organized religion. He acts like a gnostic athiest, which is really the worst case (believes there is no god and believes this belief is true). When pinned down a couple weeks ago on real time by Andrew Sullivan, he admitted to basically being an agnostic atheist (non-believer in god, but not that he KNOWS there is no God). Which contradicts the nature of his attacks on christianity.

I think many Christian's fall into the category of agnostic theist. One believes in God, but doesn't claim to have proof of God's existence.

What Maher is really preaching against is gnostic theism. Sarah Palin, GW Bush seem to fall into this category. They believe in God, and claim to have knowledge that their belief is true. This is scary even to an old methodist like myself. It is too close to the belief from that religion, which one is it, that believes if one dies in course of defending alla that you will be rewarded with 72 virgins?

Palin, Bush, and any others out there that want to fight off these attacks should emphasize 'faith' rather than 'knowledge', and a lot of these types of attacks would lose their effectiveness. An old Spanish
colloquialism would do very well for the repubs, especially Palin; A Dios Rogando y con el mazo dando: Put your faith in God and keep your (gun) poweder dry.

I will see religilous as soon as I get a chance, as I hear it is pretty funny.

"Where he errs in his attack against religion is that he tries to pin EVERYBODY who claims to be a Christian as being a kook that believes in a talking snake."

Only the degree of kookiness varies. In conversation, online and otherwise, I find very few know enough about religion of any kind to be consistent. People largely don't know how they form beliefs, much less how to explain why they have them. I get the facial expression corresponding to the BSOD often.

It's important to pay attention to what is going on. However tightly one might cling to the idea that supernatural and magic things exist, they don't, and there is much real learning still to do.

> I get the facial expression
> corresponding to the BSOD

Is there a three-fingered reset you haven't told us about?

OK, let's do this after all....

> Um, And Why Is "Faith"
> A Good Thing?

Because people aren't as bright as they think they are. They're not as alert, as aware, as sensitive, or as thorough.

Perception is notoriously haphazard. People see things wrong, they hear things wrong, they read people and animals and even the weather incorrectly. And then they're under stress... And then they get emotional, and who knows what's actually going on out there. We are all at risk.

So when you read the books from people who do big and wonderful things, there's always a chapter that advises us to "keep going no matter what." Hell, I'm not sure anyone's even opened a successful business without saying it.

One of the last books like that I read was Colin Powell's, and it had two such aphorisms. 1- Optimism is a force multiplier. 2- (No matter how bad the news was today,) Things always look better in the morning. A few years ago there was an article about Steve Wynn, who explained how to open an elegent resort hotel: "You hook the thing up to your aorta and go like Hell for three years."

At any given moment, you're not likely to judge the hazards you face correctly. But if you don't act as though there's a possible outcome that you'd want, there certainly won't be.

Even Hitchens talks about this. (Here's a recent example.)

Listen, I think life is really dark. It's a great reason not to have kids. But if you're going to let atheists deploy this discipline without mockery, shouldn't the faithful be able to use it as well?

What crid said.

"Agnostic Theist" - I've never heard this phrase before, but it actually does describe me. The way I see it, Christianity is either the biggest hoax in the history of mankind, or it's true - and I believe that it's more unlikely to be a hoax. But that's all I've got - I don't pretend that I have "proof." I agree that faith is much the same as optimism. I wake up each day pretty sure that I will not get run over by a car or get blown up by a terrorist. But I don't KNOW that I won't.

I've always thought that religion is an excellent means of social control. Basically, it keeps the unwashed masses barefoot & pregnant, in that its primary concern is controlling the sexuality and consequently the reproductive systems of women. The same rich powerful men then ensured that women had no economic power, and made poor men completely responsible for women, thus shackling them to baby factories. The babies were very important as cannon fodder in the endless wars, as well as farm labour, and more recently, factory labour. When you have 12 brats running around and you've got to worry about feeding them all, you don't have any time to plan the overthrow of the ruling class. You also don't have the time or energy to get educated, and start asking questions, so you're easy to control through fear-mongering.

It also let the rich keep all the riches and property for themselves. That was the only reason the Catholic church wanted priest to be celebate.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic

Sorry for the ugly link. But this is the most concise definition I've seen with just the facts. I would say most people following this blog would be in category 1 or 3. People in the 2 and 4 category tend to be the most obnoxious. YMMV.

Amy - One last swing at this post, and then it will be buried and unmourned....

> why are the Christians who are
> all up in arms about the homos
> not all up in arms about
> charging interest?

First, read Jeff's point above, just to be clear.

Second, it's not that Christian cultures aren't "all up in arms". But the best Christian (and Jewish) cultures have evolved to regulate lending practices sufficiently to build the world of wealth that surrounds you. In the United States, usury laws prevent rational, sincere, worthwhile borrowers from getting slaughtered.

(Bad week all Wall Street, but don't kid yourself: With proper adherence to principles, nothing enriches human life like capitalism. All your posts on this crisis acknowledge this.)

Maybe that answer isn't sufficiently ironic for you. Fear not! There's a convenient example of a culture where such things are more straightforwardly forbidden: "In particular, Islamic law prohibits usury, which is the collection and payment of interest..."

Wanna try it?

"He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him." - George Orwell

Nice one

I consider myself to be a pretty easy goin' gal. I do not, however, like anything forced on me, weather it be, religion, political views, gay marriage, and even Obama's sorry excuse for government cheese health care. I believe in God and shouldn't have to apologize to anyone for it. I don't go to church on Sunday and shouldn't have to apologize to anyone for that either. I must say that I am a little sick of the negative message that movies like this perpetuate. I may not have all that "fancy book learnin" behind me, but I'm smart enough to know liberal propaganda when I see it! I'm sick to death of it already!
Did I forget to mention that I'm going to vote against gay marriage. I'm doing so not because of whatever the bible says. Ordinarily I wouldn't care about gay marriage. However, I don't appreciate having anything forced on me.

Go McCain/Palin!
Go Navy!
Go Capitalism!
No Socialism!

So Andrea your ignoring GOD's commandment to let go all your worldly goods to the poor?

Matthew 19:21

Funny, isnt it, how christians are the first to ignore christ's teachings?

Nope! God helps those who help themselves. I do believe in charity for those who are truly worthy of it, not for those who chose to do nothing.

Here's a question for christians - why does a god who commands you to mutilate to penis make more sense then one who has one eye and rides an eight legged horse? or one who throws thunderbolts? or a goddess that rose out of sea water and a dismembered penis?

And why does it matter to none of you how heavily edited the bible was by various councils over the last twenty centuries?

Listen pal. I think you take things far too literally. You are exactly the type of nut I can't stand. Good night and God Bless You!!!

How am I taking things to literally?

Andrea, whatever you do, don't you let any of that fancy book learnin' get in the way of your determination to remain ignorant and narrow-minded. It's your right.

Just had another thought, why is it when atheist point out the logical pitfalls and contridictions inherent in religion we are accused of taking 'things' to literally?

But why is it the "faithful" who pick and choose which facets of doctrine they will adhere to and which they will ignore no one says anything?

There are more verses in the bible about restitution of destruction of property then homosexuals - in fact there are more verses in the bible CELEBRATING the kidnapping and raping of women then there are condemnations of homosexuals.

Andrea do you realise it was not until 1992, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO - that the catholic chuch finally admited that the earth revolves around the sun?

Isnt it odd how christians rush to criminalise "deviant" behavior like sex because of a handfull of bible passages - but when ot comes to things like charity, and caring for the poor(THINGS THAT COST MONEY) all of a sudden it is a personal choice and 'god helps those how help themselves'

You Andrea are a typical christian - hypocritical, and ignorant. Ironically if there were a god you and your ilk would be far more likely to wind up in hell then me and mine.

Until someone decides that ALL religions are fair game for ridicule, I have no desire to hear any ridicule.

And Chrissy, I don't have the time to take you apart today, but just about everything in your little post there is wrong, and not just by a little bit. But you keep living that perpetually-aggrieved vagina life of yours.

I'm sure it makes you happy.

brian what religions are not fair game for ridiclue?

Well, based upon Maher's bit, and various other happenings in the media world, I'd say that it's "the religion that dare not be named", The Religion of Peace™.

Islam.

Terrorism works.

If word on the street is that people who 'dis' your crew get capped, people learn to keep quiet.

Correction - cowards who refuse to defend themselves keep quiet

momof3 -

You misunderstand me. I just want to abolish marriage as a civil institution. I am all for the notion of civil unions that provide domestic partners with rights currently relegated to wedlock. I just want to see the marriage bullshit out of it.

Crid -

Then you should be arguing that, instead of supporting gay marriage. It's an integrity thing.

I am happy to argue both and have explained why. While marriage is the legal standard, then gays should have the right to partake. And not the equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, I mean the right to marry the person they want to have that relationship with.

My desire to see marriage abolished as a civil institution is separate from my desire for equal rights for the majority of my friends.

Rights aren't "provided", privileges are.

Pedantry doesn't become you darlin.

And opponents of GM (often, at least) don't want same-sex couples to have the same privileges that straight couples do.

I have found that this really isn't often the case. The only one that really makes most people who balk at all balk, is the right to adopt. And even that one is losing momentum. But you are indeed correct, there are a lot of sick fuckers out there who really are that afraid of humanizing people who are Different....

M3, within the next hours, someone will post a comment here completely discounting the impact of femininity in childrearing.

Now, now, she didn't actually say anything about those two parents sexual preferences. I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was including same sex couples. And she's right - the best thing for kids are two committed parents who love them.

> I am happy to argue both

You might also argue against men beating their wives with chains. But until beatings ended entirely, we'd find you contented in an interim where they only used leather straps. This flexibility makes your grasp of underlying principles seem dicey.

> the right to marry the person
> they want to have that
> relationship with.

On the basis of 'want', I have the right to a profoundly sexual relationship with actress Jessica Alba. She won't hear of it, though... She keeps sending musclebound goons over to rough me up an puncture my tires... It's criminal!

> my desire for equal rights

Gays have always had the same rights...

> I have found that

A lot of your comments are like that. Instead of offering anecdotes from which you've mined deeper insights, we're just supposed to trust that these passing glimpses represent some broad survey of the human condition. Did you go to school?

> The only one that really makes
> most people who balk at all
> balk, is the right to adopt.

Now, you and I have discussed punctuation before, DuWayne...

> the best thing for kids are
> two committed parents who
> love them.

There's more to biology's specification than the number two. You haven't been paying attention.

>You might also argue against men beating
>their wives with chains. But until beatings
>ended entirely, we'd find you contented in
>an interim where they only used leather
>straps. This flexibility makes your grasp of
>underlying principles seem dicey.

Acctually its more akin to agrue that until beatings stop women can beat their husbands as well

>On the basis of 'want', I have the right to
>a profoundly sexual relationship with
>actress Jessica Alba. She won't hear of it,
>though... She keeps sending musclebound
>goons over to rough me up an puncture my
>tires... It's criminal!

That is the second dumbest analogy you have ever come up with - the dumbest ever was equate gay marriage to wife beating

>Gays have always had the same rights...
BULLSHIT

>A lot of your comments are like that.
>Instead of offering anecdotes from which
>you've mined deeper insights, we're just
>supposed to trust that these passing
>glimpses represent some broad survey of the
>human condition. Did you go to school?

And yet you expect us to trust your insights instead? Why?

>There's more to biology's specification than >the number two. You haven't been paying >attention.

And there is more to child rearing than having two sets of genitala in the parents.
Or do you seriuosly mean to suggest the average coke whore and her dealer would make better parents by virtue of their sexual orientation then two gay architects?

Civil marriage is not a right. It is a privilege bestowed by the state upon a couple in exchange for the creation of new taxpayers.

Until homosexuals can create a child without outside assistance, they don't get any love from the state. Raising someone else's kid doesn't count. You lose on biological reality.

I don't get the need to normalize something that afflicts less than 2% of the global population. Homosexuality isn't like race. There isn't a continent of homosexuals anywhere on the planet.

Homosexuality is no more normal than schizophrenia.

Oh, and to kinda stay on topic:
lujlp:

Correction - cowards who refuse to defend themselves keep quiet

That's as may be. But the rest of us have to decide if saying our piece is worth parting with our heads or not. Some day some freak will stumble upon my blog, or my comments I've posted on some other blog, and show up at my door. At that point, whether I retain my ability to speak depends on whether or not I can successfully defend myself.

I don't see how my little theory makes me a hysterical vagina thinking woman. Rich and powerful men have always been interested in controlling the poor, both men and women. In the past, women didn't write the laws which forced men to be responsible for them, since they weren't even recognized as people, so being angry at women for your lot in life is rather silly.

Now the laws for family court has swung in women's favour for child custody, etc. but that's fairly recent, and as has been discussed in previous posts, if you don't think it's fair, contact your government representative and fight to have the laws changed.

Civil marriage is not a right. It is a privilege bestowed by the state upon a couple in exchange for the creation of new taxpayers.

Until homosexuals can create a child without outside assistance, they don't get any love from the state. Raising someone else's kid doesn't count. You lose on biological reality.
-brain

Your reasoning falls short brain due to those couples who do not have children either intentionally or due to physical defect. Plus there are those couples who do have children BUT ONLY THRU outside assistance

You lose on biological reality as well as human nature.

Also given the way most americans deal with the issues of sex I'd say scizophrenia is not uncommon at all

> - the dumbest ever was equate

Metaphor isn't witchcraft, Loojy. There are books in the library that will explain how it works to you.

> BULLSHIT

I like the caps and absent punctuation for a single-word response. We can hear your arms folding through the computer, because you can't reach the keys anymore. You're enjoying the self-righteous rage too much to explain your thinking... You just haven't given this matter much attention. Almost everybody here is like that. The responses are always percussive and impulsive, with childlike streams of magical fantasy poured into teacups of sanctimony ('All children need is love!'). You're going to get back at Mom & Dad for making you eat those vegetables last night...

> trust your insights
> instead? Why?

I'm smarter, nicer, and have thought about it longer and more deeper than you. Also, I'm better groomed.

> there is more to child rearing
> than having two sets of genitala
> in the parents.

Nobody said there wasn't.... Except mother nature. In reality, you need a man and a woman to make a baby, and it goes best when you pick the right man and the right woman.

> Or do you seriuosly mean

Loojy, I'm sure you're a nice man in your private life, but you're just not equipped with the logic required to deal with this. You're comparing the worst of one condition against the best of another as if it would illuminate anything. And that architect stereotype is a nice touch... It convinces me that you don't actually hang with gays.

> there's no reason anyone who
> wants to be should not be
> married.

Agreed. If a guy meets a nice girl, he should bring her some flowers, take her to film, and....

lujlp

Your reasoning falls short brain due to those couples who do not have children either intentionally or due to physical defect. Plus there are those couples who do have children BUT ONLY THRU outside assistance

Well, in my world they wouldn't stay married, or they wouldn't get any benefits.

And as far as those who can have children only through outside assistance? Tough. I'm against IVF and surrogates as well.

If you can't have make a baby the way nature intended, then nature's telling you something. It's not my fault that people don't want to listen.

Well brian, in theory I agree with you, but until such a plan is put into effect same sex couple should get the same goodies that childless hetero couples do.

Crid - equating gay couples and straight couples to wife beating with chains and wife beating without chains is stupid, end of discussion.

And BULLSHIT was an appropriate response, gay people have not always had the same treatment under the law as straight people.

As for you being smarter, thats debatable, nicer? Might be true given the right circumstances. As for better groomed I'd have to see a photo.

As for my private life, I'm not nice - I am polite up to a point but life is to short to bother tiptoeing around peoples dumbass sensibilities.

And my goal in comparing the worst and best did illuminate something - your refusal to answer.

People are messy - everyone has some sort of damage but I dont see why a gay couple who passes all the same requirements a straight couple does cant adopt. And you have yet to offer a reasonable argument as to why they shouldnt.

brian at least has a logic reason, unfortunately it is one that will never be implemented but at least it makes sense

Crid -

You're wrong. No matter how much you want to believe you are right, no matter how much you know you are right - you're still wrong.

But I love you anyways....

Brian -

Homosexuality is no more normal than schizophrenia.

You are so very obviously into the dick you liar.

> equating gay couples and
> straight

Again, Loojy, metaphor isn't equation.

> gay people have not always
> had the same treatment under
> the law as straight people.

As regards marriage, they indisputably have. I've never, ever heard of an exception.

> I'm not nice - I am polite
> up to a point

Brian used that clichéé just last week. He came off like a goofball, too.

> your refusal to answer.

To answer what? I'd never decline a challenge here...

> I dont see why a gay couple
> who passes all the same
> requirements a straight
> couple does cant adopt.

I completely agree! If one of them is a man and the other is a woman, I'm all for it.

> brian at least has a
> logic reason

What are the other kinds of reason?

> - you're still wrong.

And yet you can't find the words to say how. I know why.

> You are so very obviously into
> the dick you liar.

That's where that renegade comma shoulda made its home.

(It's a lot of work to make this entertaining, people....)

Isn't it interesting that "God helps them who help themselves"? Coincidence? I think not.

I'm one of those "hard" Atheists that dares to declare there is no god but as far as proving a negative goes? Hogwash. I find it interesting that I'm supposed to prove there's no God when I say there's no God but no one expects me to prove there's no Santa, no Easter Bunny when I likewise say the same. Or fairies even though plenty of people believe they exist. We humor six-year-olds and don't demand they prove Santa exists because, well, they're six. But if someone 36 demands I believe in their silly nonexistent creature -- they are the one making the extraordinary claim, not me -- and I damned will demand proof before I believe it.

Brian -- they are. But I loved your "religion that shall not be named" bit. Exactly. Maybe if we don't say Voldemort's name, he won't harm us. Definitely the ostriches burying their head in the sand. But I think I've shown I'll mock Islam as quickly as I will Christianity. But I'll agree with you as regards IVF and surrogate mothers. But adoption's cool and it's also not a baby the couple conceived and it's absurd to say when a straight couple marries their marriage should be dissolved if they fail to produce an offspring within a time limit. I wouldn't be able to believe you were serious on that one if I didn't "know" you so well.

lujlp: "As for my private life, I'm not nice - I am polite up to a point but life is to short to bother tiptoeing around peoples dumbass sensibilities." Me too. I bet you're hear "God, you're blunt" all the time too.

Crid, the only thing you've more of than anyone else is perhaps ego. And don't hide it. You loved that statement.

It's fun to be right! Try it!

T's Grammy being a guy I'm more likely to hear "God, your an asshole"

Crid -

And yet you can't find the words to say how. I know why.

Oh but I have. Several times and occasionally at great length. It is you who have never really been able to frame your argument reasonably - excepting that special sort of cosmic force that makes str8 folk's relationships superior to those of queerfolk.

That's where that renegade comma shoulda made its home.

Fuck, You I, Won't, Do, What, You, Tell, Me!!!

T's Grammy -

Crid, the only thing you've more of than anyone else is perhaps ego. And don't hide it.

SHH!! Even his ego is "genteel." We don't want to injure anyone now.....

I bet you're hear "God, you're blunt" all the time too.

Living in Portland, which is pretty rife with pansies, I usually hear "I'm sorry." Maybe followed by an under the breath; "fucking asshole."

I don't comment here all that frequently, but you may have noted that my online persona is, shall we say, a little abrasive. Mainly when folks annoy me. There are probably folks who assume that this is me blowing off steam, because I can't act like that in "real" life.

The problem is that I actually have far less patience with fucking morons in the real world and it shows. I am very kind to most people and will happily share whatever little I have, with those who are in need. I love to meet new people and have no problems with striking up conversations with people I don't know. But I cannot deal with fucking idiots and get very cranky when they slow me down.

First, Brian gave us "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry", a cliché that wasn't convincingly expressive even when it appeared on television during his childhood. (9k google hits)

Second, Loojy gave us "I'm not nice" (30K).

But DuWayne's "I actually have far less patience" doesn't even rate on the search engines! Now, it's only a failure of wording.... The sentiments are no less hackneyed and mundane for being unmeasurably commonplace.

Seriously, guys, what's going on? Exactly who are you swinging your dicks at?

Y'know, it's not like Amy hosts annual conventions in Orlando or anything, such that these comically infantile threat displays could ever impress anyone deeply enough to get you laid. No one cares if you're tough; no one cares if you're scary, or tall, or short, or bald and fat; no one cares about your aggressive defense of personal boundaries, because we will never meet you. The chances of a street encounter with any of the people you're typing for are vanishingly small. We just wanna be amused, maybe thoughtfully.

And yet, DuWayne's protestations to the contrary, this is 'real life'. The stipulation is: if you can't do with ASCII, then it doesn't matter how fabulous you are in person.

Nonetheless --if you must persist in this-- a number of classics from the pop culture of yesteryear are listed below, just sitting there, waiting to be claimed. Go ahead, take one. Anybody? Conan? Snakester? Anyone? Feel free...

If you're looking for trouble, you've come to the right place!

This town's not big enough for the two of us!

You won't live to regret that!

I am about as evil as a Boogie Man can be!

Case in point, I was just trying to disembark a train, while some asshole kids decided to get on at the same time (etiquette and rules demand that passengers disembark, before others try to get on). Now with folks who appear to be new to public trans, or at least ours, I am happy to be polite about it (even though it seems rather obvious to me). But people who are obviously quite confident about what they are doing, get to meet my inner asshole.

Tonight I chose to plow on through and turn around with a scowl when they said something about it. They opted to just get on the damn train and I didn't even say a word.

You're dangerous, DuWayne! You're scary! You are one badass mofo on Portland public transit....

(Upon which riding has been one of the gentlest experiences of my life. Intimidation seemed to be the last thing on anyone's mind. This is like the time that a rapper slapped Moby at the MTV awards. We were all, like, "Moby?")

I'm confused how is saying I'm not nice a threat?

Duwayne, you should hear me as I teeter through the mob that can't even think to go past the front of the bus trying not to step or cane anyone's toes (though maybe I should, oops) or fall on them, my top of my lungs "coming off" brooks no argument. If they have stepped on, they step off until I am off. Maybe perhaps because if they try to ignore it, I then shout, "Coming the fuck off. Get the hell out of the way." Don't really care if I come off like a wacko to inconsiderate assholes I don't desire plowing me down as I limp off the bus.

lujlp, ignore him. He's feeling threatened and is blowing hard again. None of us said anything of the sort. Though I am curious, Crid. I'm swinging my dick around? What dick?

>> I get the facial expression
>> corresponding to the BSOD

>Is there a three-fingered reset you haven't told us about?

"The Shocker" would probably serve to re-initialize their facial expression.

I thinks youse guys are demonstrating concrete thinking for both your discussions of what is personally tolerable for you and as regards gay marriage.

Crid until such time as you give a reason as to why two people of the same sex cant marry eachother shut up.

It doesnt even have to be a well reasoned or coherent reason - any will do, seriously.

The problem debating this subject with you is you never answer. In fact the only answer you give is gays can marry just not who they want.

So please for the love of what ever imaginary friend your parents had you penis sniped for, put up or shut up

You're in for a long weekend of reading, fella.

Crid -

such that these comically infantile threat displays could ever impress anyone deeply enough to get you laid.

First, they're not threats, just a tangential discussions about what sorts of assholes we are. Second, I don't need to impress anyone to get laid. While my relationship with my partner is difficult for both of us at times, it does have the benefit of readily available sex (when children are asleep or even better, having a sleepover elsewhere) pretty much whenever I want (occasionally when I'd rather not, but we all have our crosses).

And yet, DuWayne's protestations to the contrary, this is 'real life'.

Yes and no. No question that discussions on online fora are legitimate and occasionally fruitful. At the same time it is pretty sharply limited from human to human interaction and not very reflective of how the people involved really deal with such interactions.

You're dangerous, DuWayne! You're scary! You are one badass mofo on Portland public transit....

Oh, I am motherfucker, I am. I can't wait to be elder enough to require the assistance of a cane. Sons of bitches are really going to be in for it then.

Upon which riding has been one of the gentlest experiences of my life. Intimidation seemed to be the last thing on anyone's mind.

How far out of downtown did you go? Not that it is exactly like NYC subways in the eighties, but when you get to the outlying ghettos (such as the one in which I reside) it gets a little nastier.

However, intimidation isn't the issue - it's common courtesy (and following the rules). Two most common problems - people who try to get on the train while others are trying to get off and people who won't get up out of the priority seats for seniors and the disabled. The first has caused my partner to almost lose our son, who couldn't get off and lost her hand when motherfuckers getting on nearly trampled him (and occasionally does lead to separated parents and kids). The second has found rather decrepit folks trying to hold onto a bar while standing - something that may be a problem when they're not on a moving train.

When I come across either of these problems, I tend to get intimidating - rather successfully because I am capable of great feats of asshole. I can make small children cry with a mere scowl. My "get the fuck out of that woman's way!" has made even the most rugged hipsters wet themselves. And my stroller fitted with a 2x4 bumper has smashed into the ankles of many a moron standing in front of me picking their ass.

I am one meanass, public trans riding motherfucker!

T's Grammy -

The folks that count probably don't think your whacked. My very favorite rider of a certain age, carries a titanium cane - the kind designed for fat people. Titanium has the same velocity as much heavier steel and he likes to "accidentally" smack ankles with it, when said ankles don't get the fuck out of his way. And from the reactions, it's gotta hurt like hell when he gets you with it. Apologizes every time, yet he mysteriously seems only to hit folks who don't want to get out of the way.

lujlp -

Crid until such time as you give a reason as to why two people of the same sex cant marry eachother shut up.

Never Going To Happen - Never.

Crid -

You're in for a long weekend of reading, fella.

Of what? There isn't one single lick of reasoning in any of it, though there will be plenty of threads wherein I ask for it, providing plenty of reasons why we should have gay marriage and you refusing to respond, instead whining about the length.

lujlp -

short version of Crid's threads; "There shouldn't be gay marriage, because advocates for gay marriage go on at too much length for me to digest and respond to it all. Therefore, there just shouldn't be gay marriage - oh, and straight couples have some sort of cosmic superiority."

That's all there is to his arguments.

If boredom were cornflakes, you'd be Kellogg's of Battle Creek.

Crid -

If your bullshit were edible, world hunger would be a thing of the past.

(I gotta say, if I must be compared to a corporation, there isn't a single one I would prefer over Kellog's. Seriously, there are few companies out there who have done more for and stuck by their community of origin, like Kellog's has.)

Ah, the home country.

Unfortunately, the "old" country (as I like to refer to it) is soon to be the home front again. Things have gone from bad to worse here, with the market crash and we have a superior support network back in Michigan (work too). Just unsure yet, whether we are going to K-zoo (where my parents live) or Lansing (where our friends live and there is more work to be had).

Crid, stop talking to yourself! (Though I think I might be insulting cornflakes in saying that.)

DuWayne, I've got to get me one of those. Seriously. I've only been on the cane 2 1/2 weeks and I know exactly where he's coming from. I tell the bus driver to wait for me to sit and dreading the day when there is no seat. I will ask to make someone give me one. Don't know if it will have an affect. Depends on the driver but most will be damned if they involve themself. Someone could be knifed on their buses and they'd just keep going and not radio for help.

I really, really hope I get the handicapped bus, especially before there's ice on the ground. I get evaluated for it next week. And physical therapy a couple of days after. But now I'm starting to get lower back pain too that I'll be bringing up when I return to the orthopedic specialist.

This sucks! Major big time. Did some research too and once again childhood malnutrition plays a factor. Sigh. But what are you going to do? Gotta play the hand you're dealt. I bitch a lot and say I give up but I never really do. I'm damned determined that I am not going to go out on disability this close to retirement.

On the bright side, my daughter's proven her salt through this. She's really stepped up and pitched in. Been there for me throughout which is good because my boss is being an asshat about it. T's dad has finally grown up and now his mom seems to be too. Good. 'Cause we need her.