Probably for the best, you were likely considered guilty by association as soon as you mentioned you came over from here.

I posted one follow up reply and I’ll probably stop at that. I’ve said all that needed to be said.

I just had to write this....

A person chooses a discipline of life or a faith if you prefer and studies it, embraces it and shares the personal benefits (happiness, health, self esteem...everything ). Now here you have a person who walks a path in which he or she feels is going to make him or her a better person at the end. It is something that you can almost calculate. If you want to you can live that life of brotherhood and sisterhood inside a community and and really profit from the support system that the community in question has to offer. And that is good...really...if you do it for yourself.

But for that you have to forget self-criticism, the great beyond scientific approach to certain subjects and you almost absolutely have to follow the flow. If you do that, you’ll do just fine.

You can equally live a beautiful life outside such a system if you don’t need to BELONG to such a group or religion. You are not a sinner if you live like that, you are just morally more independant and self sufficiant which is what was causing problems in the times of the dark ages.

Here is a fact : THERE IS NO GOD. There is only life and death created at first by natural accidents in the cosmos. And now sometimes by our own stupidity.
You don’t believe me....watch the news.

We all posess inside of us and in front of us the proof of that.
The people that use religion to protect what they have gained from that community or to give themselves the looks and feel of a spiritually educated person have no proof of god’s presence.
I think it is called blind faith.

IT’s ALL POLITICS, MONEY,POWER, CONTROL, STRENGTH of opposition.

I don’t know what all of you think but we are going back into the “clash of the religions” Thanks in part to BUSH.

I am off the subject and for that I apologise.

Here’s the real issue:  i think Ben at Scattered thinks Brock is hot and is sublimating that desire.
--
But, besides that…
Dealing with people who hold extreme, divisive beliefs is always difficult, and the discussion is always prone to being more combustive than interesting/informative.  But, ideaologically speaking, i think it’s important to confront these people at each and every possible turn, no matter how exhaustive it can be.  You would be awed at how people synthesize opposing views and how that exposure *does* change their beliefs, sometimes very gradually.

Pardon the comparison:  Off and on i sometimes spend considerable time with white supremecists in the NEast area.  When i meet some new member and we start discussing “the issues”, i’m often struck at how under-exposed they are to the opposing side of beliefs; This i say as a (blond) Jew, and a (str8 acting) gay.  Granted, they don’t know my full agenda, and for sure makes that discussion more civil.  But, it also helps me see what their core beliefs are, and their core defenses for those beliefs.  Often, their defenses are factually nill and more what i call “emotionally faith-based.”

Like ourselves, many of our beliefs are first created by some emotional need.

When we discuss our beliefs with those who differ we can’t help but confront our individual *emotional needs to believe.* I believe that when we identify those types of beliefs, given enough time and need, those beliefs are replaced with a reasonable ideology.

It just takes exposure, time, and reason.
Confrontation, no matter how difficult, is always the best policy.

Dealing with people who hold extreme, divisive beliefs is always difficult,

Very much in the eye of the beholder.  As a believer in an invisible man in the sky, I was mainstream and therefore not divisive.  But that’s a pretty extreme belief, in its consequences for humanity!

As is my present atheism.  Now that I’m not mainstream, that’s divisive.  And some of my friends feel my atheistic belief is extreme.

many of our beliefs are first created by some emotional need.

An important truth.  The very reason I pay a lot of attention to views that make me uncomfortable.  Fool me once…

Having done a little more reading about the ex-gay movement, it seems well supported by political/religous interests and quite unconcerned with anyone’s happiness.

Having done a little more reading about the ex-gay movement, it seems well supported by political/religous interests and quite unconcerned with anyone’s happiness.

Political and religious interests focus on compliance, not happiness. Too many people assume the authority to tell others what to do or to think, but they reject the responsibility that comes with this assumption.

Les, the comments of a post and the left sidebar seem to frequently get out of sync in the last week or two…

It just takes exposure, time, and reason.
Confrontation, no matter how difficult, is always the best policy.

I’m going to have to disagree with you here.  The first part is just fine, but confrontation can hardly be considered the best policy.

Confrontation tends to establish an I’m right and your wrong atmosphere from the start.  In some case you may very well weaken someone’s defenses to the point where they will begin to be receptive, but I would argue that you are more likely to cause the individual to further entrench themselves in their belief system.

Instead of confrontation, I would suggest challenging others to think about things from a different perspective.  When people come together and discuss ideas outside the trenches a lot more can be solved than when we smart bomb their infrastructure and then tell them why they were wrong.

I’ve sort of got to agree with what deadscot has said above, and also to admit that I’ve continued posting on Ben’s blog. Not because I felt I would achieve something by it, but because the hostility I encountered from some of his regular commenters made me frustrated and left me with the feeling that I hadn’t put my point across.

I tried to be neutral initially, but on reading more of Scattered Words, I found myself feeling uncomfortable and unhappy with what I was digesting. My ‘neutrality’ fell away to some extent, and although I still don’t agree with Ben, I find myself understanding his story more than I did previously.

Anyway, I don’t feel like I’m going to build a bridge between Scattered Words and SEB or anything, that’s clearly not going to happen. But I do feel like I found a place in me that can post sincerely on Ben’s blog without feeling the need to confront him.

Bear in mind, that’s not a criticism of anyone here, just a statement of my own position.

Damn, I really got dragged into this one, huh? I know, I know, I’m naive as all hell, but I can’t help it. Ultimately, I have an extremely childish wish that everyone would just get along.

Well, my first ‘meeting’ with Brock was rather contentious too (since I mentioned in one of my first comments here that I’ve never met an ‘out’ gay, which apparently caused Brock to think me a hypocrite).

But his posts are certainly in the spirit of the site. And why should we have perfect harmony anyway?

I’ve continued posting on Ben’s blog. Not because I felt I would achieve something by it, but because the hostility I encountered from some of his regular commenters made me frustrated and left me with the feeling that I hadn’t put my point across.

“Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
- Mark Twain

For the record, No, I’m not saying Ben’s a pig.  But he might be a bit pig-headed and I can certainly understand that, since it often takes me a lot longer than it should to catch on.

And why should we have perfect harmony anyway?

Yeah!  There’s hardly anything less interesting than a roomfull of people all agreeing with each other and slapping each other on the back.  Like any political convention, for example.  The only interesting people there are the protesters and they all get dragged away in handcuffs.

I’d like to see kids learn how to argue without fighting.  People say, “I don’t want to get into an argument” because they don’t understand the difference.  A real argument is a constructive meeting of different minds and is lots of fun.

Since Ingolfson made reference to a conversation we had, yet was (purposefully?) vague enough to allow one to judge me unfairly, I’d like to excerpt that conversation here, so everyone can be certain that I do indeed deserve a spanking.

In: YEAH! WHAT THEY SAID! DAMMIT!
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/yeah_what_they_said_dammit/

---Ingolfson on 2/07/04 at 04:51 PM wrote the following…

I think Chad meant France (a country with a strong secular tradition) and maybe Germany, where a big part of the population does not consider itself religious.

Personally, I think religion doesn’t enter the picture that much in regard to couples having children or not. Its wealth and culture. Sadly, we in Europe don’t put much stock in kids, and we are too occupied living our lives to be distracted by having kids. I think thats the major danger for Europe - I don’t have anything against immigrants, but integrating large groups of them *is* difficult.

And concerning the main topic, I’ll take Les advice and just add my big fucking “YEAH! WHAT THEY SAID!!!� I’ve always been pro-gay, even though I’ve yet to meet any ‘out’ gay people.

---Brock on 2/07/04 at 11:10 PM wrote the following…

Ingolfson, where do you live that you’ve never met any “out� gay people? That’s almost like saying you’ve never met anyone with dimples. One would have to be either very old, very young, or very determined to avoid meeting others to accomplish that in America.

My people are everywhere and we’re determined to pervert every logical concept, every moral certainty, and every Christian value you may hope to hold sacrosanct.

Now, just tell me where you live and I’ll have someone over to make you gay in every way.

Homosexuals: We make God believe in atheists.

---Ingolfson on 2/08/04 at 12:13 PM wrote the following…

Brock, I don’t like your style. You may be joking, but it’s still close to insulting.

I don’t worry about you or anyone perverting my moral certainities, because those are made and held in my mind - and there only. I’m also an agnostic, so thanks for the comment about Christian values…

I live in Germany, and if I say I never met an ‘out’ gay person that’s just what I mean. I never met a person who told me he was gay or was known to be gay, except for a male couple I once met briefly at a dinner party - but I didn’t KNOW them.

No one in my circle of friends (young college people, mostly) holds anything against gays either.

But I won’t try to actively meet gay friends, just to close a ‘hole’ in my experience. Why should I? If I meet someone who turns out to be gay, I will treat him like everyone else - I’ll judge him by how much I like him, not by his sex habits.

Whatever floats your boat! Always been my motto.

---Brock on 2/08/04 at 02:53 PM wrote the following…

That’s funny Ingolfson, that you would be offended. Though I was being facetious with my post, now you’ve got my back up!

Why wouldn’t you go out of your way to meet an out gay person? I’ve gone out of my way to get to know a straight one or two or hundreds!

Maybe you are so lackadaisical that you can profess acceptance for something or someone you don’t even know, but it sounds like an insincere position.

I’ve lived my life being denied basic respect and simple rights that you are given without question, and I’ve met far too many people who speak the good speech but who do nothing to help correct their society’s wrongs.

My original question simply demonstrated surprise that you’ve never gotten to know an actual gay person.

If you’re an agnostic, why would you be bothered by a obviously humorously meant comment about Christianity?

I walk through this world too. You may have seen my footprints, but until you meet me and talk to me, I’m only a statistic to you.

I Chose to be Gay Because ....
I choose to be gay because I think it’d be great
to live my life as a victim of hate
I choose to be gay for the ultimate high
of telling my mom and watching her die
I choose to be gay because then I can hear
how many times people will use the word ‘queer’
I choose to be gay so I can stand out
Because laughing at people is what life?s about
I choose to be gay because I don?t want a mate
Whom I could then marry, as though it was fate
I choose to be gay just for the thrill
of having to hide from people that kill
With all the excitement to face everyday
why doesn’t everyone choose to be gay?

---Ingolfson on 2/08/04 at 04:31 PM wrote the following…

There you go again. Why are you special? Why are gays special? They are not. They are no worse and no better than straights.

You suggest that I *have* to know gays. I don’t. If chance made it so that I’ve never met one who was open about it, why should I go and search them out? Since I believe they are, on average, not much different from straights, there isn’t even any ‘novelty’ involved.

I’ve been raised amongst people who never said anything against gays, who never showed any homophobia, long before it was politically incorrect. I have and I do argue against homophobic views when I encounter them.

I live in a country where gays have received many legal rights they are still denied in the US, and I vote for the politcal party that supports making them fully equal before the law.

I simply object to your ‘You have to’-stance. I don’t *have* to do anything except what my conscience tells me to.

I would like to offer that my first response to Ingolfson was only meant to reveal incredulousness and I was trying to make him laugh, but surprisingly to me, he took it very seriously. Then I took our conversation more seriously and next thing I knew, there was a fist hole in the wall and the police had been summoned.

I’m surprised to see that you remember this conversation, Ingolfson, and apparently bear a grudge. I consider you a good sort to know and, until now, hadn’t recalled you as the person I had THAT conversation with. I sincerely hope that someday you can forgive me.

It does bother me though that you said “If I meet someone who turns out to be gay, I will treat him like everyone else - I’ll judge him by how much I like him, not by his sex habits.”

This bothers me only because you intimate that to be gay means primarily to be sexual with another of ones own sex. Would you also consider it generous to look beyond an acquaintance’s coupling with a blond haired opposite sex partner even though you couple only with brunettes? Why would sexual coupling even need to be considered or discarded? It’s about an individual wanting to share his or her life in meaningful ways with the one he or she loves. Sex is usually a very small part of a homosexually identified individual’s persona. Gays have more going for or against them than just who they sleep with. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I feel love for, and desire a connection with another for many reasons beyond the fact that he has a penis.

The subject of the post dealt with social rights far beyond the choice of a sexual partner and gays seek equality. This is perhaps the reason why homosexuality may be perceived as “special” simply because until equal rights are afforded, this section of society will be deserving of special attention. Until we learn to get beyond validating legally-aged individuals through whom they sleep with, we’ll be stuck with potentially perceiving others as less human, less noble, less correct than ourselves. Meeting a few gay people may help you to shore up your understandings of their equal appropriateness.

I’m really not trying to reopen old wounds I may have given you, still, now that you remind me of it, another person here said he had no gay friends, and his name is David.

Hi Brock!

Well, it seems I opened that up again. First off all, I hope you don’t really feel I was implying anything negative about you. I was simply stating that you *can* come across as rather ...direct.. in your statements.

I didn’t want to point to that old post, or expound big on it, exactly because I did not want to dig that old matter up again. Maybe I should have simply not posted it then. But the style of your posts was being discussed, and I added my couple cents.

You said (still haven’t learned that Blockquote thing):

> I would like to offer that my first response to
> Ingolfson was only meant to reveal
> incredulousness and I was trying to make him
> laugh, but surprisingly to me, he took it very
> seriously.

But you *also* said in the post:

> Now, just tell me where you live and I’ll have
> someone over to make you gay in every way.

Now it was surely over-reacting from me - but from where I stand, as a hetero (my viewpoints on gays nonwithstanding) that comes across as rather crass.

How would you react if I asked you:

“Hey Brock, mail me your adress!. I’ll send someone over to *straight*en you out!”

So - your post was at least rude.

> Then I took our conversation more seriously and
> next thing I knew, there was a fist hole in the
> wall and the police had been summoned.

Really? Well, you could check and see that for example I never called you names.

But yes, I feel passionately about my viewpoints too. And I react very aversely to anyone telling me what to do. I’m much too much the individualist loner to take that without comment.

In this post now you also say:

> It does bother me though that you said “If I
> meet someone who turns out to be gay, I will
> treat him like everyone else - I’ll judge him
> by how much I like him, not by his sex habits.�

Brock, why does that bother you? Maybe I’m a fool sometimes who doesn’t realize how what he says sounds in other people’s ears. But when I say I don’t judge other people on something so unimportant for their worth like sexual preferences, whats bad about that?

I’m NOT saying:

Homosexuality = bad (but I’m willing to ignore it)

I AM saying:

Homosexuality/Heterosexuality = Unimportant in how much I like someone/how much someone is ‘worth’

Also, I’m NOT implying that being gay is simply about feeling sexual desire for another person (is that what you want to say in the third-to-last paragraph? I’m not sure).

> Until we learn to get beyond validating legally-
> aged individuals through whom they sleep with

I don’t. I probably DO know a few gays. But just not anyone who is open about it. Maybe its me, maybe its the society we still live in. But maybe it’s just random chance.

> Meeting a few gay people may help you to shore
> up your understandings of their equal
> appropriateness.

I’m sure that meeting and getting to know out gay people would teach me things, and make me understand them better. But should I search them out? I wouldn’t know how. I also would feel like I was intruding if I *did* try to get to know someone just because of sexual orientation.

> I’m really not trying to reopen old wounds I
> may have given you

Its true that I get insulted easily. But ‘wounds’ is way too big a word for it.

> still, now that you remind me of it, another
> person here said he had no gay friends, and his
> name is David.

I have no out gay friends. Statement of fact, not implied intention.

Be hearing of you!

Wow you go offline for one weekend and look what you miss. 
I feel so very at home here even though I don’t post a lot.
In BROCK’s 9/04/04 at 07:24 PM post he mentioned that SEB was listed elsewhere as not a “Family Friendly” site, is that some kind of code word for “Not for people who want to experience intellectual freedom”?
My children are not old enough to handle most subjects posted here but I certainly like to hope that from age 16 on they will be open to the kind of intellectual discourse readily available here and compose/defend their ideas/postions with the high standards of the assorted Evil Bastard’s.

I’ve come to regard “not family friendly” as a badge of honor… What’s sad is that there are people out there that consider exposure to differing opinions much like a disease vector.

Elwed, that’s probably due to the caching system. I have most templates set to cache for around 10 minutes or so and the sidebar is technically its own template. The comments page, however, clears itself from the cache anytime a new comment is posted so it’s possible that the sidebar and the page it’s being shown on might be slightly out of sync with one another. The convenience of editing only one template when I change the side bar versus having them in sync by including it on the comment template is a trade-off.

I’ve been debating coming up with a variation on the sidebar specifically for use on the comment pages that would eliminate a lot of the extra stuff such as the blogroll and the like which is only really needed on the main index, but I haven’t decided on what a comment specific sidebar should include.

Lordklegg, I didn’t miss anything as I get all the comments sent to me as email and I check that pretty religiously even when I’m not active on the blog. Honestly, I think the discussion here has been pretty good overall.

Ingolfson, I tend to get on a soap box when it comes to certain issues and I must admit, that to some extent I was using your comments as a springboard.

Too, my sense of humor IS somewhat crass at times and even my friends can be amazed that I’ve had the gall to say what I said. Then factor in the social and cultural differences, language and political inclinations and I feel purely lucky when a joke I make is taken as I meant it.

My first response that caused you to say you didn’t like my style really was meant in jest and to show how some perceive the “gay agenda” but just as I was trying to offer some talking points, you offered some great ones too. Perhaps down the road we can pick up this conversation and I’ll try to leave my wry humor out of it. (I hope you realize, though that I can’t promise anything.)

The blockquote thing is done this way: [ followed by the word quote followed by the opposite ]

A Single Object Access Protocol box?

Cool.

Those are the best kind.

I’m Goo Gobler