Gibberish of the day!

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:54 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
Lich-Loved wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:Hell, if you can't speak the country's language, I think we can agree that you should get no say in the country's policies...
You cannot seriously mean that. It's a joke, right?
um... yes, let's go with that... now that I realize how stupid that sounded... though I do find something really wrong with the idea of someone going to a country, not learning the language, and expecting any real say in country policies...

Thank goodness the United States has no national language.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:54 am

Crissa wrote:Early feminist history, as relates to homemakers. It's kinda like having a non-white name: The resumes with that information on them just tend to be called on less often.

That doesn't apply in Queensland state government. One of the benefits of the government is that they can just mandate legally binding hiring policies along with an appeal process. Any hiring decision had better have documentation that will hold up under IR inspection in case of an appeal. Seems to work pretty well, senior management is about half female.

And I do have a female spouse, which might confuse you at times.

The way you use the word spouse interests me. Personally I'd just say wife and anyone who doesn't like it can piss off.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:55 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:
The way you use the word spouse interests me. Personally I'd just say wife and anyone who doesn't like it can piss off.

I assumed she chose that word on purpose because "wife" has connotations of servitude.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Or, y'know, her spouse is an mtf.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:23 pm

Why wouldn't an mtf be considered a 'wife'?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:26 pm

A transwoman could be a wife, yes. O.o So could a man, though. But yes, it has gender and servitude connotations which we cannot escape, so we don't use it.

Or, she could be a domestic partner, in other words, spouse. I also use partner, significant other, my Sammi, etc. Sometimes I use girlfriend in jest. She sometimes uses roommate to avoid being specific. We avoid wife and mate.

Very weird, your pondering.

-Crissa

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:11 pm

I wonder if gender-neutral honorifics will ever catch on.

.. or do people really desire gender-specific titles for that extra little bit of sPeCiAlNeSs?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:18 pm

As a slight derail, may I just state how much gender-neutral names make my teeth hurt?

My 12-year-old sister knows several kids with names like Tucker or Taylor. There's also a couple of Madisons in there, on both sides of the gender fence.

I just wonder why parents would pick such a bland name...

Edit: Also, I can't see gender-neutral honorifics catching on, if only because gender is so much a part of society's thinking that there's no way you could get usage to spread apart from, oh, wiping out adults and raising all children to ignore gender. Most people don't even think about them, so they're a bit puzzled when someone makes an issue of what syllable you put in front of someone's name. Insisting on it will just make people not take you seriously.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:43 pm

Maxus wrote:I just wonder why parents would pick such a bland name...

With my siblings and I, my parents specifically picked our names to be a stretch to make fun of, which basically meant that they're crazy common. Doesn't hurt that our last name is one of the most common in the country, as well.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:34 pm

MRAs? Again? Those fuckers are useless. They've done less actual things for men's rights than feminists have.

They try to actually cause outright fucking harm, in trying to close down funding for women's shelters.

Operative word being 'try', when people who funded one of these shelters saw the MRA ads and got called by MRA spokespeople, they all shot down these evil motherfuckers.

On names.... >_> I have a very uncommon, yet memorable one.

I've also noted that I tend to use gender neutral terms, I'm not sure if it's b/c I want to use gender neutral terms, or because I just don't like giving people lots of details. I've got the feeling that it's more the second, than the first.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:02 pm

Crissa wrote:So, tzor, do you actually make enough money to be taxed more via any of the plans Obama has put before congress?

-Crissa

As far as I know, no. I don't know if I might get hit on the state level.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:42 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Thank goodness the United States has no national language.

Ah but we were so close, so close,
Imagine if we had approved that notion and were speaking German decades before WWI and WWII, history would probably have been completely different.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:56 am

You know, I probably should get back on topic.

First of all, I'm as conservative as they come but I have to state that, all things being equal, there is no reason why a woman should be paid less than a man. There should also be no reason why a single person should be paid less than a married person; feeling "sorry" because they have a spouse and kids doesn't cut it.

Having said that men are not equal to women; men are not equal to men; women are not equal to women; we are all unique; each has their own strengths and weaknesses.

I'll probably get in hot water for being so politically uncorrect, but I know a number of guys who feel the same way; on the average, women make bettter project managers than men.

As for those who stay at home, I knew a guy who was married to a nice doctor. (Milk it for all you want; yes they were Jewish.) He did some consulting work from time to time, but for the most part when needed he was a stay at home dad. Mind you life is a lot easier, working or not when you can afford people to look after the children from time to time.

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:37 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
Lich-Loved wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:Hell, if you can't speak the country's language, I think we can agree that you should get no say in the country's policies...
You cannot seriously mean that. It's a joke, right?
um... yes, let's go with that... now that I realize how stupid that sounded... though I do find something really wrong with the idea of someone going to a country, not learning the language, and expecting any real say in country policies...

Well, I think in an *ideal* world this would be the case. I would like everyone voting in the US to be able to speak the language so they could participate in the larger debate, but I don't think it is possible from a practical standpoint.

The viewpoint you first expressed is a right-wing kind of thing, and I found it surprising that you would say it, so I wasn't sure if it was a typo or no.

I am glad btw you didn't feel as if I were attacking you on the point; that was totally not my intention though in hindsight it might have been construed as such.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:46 am

(group) is equal to (group), (individual) is not equal to (individual), tzor.

...The project manager thing has to so with socializing and expectations of our culture which just spends more time training those skills into women.

It's easy to get pissy at the amount of privilege a heterosexual couple has; they can state their gender, their spouse's gender, and their ability to procreate in a sentence without even those things being the subject of the sentence! And they call equal marriage 'special rights'. Fuckers.

-Crissa

PS, what's gender neutral about my name? There were twins in my primary school named Crissa and Crissie.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:47 am

Maxus wrote:Also, I can't see gender-neutral honorifics catching on, if only because gender is so much a part of society's thinking that there's no way you could get usage to spread apart from, oh, wiping out adults and raising all children to ignore gender. Most people don't even think about them, so they're a bit puzzled when someone makes an issue of what syllable you put in front of someone's name. Insisting on it will just make people not take you seriously.

Yes. Raised in a commune.

In an arcology.
With robot tutors.
Emotional outbursts will be shot on sight.

One can dream..

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:36 am

Crissa wrote:Or, she could be a domestic partner

Now this one annoys me. That and de facto are terms gay couples are stuck with here since the government only lets you be de facto, not married. So the term has the connotation 'gays can't have nice things'. Screw that.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:50 pm

Crissa wrote:(group) is equal to (group), (individual) is not equal to (individual), tzor..

It really is similar, only instead of dealing with singular comparisons we use the comparisons of various collections. Here is gets even more confusing, do we use the average, the min, or the max? Does the standard deviation within the group make the comparisons non effective?

Crissa wrote:...The project manager thing has to so with socializing and expectations of our culture which just spends more time training those skills into women..

It could be, or it could also be a factor of hormonal balances as well (all that testosterone pushing managerial egos above the group and even the self interest).

Crissa wrote:It's easy to get pissy at the amount of privilege a heterosexual couple has; they can state their gender, their spouse's gender, and their ability to procreate in a sentence without even those things being the subject of the sentence! And they call equal marriage 'special rights'. Fuckers.

Really? The “ability to procreate” isn’t really a requirement for legal marriage; infertile people can get a license as easily as fertile ones. In one sense the notion of procreation was the sole purpose of the institution of marriage. On the other hand, the notion of marriage as an institution of the state with attached “rights” is of relatively modern origin.

”wiki” wrote: From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.

…

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life." This change did not extend to the regions affected by the Protestant Reformation, where marriage by consent continued to be the norm. As part of the Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state. By the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage.

Thus we see the evolution of the registration of marriage by the church, to the registration and regulation of marriage by the state. Later on we see the state taking more and more restrictive views of the regulation of marriage based on more fundamental ideas of what marriage should be. As additional legal “benefits” got attached to the state marriage registration, the Gordian knot between the “institution” and the “state registration” became complex and tangled to the point where an attack on one was considered and attack on the other.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:02 pm

...marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required.

...In other words, not religious.

Your quote doesn't say what you think it means. There have always been benefits attached to marriage, based upon property law.

-Crissa

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:02 am

I also like how he starts his personal history of marriage with Christianity, as if they invented it.

You know marriage HAD already been around for a lot longer than Christianity has been.

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:48 am

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1

Because this is "gibberish of the day", I figured I'd toss in some classic gibberish here, since it was shown to me recently. While I have fairly little against Christianity as a whole myself, I do find the people who take this way too seriously quite hilarious(ly sad).

[One Christian speaking to another]
You are banned. You are not a Christian for Christians don't accuse brothers and sisters in Christ of being non-Christian.
Troy, Bibliocality [Comments (1461)] [2006-Feb-07]

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:40 pm

Crissa wrote:...In other words, not religious.

I'll pick a nit here, religious ceremony implies a church or a religious heirarcy, religious in an of itself is an arttitude.

PhoneLobster wrote:I also like how he starts his personal history of marriage with Christianity, as if they invented it.

Not "invented" but mangled enough from Roman law as to make it significantly new. I could have gone back to Roman law, and then indicated how this got altered in the dark ages. I'm just back tracing marriage from the US to Europe where the bulk of our common law comes from.

Didn't know you wanted a thesis here.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:57 pm

Lich-Loved wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:
Lich-Loved wrote:
You cannot seriously mean that. It's a joke, right?
um... yes, let's go with that... now that I realize how stupid that sounded... though I do find something really wrong with the idea of someone going to a country, not learning the language, and expecting any real say in country policies...
Well, I think in an *ideal* world this would be the case. I would like everyone voting in the US to be able to speak the language so they could participate in the larger debate, but I don't think it is possible from a practical standpoint.

The viewpoint you first expressed is a right-wing kind of thing, and I found it surprising that you would say it, so I wasn't sure if it was a typo or no.

I am glad btw you didn't feel as if I were attacking you on the point; that was totally not my intention though in hindsight it might have been construed as such.

Well... I was raised by two right wing nut jobs... and am jobless while half the time I go into a fast food or low end retail place have to deal with someone who knows maybe a handful of garbled english... It gets annoying.... I've also been vastly over exposed to spanish, in my opinion, so I kind of get touchy...

but, yeah, I realized how stupid I sounded... I'm just glad I said "I think we..."
it was not a problem, Lich.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:00 am

This is a great source for gibberish this weekend. It's hard to dissect, but basically the logic goes:

Fifteen of the most wealthy men in History were Americans in the Robber Baron period;
Our schools score lower than Japanese and Korean schools, and have less days in the year (40 to 60 less days per year);
Robber Barons didn't complete private schools;
Therefore we should have only private schools;
...And have the government force them to operate all-year;
PS, Robber-Barons didn't pay income tax;
Therefore we should abolish income tax.

I think.

-Crissa

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:44 pm

Crissa wrote:This is a great source for gibberish this weekend.

I would suggest that technology paragram shifts and supply / demand has a stronger influence than taxes. That is why the era right after the black death in the middle ages led to general wealth (because most of the people were DEAD) and that the gold rush boom after the civil war lead to the robber barons.