bsjkki Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 6 hours ago, california boy said: The Mormons are coming for your children. They have a message of love. Let’s all get hysterical. You know, this actually happens. Parents refused to let Mormons join the homeschool baseball team or be friends. 1
smac97 Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, california boy said: So church leaders are fallible but we should expect the San Francisco Gay Men’s Choir to be infallible and never make a mistake. Their message of tolerance and fairness might be ok but their execution might be flawed. Hummm I think part of the the concern here is that the "message of tolerance and fairness" is perhaps predicated on ideosyncratic definitions of those terms (such as "tolerance and fairness" being intended to be mean something like "self-appointed strangers deliberately, 'quietly and subtlely' subverting parents in the teaching of sexual ethics to their (the parents') children"). I think part of the concern here is that the "message" is predicated on an overt threat of subverting parents in raising their own children. I think part of the concern here is that the creators of the song associate homosexuality with pedophilia, after having done the same thing with their musical which romanticizes child rape and pedophilia, and after having ostensibly apologized for it. I think part of the concern here is that the creators of the song apologized for and retracted their pedophilic musical. No such retraction/apology for the song/video, though (to the contrary, the SFGMC has doubled down on their threat to "indoctrinate" children, saying "it's our turn," and they have now re-posted the video to YouTube). This, coupled with the subsequent "it's our turn {to indoctrination your children}" message from the SFGMC, leaves the "message" of the song quite intact. I think part of the concern is that all that talk about "live and let live" was, for some folks - including the SFGMC - a smokescreen. That subversion of parents and indoctrination of children is the intended message, and that this is nothing like the "live and let live" concept. I think part of the concern here that the "satire," the "joke" was about pedophilia, with the underlying message being about parental subversion and indoctrination of their children without and against their (the parents') consent. The message of the song/video here seems to be "Hey, we were just kidding around in writing, performing, and publishing a song and video that have a bunch of adult men threatening to subvert you as parents and sexually prey on your children, and that they will do so 'quietly and subtley.' What we meant was that we are threatening to subvert you as parents by indoctrinating your children without, and even despite, your consent, and there ain't jack squat you can do about it." I think part of the concern is expressed well here: Quote The point is the hostility projected by this group of gay men toward parents with children. At this late date, most people with teenagers are probably under 50, that is, they were themselves brought up in a world already quite accepting of gay people. But the deal sealing that acceptance was that each side would strive to show the other that putative threats from their own side were overblown. This performance punctures that peace deal. Parents of troubled and confused teens do not need a gaggle of childless activists intruding and getting in the way of dealing with teen development issues, however things turn out with those teens sexually. "This performance punctures that peace deal." Yep. I think part of the concern is that the message of the song was quite deliberate, not accidental or misunderstood. The contempt for parents was deliberate. The threat to subvert parents was deliberate. The threat to indoctrinate was deliberate. I think part of the concern is the onslaught of subversive stuff being fed to our children. See, for example, this: In The Washington Post, ‘Gendervague’ Former Prostitute Promotes Teaching Kids ‘Kink’ Quote The Washington Post published an op-ed by a former prostitute who identifies as “gendervague,” in which the author encourages parents to show their children “kink culture” in the “queer community.” Lauren Rowello argued in the Post that children are benefited by being exposed to LGBT sexual activity at public parades. Rowello uses her own kids as a backdrop for the story, highlighting how she took them and her transgender partner to a gay pride parade several years ago. “Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong,” she writes. ” …[P]olicing how others show up doesn’t protect or uplift young people. Instead, homogenizing self-expression at Pride will do more harm to our children than good. When my own children caught glimpses of kink culture, they got to see that the queer community encompasses so many more nontraditional ways of being, living, and loving.” As I have asked a few times now: Are we supposed to read this stuff and not take it seriously? Quote There is no “queer community” in America. Gay people have different views, neighborhoods, and values, just like other Americans. Some LGBT individuals use the month of June as an excuse to engage in inappropriate acts and stroll around in public nude. Many gay people do not engage in this exhibitionist behavior. Rowello continually uses the word “kink,” which is also in the title of her Washington Post article. The definition of this word, according to Merriam-Webster, is “nonconventional sexual taste or behavior.” The concept is linked to pornography, which is known to encourage increasingly extreme sexual behavior in addicts. In the pages of the Washington Post, then, Rowello celebrates exposing children to extreme sexual behavior and romanticizes this disturbing decision, claiming kids will actually reap benefits. Rowello goes so far as to criticize those who object to child sexual abuse, claiming children can consent to things they do not understand: Anti-kink advocates tend to manipulate language about safety and privacy by asserting that attendees are nonconsensually exposed to overt displays of sexuality. The most outrageous claim is that innocent bystanders are forced to participate in kink simply by sharing space with the kink community, as if the presence of kink at Pride is a perverse exhibition that kinksters pursue for their own gratification. But kinksters at Pride are not engaged in sex acts — and we cannot confuse their self-expression with obscenity. Co-opting the language of sexual autonomy only serves to bury that truth and muddies the seriousness of other conversations about consent. Since the author has determined kink to be “self-expression” and not vagrant nudity or at a minimum adults being creepy, she concludes that kids ought to become acquainted with it. ... Thus, so it goes, there is nothing wrong with kids being potentially groomed or indoctrinated with pride propaganda through prepubescent sexual exposure to even pornographic public acts. Rowello writes that taking kids to witness “kink” at a gay pride parade “opens space for families to have necessary and powerful conversations with young people about health, safety, consent, and — most uniquely — pleasure.” The argument being made by Rowello aligns with the left’s interpretation of the sexual revolution. It’s exactly why an elite New York private school hosted a pornography training, and why Ohio State University hosted an OnlyFans seminar in March. It’s why Netflix backed the film “Cuties,” and why a Texas school district taught **** sex in “health” classes. “Kink embodies the freedom that Pride stands for, reminding attendees to unapologetically take up space as an act of resistance and celebration — refusing to bend to social pressure that asks us to be presentable. That’s a value I want my children to learn,” Rowello declares. In the name of freedom, Rowello wants her and your kids to be violated. The radical individualism on full display here is astounding, and it would be funny if her ideas were not mainstreamed in such a major newspaper and affecting formerly innocent children. See also this article in HuffPo: Are Pride Parades Kid-Friendly? Parents Say Children Can Handle The Kink Quote Each year, in the blazing sun of the Pride parade in Nelson, B.C., Pega Ren and her two young grandkids seek shade under their spinning rainbow parasols. Ren, a semi-retired sex therapist, told HuffPost Canada the parasols were a magical find, and have come to symbolize the importance of this event for her family. Ren spoke joyfully of going to the dollar store, picking up all the rainbow ribbons and flags, decorating the roller skates and the stroller, and getting the costumes ready. “I can’t imagine a safer place for families to bring children,” she said of Pride. A resounding chorus of voices — from within the queer community and not — would agree with this general sentiment about Pride parades and kids. But in late May, one tweet turned it into a bigger conversation. The post asked parade participants not to “sexualize” Pride and to leave their fetish and kink at home, for the sake of minors. Anyone who has been to a parade has likely seen the procession of leather animal costumes, kinky costumes in every hue, and more skin than is normally exposed in public. ... “There is absolutely no reason not to take our kids to Pride — it’s a fun day, there are a lot of bubbles, rainbow streamers and enjoyable performances,” writer, educator, and publisher S. Bear Bergman told HuffPost Canada. ... Politics have a prominent place in Pride, Rayside said, but “it is also about outrage,” a time when some in the community express this “in ways that confront normal sensibilities.” The freedom to do so is embedded within LGBTQ+ culture and history. These expressions are the most colourful during the parade. Bergman defended these elements and their right to exist at a kid-friendly event. “First of all, nobody likes nakedness more than children,” Bergman said. "First of all, nobody likes nakedness more than children." This, I think, is a big part of the "tolerance and fairness" that the song/video has in mind. And again: Are we supposed to read this stuff and not take it seriously? And then there's Drag Queen Story Hour. And then there's the wholesale indoctrination efforts in children's programming. And then there's this: "A London library received intense backlash after it hired a self-described anti-racist carnival troupe with a performer dressed up as a monkey with a large dildo hanging between his legs for a children’s reading event." And on and on. So no, CB. It's not that the "execution" of the song and video "might be flawed." That's not the concern. Rather, I think the concern is that the sort of "tolerance and fairness" referenced in the song/video includes, I think, tolerance and acceptance and celebration of and participation in this stuff. Even at the cost of subverting parents. Indeed, activists subverting and circumventing parents to indoctrinate their (the parents') children with the foregoing sorts of sexual ethics seem to be the whole point and purpose. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2021 by smac97 4
smac97 Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) So the SFGMC has re-posted the video (though it does not show the number of likes/dislikes, and the credits removed) : Quote Statement from San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus - July 9, 2021 “The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was founded, in part, to fight discrimination and bigotry against all peoples. Today, our chorus members are facing death threats, vile attacks, false accusations, doxing, and other forms of harassment because of our satirical video performance “Message from the Gay Community.” “We placed the video in private mode to quell the intolerance and hateful responses from mostly anonymous people. Upon reflection, we have made it live again for all to see the satirical and obviously tongue-in-cheek humor. We want everyone to judge for themselves. We will not allow ourselves, even in the face of death threats, to retreat or bow to attempts to twist our words, meaning, self-deprecation and humor. “We are thankful for the efforts of the San Francisco Police Department and law enforcement for their quick response and assistance in handling these threats. “The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus is dedicated to being role models, teaching, and spreading the message of love, inclusion, humor, and celebration through our music. We believe, most fervently, in open dialogue , communication, and free speech. We will continue to do so through our music. We invite everyone to join us.” Doubling down. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2021 by smac97
smac97 Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 An interesting take on the "tolerant and fair" thing (my transcription) (quoting an attorney, Mario Diaz, who represents "Concerned Women for America") : Quote {Diaz}: "I saw it as a moment of clarity, of candor from them. But something we have seen from a lot of our institutions." ... {Interviewer}: "Now they say that they want to make kids, people's kids, 'tolerant' and 'fair.' What do you think that means? {Diaz}: "Yeah, in their minds that is what must happen in order for their ideo of tolerance to come about. But what we have seen ... is that the people who promote diversity and tolerance are the most intolerant of all. They are most intolerant of people of faith who disagree with their idea of marriage and sexuality. So we need to push back as parents, in a loving way, and say this is not acceptable." Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, bsjkki said: You know, this actually happens. Parents refused to let Mormons join the homeschool baseball team or be friends. If we are outraged for all the reasons mentioned here about our children being targeted for proselytizing against our will, can we really blame them? Honestly, it does feel like a double standard to me. Do we really have a right to be offended if parents refuse to let their kids socialize with our kids? With all the comments here, it seems like we should be empathizing with them. Edited July 13, 2021 by pogi 3
california boy Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I think part of the the concern here is that the "message of tolerance and fairness" is perhaps predicated on ideosyncratic definitions of those terms (such as "tolerance and fairness" being intended to be mean something like "self-appointed strangers deliberately, 'quietly and subtlely' subverting parents in the teaching of sexual ethics to their (the parents') children"). I think part of the concern here is that the "message" is predicated on an overt threat of subverting parents in raising their own children. I think part of the concern here is that the creators of the song associate homosexuality with pedophilia, after having done the same thing with their musical which romanticizes child rape and pedophilia, and after having ostensibly apologized for it. I think part of the concern here is that the creators of the song apologized for and retracted their pedophilic musical. No such retraction/apology for the song/video, though. This, coupled with the subsequent "it's our turn {to indoctrination your children}" message from the SFGMC, leaves the "message" of the song quite intact. I think part of the concern is that all that talk about "live and let live" was, for some folks - including the SFGMC - a smokescreen. That subversion of parents and indoctrination of children is the intended message, and that this is nothing like the "live and let live" concept. I think part of the concern here that the "satire," the "joke" was about pedophilia, with the underlying message being about parental subversion and indoctrination of their children without and against their (the parents') consent. The message of the song/video here seems to be "Hey, we were just kidding around in writing, performing, and publishing a song and video that have a bunch of adult men threatening to subvert you as parents and sexually prey on your children, and that they will do so 'quietly and subtley.' What we meant was that we are threatening to subvert you as parents by indoctrinating your children without, and even despite, your consent, and there ain't jack squat you can do about it." I think part of the concern is expressed well here: "This performance punctures that peace deal." Yep. I think part of the concern is that the message of the song was quite deliberate, not accidental or misunderstood. The contempt for parents was deliberate. The threat to subvert parents was deliberate. The threat to indoctrinate was deliberate. I think part of the concern is the onslaught of subversive stuff being fed to our children. See, for example, this: In The Washington Post, ‘Gendervague’ Former Prostitute Promotes Teaching Kids ‘Kink’ As I have asked a few times now: Are we supposed to read this stuff and not take it seriously? See also this article in HuffPo: Are Pride Parades Kid-Friendly? Parents Say Children Can Handle The Kink "First of all, nobody likes nakedness more than children." This, I think, is a big part of the "tolerance and fairness" that the song/video has in mind. And again: Are we supposed to read this stuff and not take it seriously? And then there's Drag Queen Story Hour. And then there's the wholesale indoctrination efforts in children's programming. And then there's this: "A London library received intense backlash after it hired a self-described anti-racist carnival troupe with a performer dressed up as a monkey with a large dildo hanging between his legs for a children’s reading event." And on and on. So no, CB. It's not that the "execution" of the song and video "might be flawed." That's not the concern. Rather, I think the concern is that the sort of "tolerance and fairness" referenced in the song/video includes, I think, tolerance and acceptance and celebration of and participation in this stuff. Even at the cost of subverting parents. Indeed, activists subverting and circumventing parents to indoctrinate their (the parents') children with the foregoing sorts of sexual ethics seem to be the whole point and purpose. Thanks, -Smac Of course you want to redefine what tolerance is and then figure out the worst of what the message is. I don’t think anyone is surprised by that Tolerance is accepting that other people may have a different point of view and respecting their choices even when you might not embrace those beliefs It is expecting others to do the same about The lifestyle you have chosen. It means not vilifying other people just because you don’t share their beliefs. you don’t have to embrace those differences. That isn’t what tolerance means you do make it difficult for me to be tolerant of your constant pushing that gay people are pedophiles. I find your views disgusting. I find it disgusting that you try to link the choir to pedophile just like you would have difficulty connecting you to pedophiles just because Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl. it is a dirty game when you start accusing others by association. I can’t stop you from doing it. Is all I can do is convert you to tolerate and fairness Edited July 13, 2021 by california boy 3
california boy Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 2 hours ago, bsjkki said: You know, this actually happens. Parents refused to let Mormons join the homeschool baseball team or be friends. Yeah. Kinda sad isn’t it.
smac97 Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, california boy said: Of course you want to redefine what tolerance is I'm fine with the normative definition. I suspect the activists under discussion are using these terms in an ideosyncratic, loaded sort of way. 27 minutes ago, california boy said: and then figure out the worst of what the message is. I don’t think anyone is surprised by that And you return to personalizing the thread. Please stop it. 27 minutes ago, california boy said: Tolerance is accepting that other people may have a different point of view and respecting their choices even when you might not embrace those beliefs Which is a good working definition, but also one quite at odds with the song/video you are defending. Subverting parents is not "tolerance." Taunting parents that they will "indoctrinate" their children "quietly and subtlely" is not "tolerance." Accusing others of bigotry - solely because of ideological disagreement - is not "tolerance." Gloatingly telling parents that there is nothing they (parents) can do about these things is not "tolerance." 27 minutes ago, california boy said: It is expecting others to do the same about The lifestyle you have chosen. And yet here we are, watching the SFGMC doing exactly not this. They are bragging about subverting my parental role and indoctrinating my children, without and against my consent. And not just bragging about doing this, threatening to do it. "'Tolerance' for me and mine, but not for thee and thine," it seems. 27 minutes ago, california boy said: It means not vilifying other people just because you don’t share their beliefs. "Vilfying other people?" You mean like the parts of the song/video accusing parents of bigotry? Of teaching their children to hate? Is that vilification? Sure seems like it. 27 minutes ago, california boy said: you don’t have to embrace those differences. Are you sure? That certainly seems to be the message of the song/video. The message to parents who have not "embrace{d} those differences" is explicitly "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate" their (the parents') children about those "differences." You can't have it both ways. You can't coherently defend a song that accuses parents who don't agree with their perspective "hate" and brags about subverting parents who have not "embrace{d} those differences" and then turn around and say that the brand of "tolerance" they (the SFGMC) are espousing means "you don't have to ebrace those differences." You are contradicting the song/video. 27 minutes ago, california boy said: That isn’t what tolerance means I quite agree. The concern is that is what the SFGMC means when they say "tolerance." That I as a parent do have to "embrace those differences," and that they will come in and subvert my role and parent and "indoctrinate" (their word) my children if I haven't. "Quietly and subtlely" (their words). Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2021 by smac97 2
mgy401 Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 10 hours ago, california boy said: The Mormons are coming for your children. They have a message of love. Let’s all get hysterical. I thought “hysterical” was a sexist term?
Popular Post california boy Posted July 13, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I'm fine with the normative definition. I suspect the activists under discussion are using these terms in an ideosyncratic, loaded sort of way. And you return to personalizing the thread. Please stop it. Which is a good working definition, but also one quite at odds with the song/video you are defending. Subverting parents is not "tolerance." Taunting parents that they will "indoctrinate" their children "quietly and subtlely" is not "tolerance." Accusing others of bigotry - solely because of ideological disagreement - is not "tolerance." Gloatingly telling parents that there is nothing they (parents) can do about these things is not "tolerance." And yet here we are, watching the SFGMC doing exactly not this. They are bragging about subverting my parental role and indoctrinating my children, without and against my consent. And not just bragging about doing this, threatening to do it. "'Tolerance' for me and mine, but not for thee and thine," it seems. "Vilfying other people?" You mean like the parts of the song/video accusing parents of bigotry? Of teaching their children to hate? Is that vilification? Sure seems like it. Are you sure? That certainly seems to be the message of the song/video. The message to parents who have not "embrace{d} those differences" is explicitly "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate" their (the parents') children about those "differences." You can't have it both ways. You can't coherently defend a song that accuses parents who don't agree with their perspective "hate" and brags about subverting parents who have not "embrace{d} those differences" and then turn around and say that the brand of "tolerance" they (the SFGMC) are espousing means "you don't have to ebrace those differences." You are contradicting the song/video. I quite agree. The concern is that is what the SFGMC means when they say "tolerance." That I as a parent do have to "embrace those differences," and that they will come in and subvert my role and parent and "indoctrinate" (their word) my children if I haven't. "Quietly and subtlely" (their words). Thanks, -Smac I will let you continue on your rant because, well, I am tolerant. Count me in as one converted to tolerance and fairness 5
smac97 Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour ago, california boy said: Count me in as one converted to tolerance and fairness Count me in, too. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, smac97 said: seem to be the whole point and purpose. Thanks, -Smac Of course that would require "mind-reading" and "imputing evil motives" and seems to be largely based on completely unrelated events like the "rainbow monkey dildo story", etc.. The LGBTQ community is not homogenous and even includes many active gay LDS members. It is not fair to pull stories from other sectors of the community and suggest that we should interpret this song through that light. You may have some valid points, but lets not create double standards here. Maybe we should stop the mind reading and imputing evil motives. Edited July 13, 2021 by pogi 4
smac97 Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 28 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote So no, CB. It's not that the "execution" of the song and video "might be flawed." That's not the concern. Rather, I think the concern is that the sort of "tolerance and fairness" referenced in the song/video includes, I think, tolerance and acceptance and celebration of and participation in this stuff. Even at the cost of subverting parents. Indeed, activists subverting and circumventing parents to indoctrinate their (the parents') children with the foregoing sorts of sexual ethics seem to be the whole point and purpose. Of course that would require "mind-reading" and "imputing evil motives" and seems to be largely based on completely unrelated events like the "rainbow monkey dildo story", etc. Well, no. I also think the prior history of the creators of the song in romanticizing pedophilia is probative. I also think that the sexual euphemism and double entendre used in the song are probative. I also think the "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate" children comment from the SFGMC is probative. I also think the fact that the song was performed several times prior to the video is probative. I also think the song being released as part of Pride Month, in the current sociopolitical milieu, is probative. I also think the express lyrics are probative. 28 minutes ago, pogi said: The LGBTQ community is not homogenous and even includes many active gay LDS members. I acknowledge that. 28 minutes ago, pogi said: It is not fair to pull stories from other sectors of the community and suggest that we should interpret this song through that light. Oh, I dunno about that. We're discussing variations on the themes addressed in the song/video: parental subversion, indoctrination of children, sexualization of children, tying pedophilia to homosexuality, and so on. 28 minutes ago, pogi said: You may have some valid points, but lets not create double standards here. Maybe we should stop the mind reading and imputing evil motives. I'm not spitballing. I've done a lot of reading and analysis. I didn't breezily come to the foregoing conclusion that "circumventing parents to indoctrinate their (the parents') children with the foregoing sorts of sexual ethics seem to be the whole point and purpose." It's a conclusion, not an assumption. And it's a conclusion I am willing to re-visit (I did, after all, start this thread knowing that people with divergent viewpoints would read and respond to it). So far, however, the song/video is being defended in a "boys will be boys" kind of way. The substantive criticisms I have raised do not seem to be getting much in the way of substantive rebuttal/counterargument. Thanks, -Smac -1
pogi Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 17 hours ago, smac97 said: Well, no. I also think the prior history of the creators of the song in romanticizing pedophilia is probative. I also think that the sexual euphemism and double entendre used in the song are probative. I also think the "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate" children comment from the SFGMC is probative. I also think the fact that the song was performed several times prior to the video is probative. I also think the song being released as part of Pride Month, in the current sociopolitical milieu, is probative. I also think the express lyrics are probative. I acknowledge that. Oh, I dunno about that. We're discussing variations on the themes addressed in the song/video: parental subversion, indoctrination of children, sexualization of children, tying pedophilia to homosexuality, and so on. I'm not spitballing. I've done a lot of reading and analysis. I didn't breezily come to the foregoing conclusion that "circumventing parents to indoctrinate their (the parents') children with the foregoing sorts of sexual ethics seem to be the whole point and purpose." It's a conclusion, not an assumption. And it's a conclusion I am willing to re-visit (I did, after all, start this thread knowing that people with divergent viewpoints would read and respond to it). So far, however, the song/video is being defended in a "boys will be boys" kind of way. The substantive criticisms I have raised do not seem to be getting much in the way of substantive rebuttal/counterargument. Thanks, -Smac Would it be fair for me to say that your use of the word "probative" by definition means "inconclusive"? For example, are you not just assuming that sexual euphemisms were intentionally disguised in the song? I mean, I could play "that's what she said" jokes with you all day long, but how many of those "euphemisms" would actually be intentional? It is actually really easy to see sexual euphemisms, especially when you are looking to impute evil motives on someone - it seems like it could be a clear example of confirmation bias to me. I don't know how you can acknowledge that the LGBTQ community is not homogenous, while defending the position that these unrelated people and events are somehow "addressed in the video". I didn't hear anything about a "rainbow monkey dildo" in the song. Nor did I hear it implied that we need to be tolerant of such indecent measures. It would require a level of mind reading and imputing evil intentions to come to such a conclusion. How is the fact that the song was performed several times prior to the video probative of any evil or nefarious intentions? Unless you are going to accuse the Tabernacle Choir of evil intent for performing songs multiple times before making a recording, I don't see anything "probative" in it that accords with your accusations. It seems like you are really wanting to paint them in a bad light and grasping at straws here. I find it hard to believe that an unbiased person would see the fact that they performed the song several times prior to the video as "probative" of anything nefarious. The fact is that the creators of the song deny the accusations you are making against them, which therefore absolutely requires a reliance on mind reading and imputing evil intent to come to such a conclusion. It seems that they have been open and willing to admit fault in the past and ask forgiveness, so this would be out of character for them to hide and lie, wouldn't it? Is it really fair to paint them as liars based on inconclusive evidence and assumptions? Edited July 14, 2021 by pogi 2
LoudmouthMormon Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 On 7/13/2021 at 10:26 AM, california boy said: Tolerance is accepting that other people may have a different point of view and respecting their choices even when you might not embrace those beliefs It is expecting others to do the same about The lifestyle you have chosen. It means not vilifying other people just because you don’t share their beliefs. I like the message of tolerance. I'm big on accepting folks with a different point of view, and respecting their choices when they might not embrace those beliefs. I wonder - can you show me where I can find the acceptance, tolerance, and respect for folks that do not embrace certain LGBTQA+ beliefs, in the lyrics? Quote you're just frightened. You think that we'll corrupt your kids If our agenda goes unchecked. Fine, just this once, you're correct We'll convert your children. Happens bit by bit. Quietly and subtlely, and you will barely notice it Quote it is a dirty game when you start accusing others by association. You mean like here? Quote We'll convert your children... We'll make them tolerant and fair ... We'll convert your children Someone's gotta teach them not to hate Physician, heal thyself. 1
smac97 Posted July 14, 2021 Author Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: Would it be fair for me to say that your use of the word "probative" by definition means "inconclusive"? No. My use of the word "probative" is from the dictionary. 1 hour ago, pogi said: To come to such a conclusion, that would require a level of mind reading and imputing evil intentions, would it not? Not really. Judges evaluate evidence and draw reasonably-inferred conclusions thereon. All the time. Individuals can do the same. Let's go back to what I said: Quote So no, CB. It's not that the "execution" of the song and video "might be flawed." That's not the concern. Rather, I think the concern is that the sort of "tolerance and fairness" referenced in the song/video includes, I think, tolerance and acceptance and celebration of and participation in this stuff. Even at the cost of subverting parents. Indeed, activists subverting and circumventing parents to indoctrinate their (the parents') children with the foregoing sorts of sexual ethics seem to be the whole point and purpose. The SFGMC literally used the word "indoctrinate." They literally said "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate." They literally said "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate" "children." The part about subverting parents is drawn from pretty much the entirety of the song/video. They will "convert" our children, so so "quietly and subtlely." And then there's the hold sexual euphemism / double entendre thing. Indoctrinate them about . . . what? Well, the "joke" was that the "indoctrination" had to do with adult men sexually preying on our children. The supposed real message is that they are going to "indoctrinate" our children to be "tolerant and fair." But what do they mean by that? From my perspective, it's kind of hard for them to say "Hey, don't take us literally when we sing about sexually preying on your children, but you must be 100% literal in interpreting what we say about 'indoctrinating' your children to be 'tolerant and fair,' 'cuz we're just using those terms for their innocuous, nonpartisan, straight-from-the-dictionary definitions." This is particularly so given the prior history of Rosser/Sohne in romaticizing pedophilia and child rape, and in (wrongfully) assocating pedophilia with homosexuality. That this song is still being performed after they were excoriated for their musical, and apologized for it, and retracted it, is important context. Also, the recent explosion of indoctrination efforts in children's programming (Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.), Drag Queen Story Hour, etc., is also an important contextual element. So no, I don't think mindreading is required. 1 hour ago, pogi said: For example, are you not just assuming that sexual euphemisms were intentionally disguised in the song? No. I am concluding that. Are you suggesting that sexual euphemists / double entendre are not "in the song?" I hadn't thought that was even in dispute. Most discussions I have read pertain to the "joke" of the song, which is about adult men sexually preying on children. And the repeated chorus of "we're coming for your children" being a sexual euphemism and double entendre was not actually my idea. Only after a number of online commenters pointed it out did it start to come across that way. See also here: Quote What did conservatives see when watching the video? A gay guy from San Francisco looking like a deranged Joker promising to rape boys. A liberal viewer, if watching “Message From the Gay Community,” likely saw something else: a satire song about tolerance? Well-intentioned, amusing, enlightening. I’m catching up on the online firestorm over the music video put out in early July by San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus. They see themselves as the “gay community”—so what is their message? I’m trying to ‘read’ the song. It seems to be aimed at a right-wing listener, telling them their children will be corrupted by the ‘gay community’. Quote “You think we’re sinful You fight against our rights You say we all lead live you can’t respect But you’re just frightened You think that we’ll corrupt your kids If our agenda goes unchecked Funny, just this once, you’re correct We’ll convert your children Happens bit by bit Quietly and subtly And you will barely notice it…” The song goes on, apparently suggesting that the “conversion” of young men to homosexuality is the subject. Then the script flips to reveal that the ‘gay agenda’ being advanced is not converting boys to homosexuality. Rather, the agenda is just ordinary civic virtues. The conversion is from illiberal ideas to liberal ones. Quote “Your children will care about Fairness and justice for others Your children will work to convert All their sisters and brothers Then, soon, we’re almost certain Your kids will start convertin’ you!” ... The video was taken as a statement — sly and deniable — of a deeply held belief on the right: that gays are pedophiles. ... I’m trying to understand: the song had seemed to address right-wing people, and had the appearance of being a bit of dialogue across two sensibilities. It was a comic skit, apparently, mocking the right-wingers—but had been intended for a left-wing audience? And when the right-wing noticed it—the SFGMC panicked? ... Left-wing allies put out defenses in headlines like: “Right-wing cranks flip out over hilarious Gay Men’s Chorus song about teaching kids tolerance.” Right-wing media — as in the person of newly “ex-gay” Milo Yiannopoulos — had their hot take: “It Was Always About the Kids.” ... But didn’t the SFGMC set the ball rolling with the child sex talk? The refrain of the song is “We’re coming for your children.” If I’m being asked to think of this song as a comedy intended for left-wingers, I have to view “coming” as a sexual double entendre which envisions a man ejaculating. "But didn’t the SFGMC set the ball rolling with the child sex talk? The refrain of the song is 'We’re coming for your children.' If I’m being asked to think of this song as a comedy intended for left-wingers, I have to view 'coming' as a sexual double entendre which envisions a man ejaculating." This is, I think, the "joke" that religious parents don't "get." This is perhaps not surprising, given that the song was written some years ago and, as suggested above, was likely originally intended for audiences who would understand the "joke." Indeed, one of the defenses the SFGMC has presented is that they previously performed this song to "friendly" audiences who found it delightful, which contributed to their decision to produce and publish the YouTube video rendition of the song. 1 hour ago, pogi said: I mean, I could play "that's what she said" jokes with you all day long, but how many of those "euphemisms" would actually be intentional? It is actually really easy to see sexual euphemisms, especially when you are looking to impute evil motives on someone - it seems like it could be a clear example of confirmation bias to me. I don't understand. If sexual predation of children is not the intended "joke" of the song, then what was the joke? 1 hour ago, pogi said: I don't know how you can acknowledge that the LGBTQ community is not homogenous, while defending the position that these unrelated people and events are somehow "addressed in the video". I'm not speaking of "the LGBTQ community." I'm speaking of the idealogues who are saying and doing the things that are also "addressed in the video." I have several posts in this thread where I quote homosexuals and sympathetic "allies" who are disgusted with this song/video. Some examples: "You guys didnt do yourselves any favors with this one. It's borderline innuendo for the whole pedo thing that most try to avoid." "I hate when these creeps entitle things 'A message from the gay community'. No. Most of us are sane, and want nothing to do with this woketard madness. FFS stay away from people's kids. It's not clever or funny. It pisses everyone off." "Disgusting. I’m gay and I’m appalled." "Do they want to turn their progress back 50 years? Because that's how you get people to hate gays." "Well if THIS wouldnt want to make you hate a group of people I dont know what would!..." "They just destroyed decades of support." "Anybody else notice the double entendre of the line, 'We’re coming for your children?'" "'We'll convert your children,' the SF Gay Men's Chorus (@SFGMC) sings in a new video. 'We're coming for your children.' The song was written by @RosserandSohne. Last year the duo apologized for writing music accused of endorsing Afghan child sex abuse." "Can you confirm or deny that these are indeed lyrics from a song sung by your group? I’m a gay man who finds this extremely disturbing. How dare ANYONE OR GROUP sing a song about “going after someone’s children”? If true, this is disgusting & reprehensible!!" "Most gay people just want to get on with life, these guys are freaks." "as a gay man I only ask this of you, can you please leave the children alone?" "I have just seen a video of your chorus saying 'they want our children' wtf you doing tarring all gay men as pedophiles. Stop this nonsense now. We gay men do not want to be harassed because you lot like and support kiddy fiddlers." And responses to a tweet about the song from Rosser/Sohne (referencing people who are "confused about the meaning of the song") : "As a gay man, I am ashamed by this video. You people are sick and I hope the @FBI investigates each and everyone of you. Congrats, just set LGBT acceptance back a decade. You people are sick and I hope everyone of you arrested." "Guys, that song was in bad taste. It's time to apologize and move on." "People like you bring the lgbt community back 10 steps. Its an amazing feat for 2 men to accomplish but you’re working hard." "Alt-right hate? Even I was like 'wtf is this?' If you're gonna do satire, make it clear, or humorous." "Literally just had a gay couple move in across from us,they have a 6 yr old & so do we, my wife had them over , they did tie dye shirts, &played, I played your vid 4my wife, we will no longer allow our child in the vicinity of this family, U guys really set back relations 30yrs" "Predictable response, but your failure to connect the outrage from the afghan pedo controversy to now publishing a song about 'coming after children' is a bit alarming. Do you guys have anyone proofread your content first or do you just write some crazy **** and roll with it?" "You're not being honest, you are targeting children and disguising the indoctrination as love and tolerance. Its transparent as hell and no 9new in their right mind, gay or straight should condone this" "This is an even worse deflection than from that time you tried to glorify bacha bazi practice (aka child rape) and got called out on it." "All of the progress we’ve made as a community and then you put it back by decades with this stupid, crass and suspect song. Take some %^&$^%# responsibility instead of blaming others" "I am firmly pro-gay. However, I will not allow strangers to attempt to coerce or indoctrinate my children, in any way." "What the $%&^ were you thinking? A song about coming for people's children? This song will literally cause more hatred for LBGT Community." "'We were only kidding!' Yeah, no you weren’t. Every gay dude I follow thinks your song was gross." "I have no problem with gay people, and I'm not right wing, and i think you crossed the line. You can cut it with the deflecting bull^%$&. You are not the victim here. Leave kids the %$^& alone, and if you want to dive into politics, you will get eaten. Maybe stay out of it." "You keep b$%*&^#g that the 'alt right' are the only people objecting. Wrong. It's people from both sides." "So many gay people are repulsed by this. You aren’t doing your community any favours." "You have taken gay respectability back by a 100 yrs you pathetic pieces of useless $&%^#$^&#. I am disgusted by the ^%$& stunts you pull for sick virtue signalling and hurt the fight I do to advance gay rights in my part of the world." "'alt-right.' You wish. You just shook the nest of every decent parent in the country by letting your disgusting mask slip." If I am so utterly off-base, then how do you account for these criticisms from people who are otherwise friendly to the larger gay community? Meanwhile, I'd like to try a little thought experiment with you. Let's take a look at these pics (courtesy of that right-wing outfit, the Huffington Post) : "Hope your baby girl is ready for a good time..." "Freshman daughter drop off" "Go ahead and drop off Mom too..." "She called you daddy for 18yrs, now its OUR TURN." "Thank You Fathers for your Freshman Daughters." What do you glean from these photographs? Do you really need to be a "mindreader" to ascertain, or at least make an educated and reasonably-informed guess, what these idiot fratboys were saying? What their motives were? As one guy guy said (regarding the SFGMC song/video) : "I get that this is a joke, but it’s like frat houses I’ve seen with signs for freshers arriving on campus 'Fathers, kiss your virgin daughters goodbye'. It’s a joke, but it’s in terrible taste and does not win them any fans or sympathy." Yep. 1 hour ago, pogi said: I didn't hear anything about a "rainbow monkey dildo" in the song. But the theme - the sexualization of children - is in both instances. I think there are large swaths of the gay community who are disgusted by the song/video. Who viewed it and came away with the same understanding I did. Who like me oppose the idea of strangers subverting parents to "indoctrinate" children. Who like me oppose the wrongful association of homosexuality to pedophilia. 1 hour ago, pogi said: Nor did I hear it implied that we need to be tolerant of such indecent measures. It would require a level of mind reading and imputing evil intentions to come to such a conclusion. No, it would not. 1 hour ago, pogi said: The fact that the song was performed several times prior to the video is not probative of evil intent, sorry. I think it is. The longer the song is out, the more times it was performed, the more opportunity those performing it and/or listening to it had for introspection about it. This is particularly so given the track record of Rosser/Sohne, who just last year acknowledged and apologized for creating a musical that romanticized/fetishized child rape and pedophilia, and wronfully associated pedophilia with homosexuality. 1 hour ago, pogi said: The fact is that the creators of the song deny the accusations you are making against them, which therefore absolutely requires a reliance on mind reading and imputing evil intent to come to such a conclusion. Nope. Again, judges review evidence and reach informed conclusions all the time, including conclusions that may contravene the denials of a party found to be in the wrong. We as individuals can also review the material, survey the context, evaluate probative evidence, and reason a conclusion. That doesn't mean I'm certain I am correct. But so far I have not seem much to dissuade me from the conclusion I have reached. 1 hour ago, pogi said: It seems that they have been open and willing to admit fault in the past and ask forgiveness, From Afghani homosexuals, yes. From the targets of the song/video? Not so much. And the SFGMC has likewise not only not apologized, but has also doubled down about the song. 1 hour ago, pogi said: so this would be out of character for them, wouldn't it? "Them" being Rosser/Sohne? 1 hour ago, pogi said: Is it really fair to paint them as liars based on inconclusive evidence and assumptions? A loaded question. "Conclusive" evidence is rarely available. And again, I have not made an assumption. I have reached a conclusion. Again, look at the above quotes from people who are aligned with and/or part of the gay community. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 14, 2021 by smac97 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: No. My use of the word "probative" is from the dictionary. Not really. Judges evaluate evidence and draw reasonably-inferred conclusions thereon. All the time. Individuals can do the same. Let's go back to what I said: The SFGMC literally used the word "indoctrinate." They literally said "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate." They literally said "it's our turn" to "indoctrinate" "children." The part about subverting parents is drawn from pretty much the entirety of the song/video. They will "convert" our children, so so "quietly and subtlely." And then there's the hold sexual euphemism / double entendre thing. Indoctrinate them about . . . what? Well, the "joke" was that the "indoctrination" had to do with adult men sexually preying on our children. The supposed real message is that they are going to "indoctrinate" our children to be "tolerant and fair." But what do they mean by that? From my perspective, it's kind of hard for them to say "Hey, don't take us literally when we sing about sexually preying on your children, but you must be 100% literal in interpreting what we say about 'indoctrinating' your children to be 'tolerant and fair,' 'cuz we're just using those terms for their innocuous, nonpartisan, straight-from-the-dictionary definitions." This is particularly so given the prior history of Rosser/Sohne in romaticizing pedophilia and child rape, and in (wrongfully) assocating pedophilia with homosexuality. That this song is still being performed after they were excoriated for their musical, and apologized for it, and retracted it, is important context. Also, the recent explosion of indoctrination efforts in children's programming (Disney, Nickelodeon, etc.), Drag Queen Story Hour, etc., is also an important contextual element. So no, I don't think mindreading is required. No. I am concluding that. Are you suggesting that sexual euphemists / double entendre are not "in the song?" I hadn't thought that was even in dispute. Most discussions I have read pertain to the "joke" of the song, which is about adult men sexually preying on children. And the repeated chorus of "we're coming for your children" being a sexual euphemism and double entendre was not actually my idea. Only after a number of online commenters pointed it out did it start to come across that way. See also here: "But didn’t the SFGMC set the ball rolling with the child sex talk? The refrain of the song is 'We’re coming for your children.' If I’m being asked to think of this song as a comedy intended for left-wingers, I have to view 'coming' as a sexual double entendre which envisions a man ejaculating." This is, I think, the "joke" that religious parents don't "get." This is perhaps not surprising, given that the song was written some years ago and, as suggested above, was likely originally intended for audiences who would understand the "joke." Indeed, one of the defenses the SFGMC has presented is that they previously performed this song to "friendly" audiences who found it delightful, which contributed to their decision to produce and publish the YouTube video rendition of the song. I don't understand. If sexual predation of children is not the intended "joke" of the song, then what was the joke? I'm not speaking of "the LGBTQ community." I'm speaking of the idealogues who are saying and doing the things that are also "addressed in the video." I have several posts in this thread where I quote homosexuals and sympathetic "allies" who are disgusted with this song/video. Some examples: "You guys didnt do yourselves any favors with this one. It's borderline innuendo for the whole pedo thing that most try to avoid." "I hate when these creeps entitle things 'A message from the gay community'. No. Most of us are sane, and want nothing to do with this woketard madness. FFS stay away from people's kids. It's not clever or funny. It pisses everyone off." "Disgusting. I’m gay and I’m appalled." "Do they want to turn their progress back 50 years? Because that's how you get people to hate gays." "Well if THIS wouldnt want to make you hate a group of people I dont know what would!..." "They just destroyed decades of support." "Anybody else notice the double entendre of the line, 'We’re coming for your children?'" "'We'll convert your children,' the SF Gay Men's Chorus (@SFGMC) sings in a new video. 'We're coming for your children.' The song was written by @RosserandSohne. Last year the duo apologized for writing music accused of endorsing Afghan child sex abuse." "Can you confirm or deny that these are indeed lyrics from a song sung by your group? I’m a gay man who finds this extremely disturbing. How dare ANYONE OR GROUP sing a song about “going after someone’s children”? If true, this is disgusting & reprehensible!!" "Most gay people just want to get on with life, these guys are freaks." "as a gay man I only ask this of you, can you please leave the children alone?" "I have just seen a video of your chorus saying 'they want our children' wtf you doing tarring all gay men as pedophiles. Stop this nonsense now. We gay men do not want to be harassed because you lot like and support kiddy fiddlers." And responses to a tweet about the song from Rosser/Sohne (referencing people who are "confused about the meaning of the song") : "As a gay man, I am ashamed by this video. You people are sick and I hope the @FBI investigates each and everyone of you. Congrats, just set LGBT acceptance back a decade. You people are sick and I hope everyone of you arrested." "Guys, that song was in bad taste. It's time to apologize and move on." "People like you bring the lgbt community back 10 steps. Its an amazing feat for 2 men to accomplish but you’re working hard." "Alt-right hate? Even I was like 'wtf is this?' If you're gonna do satire, make it clear, or humorous." "Literally just had a gay couple move in across from us,they have a 6 yr old & so do we, my wife had them over , they did tie dye shirts, &played, I played your vid 4my wife, we will no longer allow our child in the vicinity of this family, U guys really set back relations 30yrs" "Predictable response, but your failure to connect the outrage from the afghan pedo controversy to now publishing a song about 'coming after children' is a bit alarming. Do you guys have anyone proofread your content first or do you just write some crazy **** and roll with it?" "You're not being honest, you are targeting children and disguising the indoctrination as love and tolerance. Its transparent as hell and no 9new in their right mind, gay or straight should condone this" "This is an even worse deflection than from that time you tried to glorify bacha bazi practice (aka child rape) and got called out on it." "All of the progress we’ve made as a community and then you put it back by decades with this stupid, crass and suspect song. Take some %^&$^%# responsibility instead of blaming others" "I am firmly pro-gay. However, I will not allow strangers to attempt to coerce or indoctrinate my children, in any way." "What the $%&^ were you thinking? A song about coming for people's children? This song will literally cause more hatred for LBGT Community." "'We were only kidding!' Yeah, no you weren’t. Every gay dude I follow thinks your song was gross." "I have no problem with gay people, and I'm not right wing, and i think you crossed the line. You can cut it with the deflecting bull^%$&. You are not the victim here. Leave kids the %$^& alone, and if you want to dive into politics, you will get eaten. Maybe stay out of it." "You keep b$%*&^#g that the 'alt right' are the only people objecting. Wrong. It's people from both sides." "So many gay people are repulsed by this. You aren’t doing your community any favours." "You have taken gay respectability back by a 100 yrs you pathetic pieces of useless $&%^#$^&#. I am disgusted by the ^%$& stunts you pull for sick virtue signalling and hurt the fight I do to advance gay rights in my part of the world." "'alt-right.' You wish. You just shook the nest of every decent parent in the country by letting your disgusting mask slip." If I am so utterly off-base, then how do you account for these criticisms from people who are otherwise friendly to the larger gay community? Meanwhile, I'd like to try a little thought experiment with you. Let's take a look at these pics (courtesy of that right-wing outfit, the Huffington Post) : "Hope your baby girl is ready for a good time..." "Freshman daughter drop off" "Go ahead and drop off Mom too..." "She called you daddy for 18yrs, now its OUR TURN." "Thank You Fathers for your Freshman Daughters." What do you glean from these photographs? Do you really need to be a "mindreader" to ascertain, or at least make an educated and reasonably-informed guess, what these idiot fratboys were saying? What their motives were? As one guy guy said (regarding the SFGMC song/video) : "I get that this is a joke, but it’s like frat houses I’ve seen with signs for freshers arriving on campus 'Fathers, kiss your virgin daughters goodbye'. It’s a joke, but it’s in terrible taste and does not win them any fans or sympathy." Yep. But the theme - the sexualization of children - is in both instances. I think there are large swaths of the gay community who are disgusted by the song/video. Who viewed it and came away with the same understanding I did. Who like me oppose the idea of strangers subverting parents to "indoctrinate" children. Who like me oppose the wrongful association of homosexuality to pedophilia. No, it would not. I think it is. The longer the song is out, the more times it was performed, the more opportunity those performing it and/or listening to it had for introspection about it. This is particularly so given the track record of Rosser/Sohne, who just last year acknowledged and apologized for creating a musical that romanticized/fetishized child rape and pedophilia, and wronfully associated pedophilia with homosexuality. Nope. Again, judges review evidence and reach informed conclusions all the time, including conclusions that may contravene the denials of a party found to be in the wrong. We as individuals can also review the material, survey the context, evaluate probative evidence, and reason a conclusion. That doesn't mean I'm certain I am correct. But so far I have not seem much to dissuade me from the conclusion I have reached. From Afghani homosexuals, yes. From the targets of the song/video? Not so much. And the SFGMC has likewise not only not apologized, but has also doubled down about the song. "Them" being Rosser/Sohne? A loaded question. "Conclusive" evidence is rarely available. And again, I have not made an assumption. I have reached a conclusion. Again, look at the above quotes from people who are aligned with and/or part of the gay community. Thanks, -Smac If there were ever buildings that deserved fire bombing it’s those frat houses. Added later: That’s my visceral reaction. I’m not advocating the fire bombing of anything. Added still later: Though I wouldn’t shed any tears if it happened to any of those houses. Edited July 14, 2021 by Scott Lloyd
pogi Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Not really. Judges evaluate evidence and draw reasonably-inferred conclusions thereon. All the time. Individuals can do the same. I don't really see a difference between a reasonably-inferred conclusion and an assumption - which can be based on reason. They can be one and the same. It is just semantics. I will just add that what is "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. I feel like I am a reasonably minded individual and simply don't agree with your assumptions (or "reasonably-inferred conclusions", as you prefer). I judge differently. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I do see plenty of room for doubt (unless one is capable of mind-reading). Quote Notice that an assumption can be, and often is, perfectly reasonable. Assumptions are not necessarily errors—they are an indispensable part of any argument, the bedrock on which it rests. https://app.shoreline.edu/doldham/Assumptions.htm I am not going to respond to your entire post, line by line. It is too exhausting. Suffice it to say. I have read it and disagree. 1
smac97 Posted July 14, 2021 Author Posted July 14, 2021 1 minute ago, pogi said: I don't really see a difference between a reasonably-inferred conclusion and an assumption - which can be based on reason. They can be one and the same. It is just semantics. Well, not really. See here: Assume: "to take for granted or without proof" Conclude: "to determine by reasoning; deduce; infer" One is not based on evidence or reasoning, the other is. 1 minute ago, pogi said: I am not going to respond to your entire post, line by line. It is too exhausting. Suffice it to say. I have read it and disagree. Okay. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: One is not based on evidence or reasoning, the other is. Based on an appeal that dictionary.com is the authority on all things semantics? Once again, we disagree. I am sorry, but dictionary.com is not the absolute arbiter of semantics. There can be other uses, meanings, and definitions not found in dictionary.com. I quoted an English 101 college course...I guess you can dismiss that fact if you want. Clearly people use the word "assumption" to include the potential for evidence and reason, as in "reasonable assumption". That is what is being taught at universities anyway. Edited July 14, 2021 by pogi
smac97 Posted July 14, 2021 Author Posted July 14, 2021 8 minutes ago, pogi said: Based on an appeal that dictionary.com is the authority on all things semantics? Once again, we disagree. I am sorry, but dictionary.com is not the absolute arbiter of semantics. There can be other uses, meanings, and definitions not found in dictionary.com. I quoted an English 101 college course...I guess you can dismiss that fact if you want. Clearly people use the word "assumption" to include the potential for evidence and reason, as in "reasonable assumption". That is what is being taught at universities anyway. You conflate assumptions and conclusions. I do not. I have explained what I see as the difference. You disagree with that differentiation. That's okay. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Based on an appeal that dictionary.com is the authority on all things semantics? Once again, we disagree. I am sorry, but dictionary.com is not the absolute arbiter of semantics. There can be other uses, meanings, and definitions not found in dictionary.com. I quoted an English 101 college course...I guess you can dismiss that fact if you want. Clearly people use the word "assumption" to include the potential for evidence and reason, as in "reasonable assumption". If anyone wants my input, I think assumption is a broader term, but can include reasonable inference. For example, I would say the fundamental assumptions in math are a result of reasonable inference. 1
pogi Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 44 minutes ago, smac97 said: You conflate assumptions and conclusions. If we are comparing a reasonably-inferred conclusion with a reasoned assumption, yes I think they can essentially mean the same thing. As Calm pointed out, some assumptions are conclusion of reasonable inference. You state that assumptions cannot be based on evidence or reasoning. I think that is plainly a mistake. But now we have devolved into semantics. I bow out. Edited July 14, 2021 by pogi
california boy Posted July 15, 2021 Posted July 15, 2021 14 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said: I like the message of tolerance. I'm big on accepting folks with a different point of view, and respecting their choices when they might not embrace those beliefs. I wonder - can you show me where I can find the acceptance, tolerance, and respect for folks that do not embrace certain LGBTQA+ beliefs, in the lyrics? You mean like here? Physician, heal thyself. What?? Show me where in the song that they say they want to teach ONLY tolerance for gay people. That is not what teaching tolerance means. You cannot only be tolerant of a certain group and intolerant of other groups That isn’t tolerance is it
Recommended Posts