[Discussion] Count Chocula.

Moderator: CmdrWilkens

Locked
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

[Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2009-05-29 05:32pm

Starting at this post, the thread in question degenerates into a series of idiotic hateful screeds displaying a massive Wall of Ignorance:

I have no problems with same-sex or transgendered couples having the same legal rights as married men and women; I see no reason why Joe and Jim or Gen and Jane should not be able to share leases, mortgages, bank accounts, inheritances, or health benefits in the exact same way that married couples do. However, I believe that those rights should be civil rights. The notion and reality of marriage through history has been a contract between man and woman (supported by religion, make of that what you will), usually though not always with the object of promoting offspring. Marriage has historically been a religious and civil ceremony designed to acknowledge and promote families. And I feel the word "marriage" should be reserved for the union between man and woman.
Most importantly here he includes transgendered people in his definition of legal rights as men and women--this is particularly odious, because it shows he wants to ban something which is currently legal in every single state except for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, and Ohio; 45 against 5, and in a lot of the rest of the world too, which is heterosexual marriage between a postoperative transwoman and a man. He clearly thinks this is unacceptable even though it falls within his own definition of "marriage is between a man and a woman" -- since of course he doesn't propose banning marriages between, say, castrated men and women, or men and women with high testosterone levels or ovarian cysts who are sterile, etc, etc, all these other combinations of reproductive defects which prevent a couple from having children. So there's a clear bigotry involved in the statement which, ironically, destroys his own consistency in addition to the "consistency" being an irrational demand.

But of course he continues;

In particular, I want everyone to look at this post.
Upon further contemplation of the word "marriage," in my mind it really boils down to one basic premise: if you're going to have children, the best environment to raise children is in a family, with a mother and father, stability and structure. The legal rights and prerogatives that accompany marriage are designed to encourage the traditional Mom-Dad-kids family structure. The dominant cultural associations with marriage include a man, woman and usually children. Frankly, I don't see the harm in this association if heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same legal rights as couples but use different terms to distinguish their relations. The difference in relations is already implicit in the different choice of partners; vive la difference! Use a different phrase to define your relationship.

In this post, we can see that he slyly tries to justify his position of marginalizing homosexual couples as second-class citizens, because though he says he has no problem with the legal rights, he also says: "the dominant cultural associations with marriage include a man, woman, and usually children." I.E., he wants to preserve the usage of the word marriage for heterosexuals to preserve the dominant cultural associations--in otherwords, to preserve oppression and separation against homosexual couples. This is a classic segregationist argument.

It's also a personally deeply offensive one, as he implies that in two arbitrary categories (I'm bisexual so I easily could end up marrying a girl someday) I, for example, am an inferior citizen, and less suited to be a parent (and I certainly will be, given the chance; there are many children in the world to be rescued through adoption) than, say, a smoker (of course, he is one--he doesn't mind giving his kids cancer, but we can't let them catch the gay!), a drug user, a convicted paedophile, a murderer, an obese fathead, a retard, the impoverished who don't have enough money to keep their kids from being horribly malnourished, etc, etc. All of these people who are objectively far, far worse than a pair of gay/lesbian parents who are more likely than average to be successful and prosperous, are somehow better for their kids, in some magic way, than having two mommies or daddies. And indeed, the male/female structure may be ideal, but by denying the male/male or female/female structure any legitimacy at all he is declaring that the male/female structure is inherently better, even if when it involves deadbeats, drug users, cigarette addicts, abusive parents, felons, and countless other examples of abhorrent and deviant behaviour which can enormously harm the lives of children, or even kill them or give them health problems for life.

That, is unquestionably bigotry, and bigotry defended by a wall of ignorance, no less. And that is something worth discussing here.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
Bounty
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10765
Joined: 2005-01-20 08:33am
Location: Belgium

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by Bounty » 2009-05-29 06:21pm

I strongly disagree with Chocula but you are overreacting badly here. If Chocula breaks debating rules, if he refuses to respond to challenges for evidence, by all means savage him for it. But I don't understand what you're trying to achieve by coming in here and presenting what I can only call a gross exaggeration of his position sprinkled with a litany of imaginary accusations (paedophilia, really?).

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2009-05-29 06:30pm

Bounty wrote:I strongly disagree with Chocula but you are overreacting badly here. If Chocula breaks debating rules, if he refuses to respond to challenges for evidence, by all means savage him for it. But I don't understand what you're trying to achieve by coming in here and presenting what I can only call a gross exaggeration of his position sprinkled with a litany of imaginary accusations (paedophilia, really?).
It is legal for a paedophile to marry a woman in the United States, so you're clearly misunderstanding the point. This is no gross exagerration. That is a fact.

Also I didn't call for punishment, if you notice, I just think the whole thing warranted a discussion; I don't see how this is a massive overreaction at all. It's just that his debating behaviour and evident bigotry are warranted for some discussion.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70027
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by Darth Wong » 2009-05-29 06:33pm

I'm pretty sure he won't respond to most of the points raised against him in that thread.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2009-05-29 06:34pm

It was actually Surlethe, in that thread, who first made that point, BTW:
You're trying to elevate "associations" to "definition". I suppose that because Republicans are associated with Limbaugh, the Republican party should be defined as holding beliefs equal to Limbaugh? Or because libertarians are associated with Ayn Rand, all libertarians are Randroids? Why should the fact that marriage is associated with "man, woman, child" mean that marriage is exclusively defined as a man and a woman? If the institution of marriage is purposed toward the stability and propagation of the ideal traditional family, why don't we exclude smokers or drug addicts or pedophiles? How will including stable gay couples under the umbrella of "marriage" harm the goal of promoting traditional marriage - after all, if they're not allowed to "marry", it's not like they'll turn straight.
I love how I always get blamed for things by people too inattentive to read the original thread.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2009-05-29 06:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:I'm pretty sure he won't respond to most of the points raised against him in that thread.
No, he won't, and that's the problem. Conceding that he just feels that way out of a totally irrational knee-jerk sentiment would be quite enough and nobody would hold it against him if he continued to privately hold that sentiment anyway. But instead he keeps trying to justify himself against all reason and sanity, and that's where the problem comes in.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
The Yosemite Bear
Mostly Harmless Nutcase (Requiescat in Pace)
Posts: 35211
Joined: 2002-07-21 02:38am
Location: Dave's Not Here Man
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by The Yosemite Bear » 2009-05-29 07:15pm

also I added my own dissection of the "Unraveling the Fabric of Society" bull shit.

scary part is that from the point of view of those who are so vocal, particularly the mormons, some catholic organizations, and american fundamentalists, it really would be the unraveling of their society, not being able to persecute or assail a minority group they dispise without fear of recrimination, children questioning thier authority. etc.
Image

The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by Coyote » 2009-05-29 10:04pm

So, this is about some sort of censure measure? A title or privilege loss, some sort of sanction for being a... sexist bigot, or something?

I just want to make sure, because we have a custom title for people who are racist; and I suppose if CC were spouting off stuff about, I don't know... Blacks and "the Bell Curve" or Jews and controlling media & banks, we'd have something to gauge by.

Is this being a bigot, or is it just having a opinion that's unpopular and not well thought-out?
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2009-05-29 10:51pm

Coyote wrote:So, this is about some sort of censure measure? A title or privilege loss, some sort of sanction for being a... sexist bigot, or something?

I just want to make sure, because we have a custom title for people who are racist; and I suppose if CC were spouting off stuff about, I don't know... Blacks and "the Bell Curve" or Jews and controlling media & banks, we'd have something to gauge by.

Is this being a bigot, or is it just having a opinion that's unpopular and not well thought-out?

It's about someone who has consistently shown a wall of ignorance. I'll post more examples later tonight in a more systematic way; this isn't the only time he's done it.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by RedImperator » 2009-05-29 10:51pm

I think the issue here is that he's not addressing points made against him, which is against the rules no matter what position you hold.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues

User avatar
GrandMasterTerwynn
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6711
Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
Location: Somewhere on Earth.
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by GrandMasterTerwynn » 2009-05-29 10:56pm

Coyote wrote:So, this is about some sort of censure measure? A title or privilege loss, some sort of sanction for being a... sexist bigot, or something?

I just want to make sure, because we have a custom title for people who are racist; and I suppose if CC were spouting off stuff about, I don't know... Blacks and "the Bell Curve" or Jews and controlling media & banks, we'd have something to gauge by.

Is this being a bigot, or is it just having a opinion that's unpopular and not well thought-out?
If he's guilty of anything, it'd likely be violations of DR5 and DR6. His debating style is "throw out GOP talking points and, when pressed, link to conservative blogs; and when told that aforementioned blogs are full of shit, run like hell. Rinse, repeat." It's not so much that he holds an odious opinion, it's that he apparently refuses to put any thought into it and hides behind a wall of ignorance.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30761
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by Thanas » 2009-05-30 04:12am

He has been known to concede in the past when pressured on it, though. I know that from personal experience.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2009-05-30 04:29am

Since Chocula has been encouraged to actually go back to the thread and answer points, I'll say this thread has served its purpose for the moment and move to have the discussion tabled. There's no vendetta here, just an expectation that he actually play by the rules--you either answer points, or concede.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
Bounty
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10765
Joined: 2005-01-20 08:33am
Location: Belgium

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by Bounty » 2009-05-30 05:45am

There's no vendetta here, just an expectation that he actually play by the rules--you either answer points, or concede.
That was not what you said in your opening post. You initially pointed out his wall of ignorance as a exacerbating his bigotry, not as the main cause for your complaint.
I love how I always get blamed for things by people too inattentive to read the original thread.
Surlethe made an argument. You are the one who took that (valid!) argument, exaggerated it beyond recognition, and then strongly implied it is an exact rendition of the position Chocula holds, rather than an extrapolation of that position of which you have zero proof that he actually ascribes to it; and considering his latest post, where he openly states he doesn't hold his position for any rational reason, I find it extremely unlikely that he would actually support the idea that a stable gay couple is worse at parenting than a dysfunctional heterosexual one.

In short, it looks to me like you have an axe to grind with Chocula. That's perfectly understandable considering the subject matter and his position, but I do not believe it's an excuse to drag the debate into another forum based on false pretences.

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Count Chocula.

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-05-30 04:40pm

Well the complaint has been withdrawn, if a situation arises in the future bring it up but in the meantime this thread serves no further purpose.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

Locked