I’ve spent one half of today arguing with people who think I’m too ideologically pure and the other half arguing with people who think I’m not ideologically pure enough.
I can’t decide if that’s hilarious or annoying.
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
Ethics and Morals: How do they fucking work?
Note: not sure if my point is expressed above. My point is that you have a set of Ethics and Morals that you live by. Your balance is that you are living your life by your ethic and moral code. Ideological pure and ideological soft are the complaints from people who do not share your same Ethical and Moral code. I say screw them and piss off.
Note 2: I have no intention of getting in a debate with you regarding Ethics and Morals because I would concede defeat to you.
Echoing Donnie
Screw ’em all.
Ideological purity is for ideologues.
What is the virtue of ‘balance’, does it imply that creationists should be invited to a seminar on evolution or that we should value their opinions on the subject?
Gee, I managed to do something slightly complex today and it was successful. I also tried something else and screwed it up. How can this possibly be!
…Besides, can’t something be hilarious and annoying at the same time?
RJW @4, I suspect Ophelia is being wryly sardonic with the post title.
@6 John Morales,
Actually, my interpretation was that Ophelia was being ironic, I’m not one of those smug foreigners who think that Americans don’t use, or understand irony.
‘Wryly’ can also mean ‘ironically’, BTW.
Screw being considerate of marginalized groups. Just screw it.
Amirite?
(No, I’m fucking not right).
Some of us aren’t asking you to be ideologically pure. We’re simply asking you to be acknowledge that marginalized groups of people are made to feel invisible, like no one cares about them. How hard is it to simply say “I didn’t consider how trans*men and women might feel in discussion about contraception. I can see how legislation might affect them, and I don’t want to continue unintentionally treating them as if they’re invisible. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.”?
Hell, a simple ‘I’ll think about that.” would have been sufficient. Or nothing. She didn’t demand (or even expect, it seems) a response.
Screw bringing derailing irrelevances into comment threads. Just screw it.
Amirite?
(Yup).
Convenient what you deem irrelevant.
Tony, you peeps do realize that the Lounge is visible, right? That it’s not actually someone’s living room but is a public thread on a public blog? So no, you’re not “simply asking” me anything.
Oh no, this is going down a very bad path. Please let’s not? Maybe everybody stop for a day and let the smoke clear out?
Portia only just started commenting here a couple of hours ago, so she won’t mind stopping.
In an ideal world “balance” would mean that all NALT Christians get assigned a fundamentalist to keep them both occupied.
Dammit! Where’s the freakin’ Lounge around here???
@Tony
Sorry i don’t have the background – but what exactly are you referring to? Since Im pretty sure that Ophelia position would be that contraception is available for all who want it , trans or otherwise.
If you are referring to one of the talking points is that men want to deny women – then that is because the motivations of the people are being discussed – and I guess conservatives are indeed more focused on denying women contraceptives rather than denying trans*men (they’d rather jail or deport or exorcise such folks)
@deepak shetty
it’s about comments on an earlier post
@soogeeoh
oh i see , thank you.