Poll: What would you have done with the "gay-books"
Pulp them!
Move them to the adult's section
Leave them in the children's section
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Pulp The Gay Penguins!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 06:47 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:17 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You had poor style in presentation here to elicit comment. You should always lead with your main point then expand the reinforce. The problem with that is the governance here is not tied to the populace in any way. As such you get an administration at odds with the majority of it's user base.

Yeah well, some people like my rambling style... they're my peeps. Laugh out load

Fair point.

Then it's the old argument of whether a Government is about Leadership (removing the anti-gay law in Singapore or UK Parliament's continued refusal to go for Capital Punishment) against the populace's wishes, or whether it's about following the populace as merely administrators.

I think it has to be a mixture or you get Tyranny. Too much of the first is Tyranny of the powerful over the powerless. Too much of the latter and you risk tyranny of the majority (outlawing minority opinions and practices). So we get to a murky middle where we must draw a line somewhere.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-09-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 06:48 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:19 PM)Anjele Wrote:  So now disagreement is censored.

Nice.

At least we can still discuss gay penguins.

Yup. So are you for or against gay penguins? Wink

[Image: title290904158-344x300.jpg]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
01-09-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 06:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  ...

I think it has to be a mixture or you get Tyranny. Too much of the first is Tyranny of the powerful over the powerless. Too much of the latter and you risk tyranny of the majority (outlawing minority opinions and practices). So we get to a murky middle where we must draw a line somewhere.

You see? That's what I should have put in the OP. You can be my script writer when I become famous and shit.

In that case, what did you think of the final decision to move the books to the adult section?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 07:05 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
DLJ, I did read this, and give it some thought, but I didn't post in here to avoid embarrassing myself in case I'd completely missed your point. I find your intelligence quite intimidating at times I must admit Blush especially on topics like this. You talk about leadership/governing/politics in a way I haven't encountered often. So.... Here goes. This is going to get rambly...

I'll start with how I interpreted the OP: The books in question were placed in the children's section by people who were not authorized to make this decision (the 'operation' staff). Them doing so clearly violated a standing law, there was outrage, and instead of destroying the books completely, they were moved to an 'adults only' section, to give parents the choice on whether or not they wanted the gay penguin books to be a learning tool on tolerance for their children.

I agree that the operating staff making the decision to place the book in the children's section flouting standing law is not the way to go. It should have been placed in the adults only section to begin with if that is in accordance to law, and let the outrage come from the other direction. From folks who don't think this kind of thing needs to be censored. This would then give law makers a chance to decide if the law is a god one. You seemed to also hint that the national anthem and the law don't necessarily "jive" which also makes me think that the law does need to be scrutinized and re-examined.

Then the other part of me says... If the book was originally placed in the adults only section right from the start, would there have been as much outrage? Would there have been a chance to re-examine the law if this had not been done to cause controversy in the first place?

Another reason I feel the law should be re-examined is that homosexuals are part of society, and hiding a couple of books isn't going change that. People gotta get used to it sooner or later. Continuing to ban these materials slows that progress. Especially if it really is a benign children's book. I mean... We don't have parents live separately so to avoid exposing children to different types of sexuality too early. We don't demand that there are no relationships ever depicted in children's books to avoid this either, why is it homosexuality that causes the big stir?

How this relates to the "other topic" (trying to avoid this thread turning into another one of those threads, I promise!!) Homosexuals are and can be productive members of a society, and we need to accept them as such. Don't see the correlation unless I've missed the point of your thread completely.

Help! Lol have I gone full retard here?? Sadcryface Facepalm I'm not explaining this very well No

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Smercury44's post
01-09-2014, 07:06 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 06:47 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:17 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You had poor style in presentation here to elicit comment. You should always lead with your main point then expand the reinforce. The problem with that is the governance here is not tied to the populace in any way. As such you get an administration at odds with the majority of it's user base.

Yeah well, some people like my rambling style... they're my peeps. Laugh out load

Fair point.

Then it's the old argument of whether a Government is about Leadership (removing the anti-gay law in Singapore or UK Parliament's continued refusal to go for Capital Punishment) against the populace's wishes, or whether it's about following the populace as merely administrators.

False dichotomy. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 06:59 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  ...

I think it has to be a mixture or you get Tyranny. Too much of the first is Tyranny of the powerful over the powerless. Too much of the latter and you risk tyranny of the majority (outlawing minority opinions and practices). So we get to a murky middle where we must draw a line somewhere.

You see? That's what I should have put in the OP. You can be my script writer when I become famous and shit.

In that case, what did you think of the final decision to move the books to the adult section?

From a standpoint of my culture and preferences I would favor leaving the books in the children's section, but for Singapore and where it is on cultural evolution I think moving the books was a step in the right direction at least. Not there yet but at least moving towards an inclusive society.

As for the speech writer sure thing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
01-09-2014, 07:19 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 06:56 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:48 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Yup. So are you for or against gay penguins? Wink

[Image: title290904158-344x300.jpg]

I'm for gay penguins, and their relationships, but not gay penguin marriage.
God made that for boy pengies, and girl pengies.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-09-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 07:05 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  DLJ, I did read this, and give it some thought, but I didn't post in here to avoid embarrassing myself in case I'd completely missed your point. I find your intelligence quite intimidating at times I must admit Blush especially on topics like this. You talk about leadership/governing/politics in a way I haven't encountered often. So.... Here goes. This is going to get rambly...

I'll start with how I interpreted the OP: The books in question were placed in the children's section by people who were not authorized to make this decision (the 'operation' staff). Them doing so clearly violated a standing law, there was outrage, and instead of destroying the books completely, they were moved to an 'adults only' section, to give parents the choice on whether or not they wanted the gay penguin books to be a learning tool on tolerance for their children.

I agree that the operating staff making the decision to place the book in the children's section flouting standing law is not the way to go. It should have been placed in the adults only section to begin with if that is in accordance to law, and let the outrage come from the other direction. From folks who don't think this kind of thing needs to be censored. This would then give law makers a chance to decide if the law is a god one. You seemed to also hint that the national anthem and the law don't necessarily "jive" which also makes me think that the law does need to be scrutinized and re-examined.

Then the other part of me says... If the book was originally placed in the adults only section right from the start, would there have been as much outrage? Would there have been a chance to re-examine the law if this had not been done to cause controversy in the first place?

Another reason I feel the law should be re-examined is that homosexuals are part of society, and hiding a couple of books isn't going change that. People gotta get used to it sooner or later. Continuing to ban these materials slows that progress. Especially if it really is a benign children's book. I mean... We don't have parents live separately so to avoid exposing children to different types of sexuality too early. We don't demand that there are no relationships ever depicted in children's books to avoid this either, why is it homosexuality that causes the big stir?

How this relates to the "other topic" (trying to avoid this thread turning into another one of those threads, I promise!!) Homosexuals are and can be productive members of a society, and we need to accept them as such. Don't see the correlation unless I've missed the point of your thread completely.

Help! Lol have I gone full retard here?? Sadcryface Facepalm I'm not explaining this very well No

More internet points to you for the flattery Wink

I see your point about the lack of uproar had the books been quarantined initially.

This implies that the Library Board staff (the committees who select / de-select the books) were working on their own pro-gay agenda in defiance of the law.

Looking back at things like the Chartist's movement or more dramatically the various (English / US / French / Russian) revolutions I see the point about causing a stir to change the zeitgeist.

This is the argument concerning continuous (step change / revolutionary) vs. continual (gradual / evolutionary) improvement. That's food for thought. Thanks. Consider

The parallels with the 'other topic' are interesting but not clear cut to me.

With the gay books it is about quarantining a 'dangerous' idea / ideology / lifestyle (leaving aside the biological facts) as opposed to quarantining a dangerous individual (personal restrictions / imprisonment / isolation ward etc.).

The obvious parallel is that both matters are about the need to balance community harmony against freedom of the individual.

Also, note to self: try to be less intimidating. Sorry. Blush

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
01-09-2014, 07:32 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 07:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 06:47 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Yeah well, some people like my rambling style... they're my peeps. Laugh out load

Fair point.

Then it's the old argument of whether a Government is about Leadership (removing the anti-gay law in Singapore or UK Parliament's continued refusal to go for Capital Punishment) against the populace's wishes, or whether it's about following the populace as merely administrators.

False dichotomy. Drinking Beverage

Because? Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: Pulp The Gay Penguins!
(01-09-2014 07:28 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 07:05 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  DLJ, I did read this, and give it some thought, but I didn't post in here to avoid embarrassing myself in case I'd completely missed your point. I find your intelligence quite intimidating at times I must admit Blush especially on topics like this. You talk about leadership/governing/politics in a way I haven't encountered often. So.... Here goes. This is going to get rambly...

I'll start with how I interpreted the OP: The books in question were placed in the children's section by people who were not authorized to make this decision (the 'operation' staff). Them doing so clearly violated a standing law, there was outrage, and instead of destroying the books completely, they were moved to an 'adults only' section, to give parents the choice on whether or not they wanted the gay penguin books to be a learning tool on tolerance for their children.

I agree that the operating staff making the decision to place the book in the children's section flouting standing law is not the way to go. It should have been placed in the adults only section to begin with if that is in accordance to law, and let the outrage come from the other direction. From folks who don't think this kind of thing needs to be censored. This would then give law makers a chance to decide if the law is a god one. You seemed to also hint that the national anthem and the law don't necessarily "jive" which also makes me think that the law does need to be scrutinized and re-examined.

Then the other part of me says... If the book was originally placed in the adults only section right from the start, would there have been as much outrage? Would there have been a chance to re-examine the law if this had not been done to cause controversy in the first place?

Another reason I feel the law should be re-examined is that homosexuals are part of society, and hiding a couple of books isn't going change that. People gotta get used to it sooner or later. Continuing to ban these materials slows that progress. Especially if it really is a benign children's book. I mean... We don't have parents live separately so to avoid exposing children to different types of sexuality too early. We don't demand that there are no relationships ever depicted in children's books to avoid this either, why is it homosexuality that causes the big stir?

How this relates to the "other topic" (trying to avoid this thread turning into another one of those threads, I promise!!) Homosexuals are and can be productive members of a society, and we need to accept them as such. Don't see the correlation unless I've missed the point of your thread completely.

Help! Lol have I gone full retard here?? Sadcryface Facepalm I'm not explaining this very well No

More internet points to you for the flattery Wink

I see your point about the lack of uproar had the books been quarantined initially.

This implies that the Library Board staff (the committees who select / de-select the books) were working on their own pro-gay agenda in defiance of the law.

Looking back at things like the Chartist's movement or more dramatically the various (English / US / French / Russian) revolutions I see the point about causing a stir to change the zeitgeist.

This is the argument concerning continuous (step change / revolutionary) vs. continual (gradual / evolutionary) improvement. That's food for thought. Thanks. Consider

The parallels with the 'other topic' are interesting but not clear cut to me.

With the gay books it is about quarantining a 'dangerous' idea / ideology / lifestyle (leaving aside the biological facts) as opposed to quarantining a dangerous individual (personal restrictions / imprisonment / isolation ward etc.).

The obvious parallel is that both matters are about the need to balance community harmony against freedom of the individual.

Also, note to self: try to be less intimidating. Sorry. Blush

Ok I see your point on how it relates to the 'other topic' but I guess I just disagree that they are relatable, because once looked at objectively IMO one is dangerous, and the other only thought to be dangerous. I do see your point though, because even if an idea or ideology is only thought to be dangerous, it can still cause community disharmony, and changing of opinion doesn't happen overnight.

No need for you to modify your behavior my dear, all about my own insecurities.

Honestly your long posts would normally filter me out of the conversation, but you do a wonderful job of making difficult concepts inviting with your added humor, and great story-telling (like the comparative hats thread in addition to this one). I'm getting better at trying to get involved because of how you present info. Yes but i still tend to read quietly in most cases rather than jump in.

Plus you're so kind when I do stumble in Laugh out load Blush

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Smercury44's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: