One of my favorite "holidays", as I am 3/4 Irish. Maybe that's why I like beer so much? Have a good one!
And how are the politics in northern Ireland these days? Haven't heard much in the news since the death of Robert McCartney last year.
See the Plastic Paddies dance...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
HAPPY ST. PATTY'S DAY, Daniel! This reminds me that we have something to be thankful for: a disbanded IRA. As to the racist stereotypes: you mean the ones the IRA had? Of course that was religious bigotry more than racism...
I'm wearing green today, and pissed off about it.I didn't wear it because it's St. Patrick's day. I didn't know it was St. Patrick's day. I'm wearing it because the green shirt was on top of the pile of clean clothes in the laundry basket. Now people think I'm wearing it to celebrate. I'm not. That pisses me off.For the record: I'm not against celebrating St. Patrick's day. Had I remembered it was St. Patrick's day today, I most likely would have worn green.I'm just against people assuming I'm wearing green because it's St. Patrick's day when in fact it's just because I'm too lazy to fold my clothes.There's a difference, you know.That being said, I'd love to take the item represented by the first image in this post, and share it with the person represented by the first image in the previous post. Or her bandmate Hayley, if she's available.Yeharr
This will probably offend my English friends, but the truth is England really fucked Ireland over.Yes, the bombings were criminal, and yes, it's better that the IRA is disarmed (they're not disbanded, Saur), because now their struggle to be themselves is a political one, as it should be.Wrong as terror is, it was a tactic in a war for self-preservation. Anyone who walked in the shoes of an Irish Catholic, born and raised in a culture akin to the Israelites in Egypt would be better prepared to understand this.Anywhere a people are subjected to oppressive military occupation, the destruction of their culture and heritage, and are systematically forced to become dependent on an artificial form of government, a crime against humanity has occurred, regardless of who commits the crime.History demands we not forget holocausts, and if everyone took one honest moment to consider the past four hundred years, a much humbler, progressive approach would be taken toward Ireland.Fuck, I'm noble.
Ah, my lads! Let's have a Guiness together and forget the troubles we have for at least one day!Balloon Guy: Hey, St. Patrick was DA MAN! You need to read up on him some. Then you won't have to give people the story that your a typical guy who wears what's at the top of the laundry pile. With me, I kinda dig around a bit to find what I like and then give it a few minutes in the dryer. Takes out some of the wrinkles!Say, Daniel:I'm waiting for you to come to my blogsite and have an open discussion on why you think I'm a homophobe. You haven't responded yet, so I'm assuming you've been busy. If I don't hear from you, I'll take that to mean that you readily use labeling to blow people off. Please don't disappoint me by allowing me THAT conclusion. I want to think better of you than that.
Jess: stableCol.Dr: you're so very rightUL: you're homophobic because you think homosexual behaviour is un natural and against God's laws.
Col. Dr., thank you. I didn't realize they were only disarmed and not disbanded. I meant bigotry on both sides, I assure you.
DHG:Yeah it's unnatural and it's against God's laws! Perfectly spoken!I suppose according to your definition that makes God homophobic too. Funny, I have no clue what God would be irrationally fearful about. Do you?
No, DHG, homophobia is a fear that you yourself are homosexual. Perhaps UL would be less fearful if he just "came out" and accepted himself for what he is. God will certainly accept him, whether he chooses to come out or not. The biblical passages that condemn homosexuality are among those that condone slavery and wife beating. They are as embarrassing to modern Christians as parts of the Koran are to Muslims which exhort them to kill anyone who won't convert. This historical baggage is not to be considered as instructions on how to live today, but rather as a reminder of the backward societies we are all descended from.I would hope that resolving Irish sectarian differences would serve as an example to other religions that we can learn to get along. Perhaps overly optimistic but we have no choice than to try.
Bud: thanks for stopping by, your comment is a good one and I like the compassion and good will it contains. I don't believe in God but the God you paint is more one I can buy into.As for Ireland, you're right, peace was secured through talking to people who still used violence and terror and constant negotiating and no ultimatum making.UL: your own comments expose your prejudice regarding gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people. Let it rest now.
Daniel:I'll let it rest when you stop talking like a liberal elitist. You want to be the measure of what is true without having to explain it.
I have explained it.Why do you want to be able to say that being gay is against God and un nautral and escape being called a homophobe?
"Why do I want to be able to say that being gay is against God and unnatural and escape being called a homophobe?"Simple, I want to allign myself with what God has revealed in Scripture and the teachings of the Church, which have taught for a long, long time that homosexuality is a sin. I prefer to agree with that than presuppose I know better. I don't know better; I'm not that smart. And, I prefer to hold to a teaching that is older and better than my brains even though people don't like it and call it something vague like homophobia.I'm of the belief that moral absolutes exist. I'm sure you'd agree with me there because you apply some moral absolute to me, of hating homosexual-ITY (not homosexuals) as homophobic and that is very bad.If you WANT to call me a homophobe for hating the practice of homosexuality, fine, Daniel you may do it. If you assume by calling me homophobe that hating homosexual persons apply, then you're dead wrong and labeling me. I'm simply clarifying the definition of homophobe and showing you that as it is used in our culture does NOT apply to me. Now if you want to portray me as one who hates homosexual persons, by hating homosexuality, fine, but you'd still be labeling me. And if you think I'm just like those who actually hate homosexuals but without proof that I do makes you bigoted and prejudice.Have I shot the dead horse enough times, or do I have to fire a thousand more rounds into the carcass to make my point with you?
You are correct, UL, homophobe may not be the correct label for you. We don't know if you are fearful that you may actually be a homosexual. Though the virulence of your flogging this issue is suspicious. If you do discover that you are homosexual, be not afraid. Most people are not homosexual, and once we have experienced heterosexual sex, we wonder why anyone would be interested in homosexual sex. We find gays different, even comical or silly, but not threatening. We don't think that they are people that need to be killed or have their human rights denied. There is a time before your first heterosexual experience where you might question your sexuality, and there are predatory gays who prey on people in this period of their life. You may see homophobic behaviour then, but once the young person gets laid in a heterosexual situation, all the personal sexuality questions disappear, along with the homophobia.You have a problem with this, and it is hard to understand why. You even try the old "hate the sin, love the sinner routine" cop out as in "I don't hate gay people, just what they do". But hateful would certainly seem an appropriate adjective for you. Regarding your "proof" that homosexuality is bad. Sorry UL, your absolute belief in scripture is where your argument fails. The Bible is the greatest book ever written, in my opinion, but it was written by people. People inspired by God, but still people. I believe that I am inspired by God, like most people, though I still make many mistakes. God sent Jesus to us and he ministered to us. Jesus was not on a book tour, sitting on the equivalent of talk shows and promoting the Book, threatening us with eternal torment if we don't buy and read his Father's Book. He ministered. He preached. He performed miracles. He forgave sin. Numerous humans certainly try to tell us what God wants of us, and make such threats. God doesn't. God doesn't need to. God may have told you that homosexuality is evil, but he apparently forgot to tell me. Why can't God do that? Not powerful enough? No, He is supposed to be God. Too busy? Well, if He can see each sparrow fall, why can He not tell me, a poor example of His greatest creation, of the fact that homosexuality is wrong, if it is so important that I know?God loves you, despite your hatred and confusion. By the way, in my use of the male pronoun for referring to God, it is not because I believe God is specifically a male, it is just the convention in English, which has no neuter pronoun for people (other than "they" perhaps). And since God speaks English (though it is Shakespearean English in the King James Bible), that is appropriate. Ever wonder why the King James Bible talks about being "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised"? Revised? Who the heck is revising the word of God? People, that's who.
Bud:I never thought I'd run into an actual, breathing, living contradiction, but here you are! If there is such thing as being compassionately slimey, or graciously diabolic, your statements fit that to a tee! Thank you so much! What a wonderful brand of condescension and sophistication you bring to this post of the bombastic Daniel Hoffman-Gill. It's like mixing honey with strychnine. And you are so informed about Jesus and the real religion he founded. I don't know what to say about him not saying anything to you about homosexuality. Maybe he doesn't care if a person IS gay or straight. Maybe it's all straight, eh? Just as long as we love each other, right? If I have any Bible questions, I'll be sure to come to you. Thanks!And you know, it's strange, but it's like you can see right into me with all my rage, that I'm just a scared gay man in a straight man's exterior. You are so insightful. I bet Jesus helps you with this insight too, right?Well, you've given me a LOT to think about. You have definitely made an impression on me! And if I do have any sexual confusion or fears that I'm homosexual, and I need an Oprah moment, you are the one I'll turn to.
UL: I don't care about God's teachings, if they inspire your moral code then fine but it still makes that moral code homophobic and bigoted. And you can't say you don't like homosexuality and not homosexuals! Any gay friend of mind would have a serious issue that you find their sexuality a sin, stop being hung up on semantics and bask in your bigotry induced by a reading of the Bible. Yet another example of you wanting to follow through your prejudice but not pay the price of your beliefs. Be brave for Godsake UL and stop being a coward, you are a bigot, rejoice in it for if you're right then a place awaits you in God's kingdom while all the fags are burning.Bud: I like your style.
Oh, gee-whiz, Daniel. With you and bud as a tag team, I'm really getting scared. Now that you put pit yourself against God, who do I choose to follow...God or Daniel Hoffman-Gill?Boy, that's a tough one. If I choose God, Daniel won't like me, and he will think I'm homophobe, which is really scarey. And, Bud will continue to be condescending to me and think I'm secretly gay. What a formidable challenge? I don't know if I'm up to it? On the other hand, if I choose to agree with Daniel, he'll be my friend, he'll invite me to his plays, and we can drink beer and tell dirty jokes. PLUS, his gay friends will like me and not have any serious issue with me. Looks like a no brainer...I choose God.As to your gay friend having a serious issue with me, I could care less. Just tell him I'm one of those Christians! He'll turn his nose and think nothing of it.
UL: I am pleased that we've made some progress. In your 4:52 comment, you have stopped demanding that we accept your views based on Biblical authority as interpreted by you. Less progress is seen in your alternate choice of persuasion. You have resorted to abuse. Sarcastic insults and wisecracking, but still it amounts to abuse. Your first paragraph is a gem. Where did you steal it from? It is so much closer to rapier wit that it doesn't belong with the subsequent paragraphs in which you descend into misstating my earlier comment. You claimed I was mixing honey with strychnine, then proceeded to do so yourself.I made no claims of being well informed about Jesus, though you sarcastically say I am. You say you are speechless at my admission that Jesus has not informed me of views that conform to your own. Does He speak to you? What does He say? Does He tell you pass it on to the rest of us? I do agree with you, that "Maybe He doesn't care if a person IS gay or straight" and "Just as long as we love each other, right" But I think you were just being sarcastic again, becaue you added that you will be sure to come to me with any Bible questions. Why would you want to come to me about Bible questions? I would only tell to read your own Bible, and to read it with comprehension and understanding of the people and times in which it was written. Don't just pull soundbites out of it, that is dishonouring the inspired people who wrote it. I don't actually believe you would come to me with Bible questions, because I don't believe you have any questions. You behave as if you have all the answers.In your haste to misstate my views as being that I think Jesus gives me insight into you, you missed the point of my statements on homophobia. I was stating that you certainly acting in a bigoted way, but are probably not homophobic, since that would require you to be afraid that you might be a homosexual. You twisted that around to claiming that I called you "just a scared gay man in a straight man's exterior". Of course that statement itself shows your bigotry, that calling you gay would in fact be a great insult to you. Calling you gay should only be an insult because it is not true, not because gays are bad. I must admit that I was trying to insult you in that comment though. But not by calling you gay. I was insinuating that you are probably some young straight person who hasn't yet and can't get laid, and that once you do get laid, you will no longer need to strut about proving your manhood by bashing gays. Apologies for that, it didn't work. But I do believe that you are either a young person trying to prove himself, or you are the father of a teenage son, and you are concerned that he may become gay. In that case you would be concerned that he's not being manly enough in ways that you understand. Chances are he just doesn't like the females he goes to school with, and instead of knocking one of them up, he may wish to complete his education, and find a good woman when he is older. (By the way, for the English readers, I don't mean knocking up as in knocking on someone's door, rather I mean impregnating someone)I would be pleased with your statement that I have given you a LOT to think about. But it is buried in so much sarcasm and rhetoric that it is more likely a dishonest statement.Your 1:33 comment is straight out of Rhetoric 101. I suppose that since you posted here as "logician" your comment is in keeping with your name. However, I happen to be a Christian too and I choose God too. I just don't choose your perversion of my faith for your own hateful ends. I am sure Daniel's gay friends would not turn up their noses at me. Nor would they attempt to have anal intercourse with me simply because I do not hate them.In western countries, Christianity is the main religion, and as Christians we should be demonstrating our highest ideals to all people, and showing by example that humans can be something more than we have been for so much of our history. You prefer to play the persecution card, acting like Christianity is under attack from all sides. A bunker mentality makes it easier to demand people suspend their individuality and freedom of thought, and simply follow whatever path you wish them to follow. Your fear mongering may work some of the time, on some people, but I respectfully disagree with and resist your views and tactics, sir.
Bud:I wouldn't call what we have as progress, but at least we understand each other. Any you did get the message that I treated your comment and your presuppositions with complete disdain. My rhetoric hit its mark.Don't feign "concern" with me, or try to "correct" me. I find you and your methods repugnant. And I meant what I said, if I need an Oprah moment, I will come to you. I really have nothing more to say to you. You may continue commenting if you like. Daniel sure likes your style and I'm others may appreciate your approach as well. Have a nice day.
UL: I have never asked you to choose between me and God, you are a man of faith and your faith rests in God and I have no problem with that in any way. I also don't mind if you hold views of homosexuality I disagree we that are influenced by your interpretations of the Christian moral code handed down from God but what I do have a problem with is not accepting that for many people that makes you homophobic.I am many things but not anti-religion, my wife to be is a practicing Catholic and I attend church now and then; not to pray but as a sign of respect for my Marie's beliefs.Bud: come by here often, you're most welcome.
UL:Yes it was progress. Your 2:47 comment shows none though. You continue to employ sarcasm and abuse, which didn't work earlier; You persist in trying the same thing, but expecting different results. No, I did not get the message that you "treated my comment with complete disdain". I assumed you to be honourable and willing to consider the views of others.You may find my methods however you wish. Any concern you felt from me was simply wondering where your anger comes from. There is nothing feigned. There isn't a particularly high level of concern. If you feel that there is, you should consider why. I don't believe you are homophobic because you are gay, but if you feel compassion from me, and it makes you sick, it is because of the way you interpret anything you think you feel from anyone else. If you dissociate from human compassion, it leads to fear, then hate. I don't know if that applies to you, I don't have enough information.If you believe I am trying to correct you, do not flatter yourself. You can only correct yourself. I can't even show you the path to that, let alone do it for you. Religion is supposed to help you to do that. That is what it is for, really.And since you have repeated something about an "Oprah moment", I'll bite. Even though it's probably some snide remark that is supposed to be insulting. You're talking about Oprah Winfrey, the daytime talk show host, right? I've never seen the show, so I missed the joke. Am I to be offended at being compared to a black person (assuming I'm white)? Or a female (assuming I'm male)? Or both? Sorry, I didn't get it. You'll have to explain. There's some bait for you.Thank you for your permission for me to continue commenting on someone else's blog.
Bud:I must admit total failure to be able to convince you. Must be the strength of resolve in your "trying to understand me." Probably more it's everything I once believed true is now false. That's until I can convince others, my argument is false, right?As to the Oprah Winfrey comment, because there is a penchant here to typically read in to what I say and assume the absolute worst of me, I am not an "African-American phobe." The slam is against her typical pop-psychology, pop-metaphysical feeley touchy themes she has on her show. Now wait, I'm not a psychology-phobe either, or a feely-touchy phobe either. I don't mind a hug every now and again from an extremely select group of people dear to me.So, bud, you win. I didn't convince so, my detractors win and my argument fails.
UL:I will assume you are being sincere in "admitting defeat", but there is no win or lose in this, really. We only lose when we completely stop listening and resort to violence. The sarcasm that I see from many people is annoying, not because of any offensiveness, but because it gets in the way of exchanging ideas, even if we don't agree.I starting commenting in this St. Patricks Day thread in the spirit of the relative peace that exists in Ireland. The discussion had turned to homosexuality and what God wants. Ireland is an important example of what can happen over differences in opinion about "what God wants". Non Christians would wonder what is the fuss between catholic and protestant Christians, just as we are only beginning to understand that Islam has shia and sunni branches having equally destructive expression of their differences.I believe we did make some progress in this. No threats were made by either of us, of physical violence to the other's person or family, or of eternal damnation of the other's soul. That is as it should be, and is to be encouraged wherever it happens.There is a man on trial in Afghanistan for a capital offence. The offence is changing his religion. This is another example of the disastrous results of not accepting other people being different. They probably won't kill him, and declare he's crazy. It's bad enough when people on blogs are calling each other crazy, even though each and every one of us has managed to get it together enough to learn to read and write, or we wouldn't be here. But when it pervades institutions, legal systems, we have another way to deny people rights. In the Soviet Union dissidents were placed in mental institutions, the rationale being that they would have to be crazy to oppose the totalitarian dictatorship in power at the time.Oprah sounds like another Donahue, who I did see years ago. Entertaining mostly, but full of shaming behaviour to anyone who didn't see things his way.
I don't want you to assume that which doesn't exist... candor in my statements. Your condescension and your previous statements lend nothing to any "gains" you think may have occurred. I have no room to try to convince someone as patronizing and duplistic as you are, to agree with me. Agreement does not guarantee truth. Your clever "tongue-in-cheek" assumptions of whatever motivates me internally is an insult. Daniel HG is bombastic in style. Your style is contrived and duplistic. There is absolutely no open dialogue between you and me, and I hope to keep it that way as long as you persist on your present course of action and attitude. You have done nothing to gain my trust to open myself up to you. By your calculation that I was somehow troubled by my behavior slams the door to anything substantive between you and me. I will treat your comments in the future with utter repugnance as long as you arrogantly assume you know more than what you really do. This would require a major change of heart, something that I hope occurs.No need to feign your polite and diplomatic behavior. Like I said, you have made an initial impression on me that is quite sufficient for any future discourse you and I may engage in. And now, if this post has survived Daniel's "attention whore" editing, you may proceed with your feigned diplomacy and "concern" for my welfare and troubling behavior. Good day.
No candor in your statements? Lack of frankness in your statements?Then I shall make my first statements to you that do not try to give you the benefit of the doubt. That does not say "I think" or "I believe", those condescending things you abhor so much.You are insincere.You have no business commenting insincerely here. You are a troll with nothing useful to say.Go away.
Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’. Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.Cheers duckies.