ChatterBank54 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro - // Mamyalynne
//No problem is it? Two people skating.//
I think you know very well that statement is a bit creaky & this is completely against the genre of a man & a woman dancing together on ice.
But if you want to display how liberal you are then go ahead, but don't be surprised if you look a little bit silly, just as these two do. //
Why not have the courage of your convictions?
It's perfectly clear that you don't approve of same sex couples - which is why you take exception to the notion of two people of the same gender dancing together.
It's not actually 'against' anything, except the outdated prejudices of anyone who won't accept that society is moving and changing, as it always has, and always must, and this is reflected in changes in art and entertainment.
So instead of having a pop at Mamya for 'displaying how liberal' she is, why not see her statement for what it is, acceptance of something which is not even original.
No one would deny you your right not to approve of what you see, but please don't dance around it (!) by criticising others, when really you are worried in case you come across as a reactionary old prude.
(As if ….!!)
//No problem is it? Two people skating.//
I think you know very well that statement is a bit creaky & this is completely against the genre of a man & a woman dancing together on ice.
But if you want to display how liberal you are then go ahead, but don't be surprised if you look a little bit silly, just as these two do. //
Why not have the courage of your convictions?
It's perfectly clear that you don't approve of same sex couples - which is why you take exception to the notion of two people of the same gender dancing together.
It's not actually 'against' anything, except the outdated prejudices of anyone who won't accept that society is moving and changing, as it always has, and always must, and this is reflected in changes in art and entertainment.
So instead of having a pop at Mamya for 'displaying how liberal' she is, why not see her statement for what it is, acceptance of something which is not even original.
No one would deny you your right not to approve of what you see, but please don't dance around it (!) by criticising others, when really you are worried in case you come across as a reactionary old prude.
(As if ….!!)
andy-hughes
//It's not actually 'against' anything, except the outdated prejudices of anyone who won't accept that society is moving and changing, as it always has, and always must, and this is reflected in changes in art and entertainment.//
You seem to be implying that change is necessarily good no matter in what direction.
With that in mind, would a change towards authoritarian nationalism be met by the same argument?
The honest question is whether such a change is in societies better interests, if one is to proclaim that the change is beneficial it is your burden to explain why.
//It's not actually 'against' anything, except the outdated prejudices of anyone who won't accept that society is moving and changing, as it always has, and always must, and this is reflected in changes in art and entertainment.//
You seem to be implying that change is necessarily good no matter in what direction.
With that in mind, would a change towards authoritarian nationalism be met by the same argument?
The honest question is whether such a change is in societies better interests, if one is to proclaim that the change is beneficial it is your burden to explain why.
Orion - // You seem to be implying that change is necessarily good no matter in what direction. //
That is your conclusion, not based on anything I have said.
// With that in mind, would a change towards authoritarian nationalism be met by the same argument? //
Of course not, what a ludicrous comparison!
// The honest question is whether such a change is in societies better interests, if one is to proclaim that the change is beneficial it is your burden to explain why. //
I am happy to explain why.
The notion of a light entertainment show reflecting changing attitudes towards same-sex couples by having a same sex couple dancing together is in society's interests, since it embraces a section of society which contributes towards the cost of presenting such a show, and everyone has a choice whether or not they choose to watch and enjoy it.
On the other hand, a change towards authoritarian nationalism is a fundamental negative and damaging shift in the way society as a whole operates, which can only have a negative effect on every person in it, whether they watch light entertainment shows on tv, or not.
I hope that discharges my 'burden' for you.
That is your conclusion, not based on anything I have said.
// With that in mind, would a change towards authoritarian nationalism be met by the same argument? //
Of course not, what a ludicrous comparison!
// The honest question is whether such a change is in societies better interests, if one is to proclaim that the change is beneficial it is your burden to explain why. //
I am happy to explain why.
The notion of a light entertainment show reflecting changing attitudes towards same-sex couples by having a same sex couple dancing together is in society's interests, since it embraces a section of society which contributes towards the cost of presenting such a show, and everyone has a choice whether or not they choose to watch and enjoy it.
On the other hand, a change towards authoritarian nationalism is a fundamental negative and damaging shift in the way society as a whole operates, which can only have a negative effect on every person in it, whether they watch light entertainment shows on tv, or not.
I hope that discharges my 'burden' for you.
ken; // Your homophobia is showing//
Not a bit of it, it's nothing to do with homosexuality; dance, on ice or on grass or wherever, is an art form, the male moves differently to the female, that is part of the beauty, attraction & skill. The dancers sexual orientation doesn't enter in to it. It can be a homosexual man & a lesbian woman for all I care.
Not a bit of it, it's nothing to do with homosexuality; dance, on ice or on grass or wherever, is an art form, the male moves differently to the female, that is part of the beauty, attraction & skill. The dancers sexual orientation doesn't enter in to it. It can be a homosexual man & a lesbian woman for all I care.
Khandro - // Not a bit of it, it's nothing to do with homosexuality … //
Of course it doesn't - that's why you tagged your OP using the word 'queer'.
Because you want to object to the diminution of dance as an art form.
Have you thought of giving Mr Corbyn a call - his responses to losing the election are not being well received - he could use your ability to complain about one thing by dressing it up as another!
Of course it doesn't - that's why you tagged your OP using the word 'queer'.
Because you want to object to the diminution of dance as an art form.
Have you thought of giving Mr Corbyn a call - his responses to losing the election are not being well received - he could use your ability to complain about one thing by dressing it up as another!
andy-hughes
//The notion of a light entertainment show reflecting changing attitudes towards same-sex couples by having a same sex couple dancing together is in society's interests, since it embraces a section of society which contributes towards the cost of presenting such a show, and everyone has a choice whether or not they choose to watch and enjoy it.//
I could easily just enquire further as to why celebration of homosexuality is a benefit to society? Why is this a benefit and not a detriment?
The argument falls since without a justification for homosexuality as a positive reality for our lives, you are merely suggesting that a harmony between media representation and popular opinion is a necessary good.
So I could make the argument hypothetically that in a situation where we lived in the Middle East, that publically televising the execution of homosexuals would be a benefit to society since it embraces the section of the society which follows the teachings of Islam.
Your argument lacks substance since it does not actually explain why homosexuality is a benefit to society in the first place.
//On the other hand, a change towards authoritarian nationalism is a fundamental negative and damaging shift in the way society as a whole operates, which can only have a negative effect on every person in it, whether they watch light entertainment shows on tv, or not.//
Again you have failed to actually explain why this would be the case, rather you have merely asserted that authoritarian nationalism would not be a benefit to society without evidence or further discussion.
Mere assertions are just claims that require further evidence so as of yet the burden resting upon you has not been lifted.
//The notion of a light entertainment show reflecting changing attitudes towards same-sex couples by having a same sex couple dancing together is in society's interests, since it embraces a section of society which contributes towards the cost of presenting such a show, and everyone has a choice whether or not they choose to watch and enjoy it.//
I could easily just enquire further as to why celebration of homosexuality is a benefit to society? Why is this a benefit and not a detriment?
The argument falls since without a justification for homosexuality as a positive reality for our lives, you are merely suggesting that a harmony between media representation and popular opinion is a necessary good.
So I could make the argument hypothetically that in a situation where we lived in the Middle East, that publically televising the execution of homosexuals would be a benefit to society since it embraces the section of the society which follows the teachings of Islam.
Your argument lacks substance since it does not actually explain why homosexuality is a benefit to society in the first place.
//On the other hand, a change towards authoritarian nationalism is a fundamental negative and damaging shift in the way society as a whole operates, which can only have a negative effect on every person in it, whether they watch light entertainment shows on tv, or not.//
Again you have failed to actually explain why this would be the case, rather you have merely asserted that authoritarian nationalism would not be a benefit to society without evidence or further discussion.
Mere assertions are just claims that require further evidence so as of yet the burden resting upon you has not been lifted.
Orion - You seem intent on taking this thread off-track, from a discussion about a same-sex couple on television, to fundamental questions about the benefits and downsides to major changes in society, with some sweeping and not entirely viable scenarios to back up what you appear to want to present as your version of deep thinking.
I don't think this thread, or this section are appropriate for the discussion you want to undertake - and I am unwilling to derail the thread by extending it further.
Feel free to re-post your last questions in Chatterbank, and I will be happy to join you there.
Thank you.
I don't think this thread, or this section are appropriate for the discussion you want to undertake - and I am unwilling to derail the thread by extending it further.
Feel free to re-post your last questions in Chatterbank, and I will be happy to join you there.
Thank you.
Khandro - // a.h.//that's why you tagged your OP using the word 'queer'.//
Yes, that was light-hearted I admit, but a lot of homosexual men refer to themselves as "queer" & if you got about a bit you'd know that.
There's even a dedicated magazine called that. //
Your 'light-hearted' label was misplaced, and does not sit with your obvious hostility to the orientation of the people you are writing about - so it looks sneering,
I do know that gay people call themselves 'queer' - I'm willing to bet I 'get about a bit' more than you do on a bad day!!!
Yes, that was light-hearted I admit, but a lot of homosexual men refer to themselves as "queer" & if you got about a bit you'd know that.
There's even a dedicated magazine called that. //
Your 'light-hearted' label was misplaced, and does not sit with your obvious hostility to the orientation of the people you are writing about - so it looks sneering,
I do know that gay people call themselves 'queer' - I'm willing to bet I 'get about a bit' more than you do on a bad day!!!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles127 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles143 mins ago
Crosswords147 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles178 mins ago
