Sunday, March 04, 2012

DSC_2663 [bw] - Presque RienRemind me not to read screeds in the Telegraph.
[Briefly, because references are for dweebs]
- Context, m'dear.
- Yes, compared to single parent families; it's the number of enduring parents that counts, not the brand name. And if you're going to bring up the harm that comes to children from gay parents, do try to remember that that is foisted upon them by some parts of society, that it's the victim's fault for being provocative, which seems a tad Islamic (although being born flawed is terribly Catholic).
- Universal, from a very western-centric viewpoint (there are no other religions, no other cultures really, are there? Well, no worthwhile ones). Shall we just change "universal" to "in much of modern Christendom" now, or ought we try to redefine "universal"?
- Darling, it's not a label, it's a state. But yay you for the flawed attempt at belittling and negating the inevitable criticism.
- Actually, you are right; the death of marriage is a bloody good reason to embalm it.
- Deserve ≠ get, but awareness and pragmatism isn't exactly what the Catholic church is know for.
- Oh, yes, of course it'll spread to polygamy, just like miscegenation led to bestiality (although humans are better able to give consent than animals, so polygamy is more likely than bestiality to be acceptable).
- Quelle Horreur!
- If possibly no government has the right, then certainly no church has the right.
- Oh look, there's a man made entirely of straw, yet designed to scare us not crows; no wonder this argument appears to be remarkably ill thought-out.
- Redefining is bad? Well, what has Redefinition ever done for us? You do know that Christianity has redefined marriage itself fairly often, right? And it's hardly as though marriage equality is a new idea (it existed before Jesus and the church has intermittently condemned it ever since [although often that was just head office's view]).
- Seriously, you're bringing slavery into this? Surely there's an Godwin's law for that too. And, um, weren't the church, well, not wholly against such a thing, because, you know, they maybe in chains, but at least they're no longer ostentatiously pagan.
- And if you're going to quote a charter of ideals (written to be as widely acceptable as possible at a specific time, and so covering a mix of social contexts), do check that it doesn't render your argument moot:
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: ... “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

And let's not go into the comments (I started, but the token sane one cant' use apostrophe's).


Your post is like Ngaio Marsh, but cheats. The UDHR doesn't define 'family', tho' I expect they had something clear in their heads then. Well more fool them. The definitive statement, the apogee of human development? Bad luck. It's legalistic and semantic business as usual. Wrangling over, wriggling to evade, twisting to one's advantage are what broad statements of principle are for. Right? I'd say this comment is chameleon-like in its Anyhoo colouring. Except, apparently, they don't. Take on the colour of their surroundings. Chameleons, I mean. I forget what it's really for. The colouring. How did I do, on a scale of 1 to 10, at being Anyhoo? :)))) Love, Alec xx
How do you find it Marshian? The UDHR only comes in because it was quoted as supporting the article. Anyway enough my mother thinks the cardinal's beyond the pale, and that's what matters. Chameleons do, some of them. Shows health and behaviour, but I remember somewhere they often to pre-darken when basking to warm quicker. That and camouflage. Anyhoo operates tangentially—it was to have been perpendicularly but implies too much axial certainty—to the plane of the standard scale.

Love or what you will,

They don't colour to match their surroundings, unable to let it go, but to their mood. That would be quite useful in human interraction but I've no idea what it'd do to the libido. Somebody'll object to these awkward contractions you mark my words. Forgive me, but tangentially could as easily be perpendicular as any other angle *air of triumph, as of one scoring point* Not sure why I need forgiveness. Presumably it's a sop to lessen the impact of scoring the point. I have always been disjointed, filling in vital steps in an argument some time after delivering the conclusion. I think you are designed to be kept up with from obscure clues and late explanations, sometimes relying on the ability of the reader to infer. That's Marshian. Bordering on cheating. Definitely cruel for sluggish brains such as mine. Harsh but true. Probably. Flail, Alec xx
That's a what you will :)
It's an ability, not necessarily an immutable action.

But perpendicular is only ever at right angles, whereas tangentially is a spur from any curve, so can be any angle (though I did say "tangentially to a plane", which would require some fun extra dimensions to make work).

As for doing the working out after the answer, well, that's fine as long as the answer's right and you can find the other party's holes quicker.

Marshian: why be dull? Some audiences can cope, and those that can't tend to make a wearisome one. Life's more fun when it's less obvious. If you don't like to infer read things heavy on the exposition; I suggest Dan Brown (the most surprising thing about his books, other than their sales, is the blurb at the beginning says he teaches English).

Sluggish? You really believe that? I don't.

How's life among the barley twists?
I don't know whether it's an immutable action or not. If you say it is I believe you. Which makes you Christ or some other fuhrer. No. I don't believe you in that sense. Bored now.
I had the most beautiful friend who deployed 'bored now' to devastating effect, on devastated men. I usually felt sorry for them, but occasionally thought they deserved the rebuff. I was speaking to him recently and he said he'd had a thing with a professional piano accordion player. I don't know why I found that completely risible, but I offended him by falling about. And it wasn't because the piano accordion, apparently, is professional. Anyway the professional piano accordian player turned out to be married (to a woman - how quickly it's become necessary to say that) and dumped him after having had his way with my friend. This is a situation to which he is totally unaccustomed, and not just with professional piano accordion players.
I can't read Dan Brown. I mean I can read him but I don't like to. His success is perplexing. Stephanie Meyer is equally bad, and her subject matter is even more tedious.
Did I grant you the perpendicular tangential thing. I meant to.
Flail, Alec xx
p.s. Don't forget to read some Patrick Gale, particularly his forthcoming novel, not least because I feature in it - at least my name does, if he's remembered.
p.p.s. And a flicker of a :) for 'holes'.
Beautiful in physical looks only I take it?

I've learnt not to read Dan Brown; the astonishing awfulness is too overwhelming to stay funny.

Do you find hole finding is normally a race?

Hmmm! I understand why you would condemn the casual cruelty of my beautiful friend, and some might argue his 'beauty' is the less for it. He is one of those people who fatally say what is on their mind without thought. If he's bored he says so. This unheeding honesty is a form of stupidity which I've struggled to explain to him, and explain him to others. In spite of this he does have generosity in him, and we learnt from the incident of the accordion player that he hurts as much as anyone else. I've no idea if he gets it.
I've not been involved in any races for holes for some time. Rather forgotten the rules :/
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?