David Tyree is a moron

[infrared41]

Sterling designed the Manitoba Moose logo. He also did some excellent work for the Buffalo Stampede, a proposed franchise for a hockey league that was later determined to be run by a crook.

/carry on, part deux

Damn, not only does the guy have serious -ing game, turns out he's fat with CCSLC "street cred" too.

I'm off to take a look at the Moose logo.

[Gothamite]

That was you, Sterling? Bravo.

And welcome back. You are elevating the discussion. Even if that discussion doesn't always know it.

[Lights Out]

Sterling designed the Manitoba Moose logo.

That was him? Awesome logo, dude! If True North doesn't go with the Jets, I'd love to see that logo in the NHL.

[Epiphanic]

This could go in the ObamaNation thread, but after skipping what I assume was a circular debate for a few pages I want to share this blog post

It's on the internet, so it has to be true.

[charger77]

This was found at the above link... greatest picture ever!

[thespleenenator]

Was that a picture of SHODAN at the bottom of the linked article?

[Don]

This was found at the above link... greatest picture ever!

This picture sums up these here boards pretty well I'd say.

[infrared41]

This was found at the above link... greatest picture ever!

That's some funny stuff.

[illwauk]

A little late to the party here, but I took a little break from the CCSLC (long enough to forget my MilTownMVP password and create this account) and thought for a long while that Sterling84 and Jaha32 were the same person... both are fellow Wisconsinites, both have serious design skills and both have handles named in tribute to athletes who played in Wisconsin plus their jersey number.

Anyway, welcome back Sterling!

[NJTank]

Wow Tyree is serious about this

Tyree would trade The Catch to block same-sex marriage

Ive let my feeling be known about this subject but either way to give up the one thing that makes you famous is a tad bit odd.

[thespleenenator]

Wow Tyree is serious about this

Tyree would trade The Catch to block same-sex marriage

Ive let my feeling be known about this subject but either way to give up the one thing that makes you famous is a tad bit odd.

Just... wow. Does he even realize that without that catch, nobody would even listen to his opinion, or know he exists for that matter?

[Sterling84]

Wow. What a tremendously impossible, and thus, empty gesture! Congrats Dave! How about something tangible? Your money? Your time? Your life? Nah, Nevermind. This is better.

PS- I suspect all the gay and lesbian persons ( alive and who've ever lived) would ( and have) laid a little more than that on the line in their fight for equality. But we'll make sure to make a note of your theoretical contribution when it comes time to settle the tab.

[IceCap]

Step 1 - Return to boards after long absence. Check

Step 2 - Offend someone I geniunely like. Check

'tis cool. I think my response may have come off harder then I intended it to. When I said "offended" I didn't mean "you've offended me, a pox on your house!" It was more of a "what you said was offensive in the most well-meaning way possible, between two people having a respectful intelligent discussion."

Anyway, -Cap? I don't think you're close-minded. Not at all. I am. ON this anyway. My bad for making that unclear. You are one of the many open-minded ones because you've opened up the dogma and decided to not follow those parts of it which are not applicable to your ethics. And I think that is admirable and would describe most people of faith today. The close-minded ones are clearly the fundamentalists who take those dusty old books literally and there isn't much to be said to those folks. I hope that clears up the major afront between us. Still, with that said I hold to what I meant. From my perspective it is frustrating to see those people...you people...SMART people.. work through; pick apart the scriptures ala carte and then circle back to defend against the notion that religion is causing these problems in the first place just because for you in particular it hasn't. Smoking causes cancer. "Nuh uh...my dad smoked for 40 years and never got cancer." Ummm, good for him,..but it still does. Now, on gay marriage? You've made it clear you DO blame religion so as for this topic....we are in agreement. BTW, I give churches who are now willing to marry gays VERY little credit for coming around. Churches are businesses and they are just filling a void. That's all churches do...make rules that one day your very soul depends on....and then the next day when the donation plate is empty, they change them.

I see where you're coming from. Churches see a market, same sex marriages, and they jump on it by allowing these marriages. In that sense, no, you're right, they're just doing what they have to do to keep the money flowing. It can get deeper then that though. Church attendance is down across the board in western nations, and those that are left are often the people who are very dogmatic regarding faith and scripture. Even if a church is just trying to make some more cash by marrying same sex couples they're doing so at the expense of what congregation they have left, in a lot of cases. To stand up and do what's right, even if its purely for selfish gain, still takes guts if doing the right thing will dwindle the number of followers you have even further.

I will, however, stand up for the Anglican Church in its entirety on the situation. They've done more then just offer to marry same sex couples, they've allowed women and openly gay men to serve as priests. The Anglican Church is perhaps the Christian church I have the most contact with, as that's the faith of my mother's family. On the "ground level" these progressive decisions on gay rights, to go above and beyond simply marrying them, has sparked huge debate within the Church. More conservative Anglicans have threatened to split from the Anglican Communion on the issue, and the Catholic Church, the church closest to the Anglican Church in terms of dogma and ideology, has jumped on the situation by making it easier for Anglicans to convert to Catholicism if they leave the Anglican Communion over the Church granting homosexuals basic dignity as human beings. In short the Anglican Church has decided to embark down the progressive path more so then any other Christian denomination, and they've done so at the risk of splitting the Church and losing adherents to Rome. Yet they've stayed the course out of a belief that gays deserve G-d's love as human beings just as much as heterosexuals do. It's remarkable that an organized faith is going against the grain to this extent, and I applaud the Anglican Communion for that.

Surprised you said you can't take Hitchens seriously. The dude's like...brilliant (as you said) and a very critical thinker and just reading anything he writes often makes my head hurt. Sure, He's surly, he mumbles, he's confrontational, bombastic and always looks drunk. But I've never heard anyone ipso facto that into "he's not qualified to weigh in". People resent the atheist movement because 1) the key figures in it (Dawkins etc) seem to have cultivated an almost...religious following and 2) atheists tend to think and act like they are smarter than everyone else. Both valid reasons to be turned off. Granted. However, I would say to that..."He's mean" vs "I believe in magic" are not equal indictments. If the only thing to be said negatively of an atheist is that they will not draw poeple to their cause by mocking their beliefs...then that isn't so bad. I tend to think the time for placating nonsense and giving it equal billing is long passed. Please don't misunderstand. I would never tell you what to believe. I would not see the world without faith even if it were within my power to do so. It is a right. But I WOULD see it kept more personal and when used in government or debates see it relegated to its proper place; roughly equivalent to the status of believing in Big Foot or UFOs.

And if he (Hitch) was the lame-o atheist (actually antitheist...much better) crutch I leaned in my opinion does that mean you think Pascal is the same from your side (lame?) or are you actually down with that whole thing? Funny you bring him up. I pretty much used my own (less in depth) version of the wager to get myself through adolescence in a highly religious/ridiculous upbringing. I called it more of a "better safe than sorry" take on G-d or a Salvation Hedge. I never even heard of the real thing til much later. And now I feel it to be one of the most contemptable and cowardly and embarrassing things I ever espoused...so I guess for that reason alone you are right. I would throw out his theological opinions yes. But the dude was a genious and much smarter people than me have already torn the wager down. Has anyone taken apart Hitch or Dawkins similarly? Sincerlely asking. I don't think there is anything TO tear down other than their smugness.

Hitchens just rubs me the wrong way all over, to be perfectly honest. He's a British republican, I support retaining the monarchy and Canada's connection to it. He promotes atheism against the evils of religion, I believe one can be a good, descent person and still believe in a divine power. He's an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, I'm an Alexander Hamilton man myself

That being said, I don't dismiss him because I disagree with him. In fact I'm somewhat astounded that I can admit that he's so brilliant even though most of what he writes makes me want to punch babies. In fact I wouldn't say I dismiss him entirely, just in the realm of this discussion.

Basically you could bring Hitchens to the table, and I could bring Pascal to the table. One argues against the existence of G-d, the other for the existence of G-d. Both have their place in the atheist vs theist debate, both have marked out their positions through their extensive works. You could say "Hitchens says A" and I could say "well Pascal says X." You could counter with "Hitchens says B" and I could counter with "Pascal says Y." It would go on and on, and yet it wouldn't go anywhere because we would both be drawing our arguments from people who have cemented themselves on one side of the debate or the other. I don't know, it's just that I believe that when two people discuss an issue (or set of issues) they should do so for the sake of intelligent discussion. When we start bringing out the big thinkers it pigeon holes our own arguments, I think.

Now I agree, faith or lack of faith should be personal. When people start governing in accordance with their faith it becomes dangerous. Further, I really dislike evangelicalism (the spreading of one's faith by trying to bring others around). Which brings us back to Hitchens and his place in this discussion. If you feel atheism offers you the best understanding of the universe, I believe you should embrace it. If that's the decision you've made, and it makes the most sense to you, then you're doing yourself a great service by being brave enough to state your convictions (further, I don't believe G-d will send you to Hell for it ). If Hitchens has helped shape your view of the universe then I am by no means saying you have to disregard him. Every one of us have had our beliefs moulded by great thinkers. If Hitchens has helped form your personal view of the universe and nature, or non-existence, of G-d then all I have to say is that I'm happy you found a great mind that spoke to your belief system. I'm not saying Hitchens is a crutch at all. Like I said we've all had our beliefs moulded by great thinkers who's work has spoken to us.

I just don't see the point in holding up Hitchens, Pascal, Burke, or any other great thinking in a debate like this because, well, what does it accomplish? It just devolves the discussion into us reading off of the talking points of people who are smarter then us. We should channel what they've said into our own arguments rather then just say "well Author A says X." That's all I meant.

Though I admit my first reply probably came off as more dismissive of Hitchens. And for that I do apologize. It's just that, well, I refer you to the baby punching

Back to gay marriage. You guys have torn it up for like 9 more pages since I was here so no need to pile on in any greater detail. Suffice it to say it doesn't matter. This war of hate is already over. There are battles to fight yet...don't get me wrong. And there will be setbacks, we have to be vigilant. But we've reached the tipping point like we did with women's rights and minority rights before this. Legislation unfortunately takes longer to shift than public sentiment. Wanna take the contrary opinion?...have fun. It's all over but the crying. YOu've already lost. DADT is gone and by the time the Boomers are all dead this'll be nothing more than an embarrassing little footnote in the proud tale of progress. The only thing left to do will be to watch folks like Tyree (and McCain) scramble and backtrack.

It'll happen sooner rather then later. When gay marriage was legalized here the majority of the country still opposed it. That changed very quickly though. The majority in the United States now supports it, and that number will grow. All it'll take is one case to make it to the Supreme Court. And if the Court violates their own precedent and strikes gay marriage down I believe the numbers will be there to get a Constitutional amendment protecting same sex marriage passed. If it's not legal by 2030 I'll be shocked.

Though that being said, I think an observational assessment from outside the American political system might be of use. From what I see the problem is the Democratic Party. The Republicans are going to oppose gay marriage, that's what reactionary elements do when reform is brought to the forefront. The Democrats, however, are the party of progress, at least at this juncture in American history. Yet the party is such a broad coalition of "liberal" elements that taking a definitive stance on the same sex marriage issue is dangerous. The liberal intellectual, progressive, and civil liberties wings of the party all support it. The African American, Hispanic, Catholic, Muslim, and southern conservative wings oppose it, however. So if the Party takes a pro-gay marriage stance it risks driving the party apart, much like the slavery issue did for the Whig Party in the 1850s.

This is a problem because progress needs a champion at the governmental level. The Republicans took the hard line against slavery and later the Democrats took the hard line to pass the Civil Rights acts in the 1960s. In Canada women's suffrage was championed by the Conservatives. Civil Rights for gays needs a mainstream party that will take the hard line and push the issue. The Democrats are poised to be that party, yet due to their diverse make-up they're paralyzed from doing so.

Anyway Sterling, welcome back. It's been a pleasure seeing you back, and discussing this issue with you. I hope you stick around because the CCSLC has sorely been lacking in this level of discourse for a while now.

[illwauk]

Wow Tyree is serious about this

Tyree would trade The Catch to block same-sex marriage

Ive let my feeling be known about this subject but either way to give up the one thing that makes you famous is a tad bit odd.

Just... wow. Does he even realize that without that catch, nobody would even listen to his opinion, or know he exists for that matter?

Not to mention d.bags like Bill Simmons would be pricks of an even more insufferable variety (if that's even possible!). I wonder if Mr.15 Minutes even realizes that he's aligning himself with the same types of mouth-breathers who'd lynch him for looking at a white woman if it were feasible.

[Gothamite]

Though that being said, I think an observational assessment from outside the American political system might be of use. From what I see the problem is the Democratic Party. The Republicans are going to oppose gay marriage, that's what reactionary elements do when reform is brought to the forefront. The Democrats, however, are the party of progress, at least at this juncture in American history. Yet the party is such a broad coalition of "liberal" elements that taking a definitive stance on the same sex marriage issue is dangerous. The liberal intellectual, progressive, and civil liberties wings of the party all support it. The African American, Hispanic, Catholic, Muslim, and southern conservative wings oppose it, however. So if the Party takes a pro-gay marriage stance it risks driving the party apart, much like the slavery issue did for the Whig Party in the 1850s.

I don't think that's actually true (about the Democratic Party). Many American Catholics are actually pretty liberal, witness birth control usage and their polling numbers for gay marriage.

Sure, there are some members of the democratic coalition that will find it hard to accept marriage equality. We're seeing that in New York right now. But drive the coalition apart? With marriage equality polling higher and higher every year? I don't see that.

The other factor I think you're missing is the "bat crazy" wing of the Republican Party, which is in ascendancy. They're getting loonier and loonier every year. That will reverse at some point, of course, but in time? I don't think so. Moderate Democrats won't have a place to go if they leave (particularly the black and Hispanic Dems), so they're a lot less likely to leave.

Muslims? Go to the GOP? Not bloody likely.

Actually, the nuttier and teabaggier that the Republicans get, the more Democrats will be empowered to embrace marriage equality on a national level.

I suspect, in the end, our experience will be much like you describe it in Canada. It will become law, and in a few years we'll wonder what the fuss was all about when America fails to burst into flame, horses and dogs continue to lack full agency, and all the lies and canards are exposed as such.

[IceCap]

Though that being said, I think an observational assessment from outside the American political system might be of use. From what I see the problem is the Democratic Party. The Republicans are going to oppose gay marriage, that's what reactionary elements do when reform is brought to the forefront. The Democrats, however, are the party of progress, at least at this juncture in American history. Yet the party is such a broad coalition of "liberal" elements that taking a definitive stance on the same sex marriage issue is dangerous. The liberal intellectual, progressive, and civil liberties wings of the party all support it. The African American, Hispanic, Catholic, Muslim, and southern conservative wings oppose it, however. So if the Party takes a pro-gay marriage stance it risks driving the party apart, much like the slavery issue did for the Whig Party in the 1850s.

I don't think that's actually true (about the Democratic Party). Many American Catholics are actually pretty liberal, witness birth control usage and their polling numbers for gay marriage.

Sure, there are some members of the democratic coalition that will find it hard to accept marriage equality. We're seeing that in New York right now. But drive the coalition apart? With marriage equality polling higher and higher every year? I don't see that.

The other factor I think you're missing is the "bat crazy" wing of the Republican Party, which is in ascendancy. They're getting loonier and loonier every year. That will reverse at some point, of course, but in time? I don't think so. Moderate Democrats won't have a place to go if they leave (particularly the black and Hispanic Dems), so they're a lot less likely to leave.

Muslims? Go to the GOP? Not bloody likely.

Actually, the nuttier and teabaggier that the Republicans get, the more Democrats will be empowered to embrace marriage equality on a national level.

I suspect, in the end, our experience will be much like you describe it in Canada. It will become law, and in a few years we'll wonder what the fuss was all about when America fails to burst into flame, horses and dogs continue to lack full agency, and all the lies and canards are exposed as such.

I'm not worried about the Dems losing members to the GOP, but rather the gay marriage issue splitting the liberal political wing itself. Granted I still believe that this will get resolved sooner rather then later, and that after it's made legal everyone will forget what the fuss was about, but the broad, loose coalition that makes up the Democratic Party is still cause for concern, to me anyway. It's the party of progress, but in order to push a progressive agenda it has to present a unified front, and that will always be difficult when the party's made up of a coalition of smaller groups all jostling for influence.

It's just that I would feel more at ease regarding the nature of the American progressive movement if its main vehicle for change, the Democratic Party, was less factional.

[Sterling84]

Well, white catholics are liberal..but are Hispanic Catholics? [EDIT...ooops Gothamite already chimed in. I meant as it pertains to gay marriage are they liberal? But you're right..the alternative seems worse politically.]Many African Americans also vehemently oppose gay marriage (or so it would seem...open to being proven wrong).

Democrats like always are playing a waiting game. For either a second term, an economic rebound or for a disasterous overstep by Republicans to galvanize and pounce upon...like Scott Walker but on the marriage issue.

_Cap...glad we're square. (Yay! We're still pals!!) It's funny what you say about discussing and how it can turn into a quote-fest just repeating other people's pigeon-holed points. I agree. But I also sometimes feel pressure to cite sources so as to validate or avoid being later called on appropriating others thoughts as my own. It's tough either way. I only even referenced Hitch cause that comment about Nazi Germany was like, LITERALLY out of 'God is not Great'...and I wanted to be specific since I'm not a historian. Otherwise I would have been unlikely to reference him at all. But you are also right in that these folks can help codify and shape our opinions; or at least give us their better words to use in a pinch. Specifically for me the term Anti-theist. Atheist to many is a dirty word in this culture. Seriously. The faithful might feel under attack by *us but in reality it's a pathetic minority at least where polling is concerned. But by my understanding of the definition an atheist is still open to the "hope" or "wish" that there might indeed by a G-d. And I don't MEAN to sidetrack (but I'm gonna) this is an important distinction to me. Far be it for me to define other people's beliefs but I think using that definition you could almost call 3/4 of all self-described believers atheists if you were so inclined. Cause many people admit having doubts. Most of my friends (when I have the courage to discuss it) bring them up willingly..how the scriptures really don't make any sense and aren't applicable. But these people (my friends I mean) seem unwilling or unable to break the last thread of hope that it is all true afterall. And it wasn't until I read Hitch that I was finally free of that "need"...whatever it is...the parent factor or greater purpose factor or....cosmic playbook if you will. To refuse the notion that you would even WANT a G-d if given the choice...to be an Anti-Theist and reject the premise outright on its face. Well, that is a weight off lemme tell ya. And I do owe that all to Hitchens...not as an indoctrination or a quote verbatim; but just as in a stirring of debate within myself. >>> "If my truest self is how I act when no one is watching...how am I ever to know the true measure of myself if this construct tells me someone is ALWAYS watching?" Talk about hedges...under this understanding God is a curfew you assign yourself and then curse when you miss it. To wish for a G-d is to wish that someone somewhere will guide you to make the proper decisions when your parents, friends, and mentors are not there. It's terrifying but liberating to think about it the other way; to know that the sum of who you are is nothing but the sum of how you treated those around you. Terrifying but very simple too. [EDIT - It's like this..if you believe someone IS always watching (G-d) how can you ever be a purely good person? Seems the best you could achieve is being called 'Obedient' which doesn't past muster for me any longer. I'll be judged (by only my peers I suspect) but by whomever on my own merits. And if I'm wrong? If that happens to be a diety doing the judging? Then I'd have to face what I did or didn't do on my own. If you think about it, it's almost the Yin to the Pascal Wager Yang. Only I get to make my own rules. ]But I digress....that's just where I'm at. And I won't bother you fine folks with it any more tonight. - PS I want it on record I'm willing to give up having ever done the Moose logo if only we had marriage equality in this great land. What? St. Johns doesn't wanna use it!?!?! There goes my leverage. Back to the drawing board.

[Gothamite]

I still think the notion of a party split is severely overblown. Blacks are reportedly less in favor of marriage equality, but what are they going to do? Stay at home, and let the sometimes-openly racist wing of the Republican Party clean up? Same with Hispanics - if the GOP base wasn't so dead-set against immigration reform, if Hispanics hadn't become a scapegoat for everything from rising crime rates to the Arizona wildfires (seriously, John?), then they might be willing to defect or at least not vote.

But the GOP has caught teh crazy, and that tends to motivate the opposing party's voters even if they don't their own entire platform.

Plus, I would argue that all civil rights have been advanced by coalitions, often loose or possibly fragile ones. Think LBJ, an unlikely proponent of civil rights.

[Dexter Morgan]

Just delaying the inevitable. Whether you like it or not, the legalization of gay marriage is going to happen in this country. Ask anyone under 35. They don't understand this issue. Denying gay people the right to marry is unconscionable.

[Gothamite]

Just delaying the inevitable. Whether you like it or not, the legalization of gay marriage is going to happen in this country. Ask anymore under 35. They don't understand this issue.

Exactly.

Where I say the majority of Americans will be eventually, they are already there. The only question is how many gay couples will have to be denied their rights until the power structure catches up with the people.