U.S. citizen arrested under state's new anti-illegal immigrant law, Hispanic advocate says

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

My husband always tells me not to waste my time on these things, maybe I really should listen. :lol:

yeah be a good wife and listen to your husband

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Something else I'm a little curious about - but perhaps GEG can elaborate on this.

Earlier she seemed (at least) to agree with me that the difference in how we make or indeed perceive relationship decisions is likely to do more with generational differences, personal experiences and cultural norms. She also said that she wouldn't look down on people for their relationship decisions.

Taking this as a given - it seems something of an about face to go from there to basically say that, after all, it is ok to make generalisations about people's relationship decisions. I mean, surely if you think it is perfectly ok to do this (though GEG said that she wouldn't indulge in it) then is it reasonable to get riled up if you perceive yourself to be made subject to the same reasoning? I dunno - Personally I think we would have been all better off if we'd just agreed to disagree on our different perceptions and just left it there.

Perhaps I'm biased here - but I didn't read PH's "clinical" comment as a comment on GEG's marriage specifically, only how she perceives the idea that omitting love from a discussion of marriage - that is as much an emotional as a rational life decision appears rather cold. I don't think that's difficult to understand, especially if you accept that people balance their relationship decisions on a different set of criteria. Essentially what is now being said is that after agreeing to disagree - that you can then turn around and pretty much say "I don't respect your opinion".

While I certainly won't say that anyone is heartless, or that their relationship is devoid or love or passion, to me talking about marriage as if it were primarily a business contract does seem somewhat clinical. But again if we can accept that we each have different criteria - that's not an attack on anyone personally, merely a different way of looking at the world.

[Fandango 1,439]

Something else I'm a little curious about - but perhaps GEG can elaborate on this.

Earlier she seemed (at least) to agree with me that the difference in how we make or indeed perceive relationship decisions is likely to do more with generational differences, personal experiences and cultural norms. She also said that she wouldn't look down on people for their relationship decisions.

Taking this as a given - it seems something of an about face to go from there to basically say that, after all, it is ok to make generalisations about people's relationship decisions. I mean, surely if you think it is perfectly ok to do this (though GEG said that she wouldn't indulge in it) then is it reasonable to get riled up if you perceive yourself to be made subject to the same reasoning? I dunno - Personally I think we would have been all better off if we'd just agreed to disagree on our different perceptions and just left it there.

Perhaps I'm biased here - but I didn't read PH's "clinical" comment as a comment on GEG's marriage specifically, only how she perceives the idea that omitting love from a discussion of marriage - that is as much an emotional as a rational life decision appears rather cold. I don't think that's difficult to understand, especially if you accept that people balance their relationship decisions on a different set of criteria. Essentially what is now being said is that after agreeing to disagree - that you can then turn around and pretty much say "I don't respect your opinion".

While I certainly won't say that anyone is heartless, or that their relationship is devoid or love or passion, to me talking about marriage as if it were primarily a business contract does seem somewhat clinical. But again if we can accept that we each have different criteria - that's not an attack on anyone personally, merely a different way of looking at the world.

I think the implications here is that her marriage is based in the clinical, devoid of love, cold, etc...at least that's what I've inferred.

Which is just a different judgment on another's relationship process...which is ironic considering the $hit she's taken for voicing HER choice re: marrying an illegal. There's been a grillion posts of follow up questioning...as if no one here has a right to have his/her own standards. Hey, we might not like others' standards...but that doesn't mean they are 'right/wrong'. She wouldn't marry an illegal. She wouldn't trust someone with what she sees as such a character flaw. What is there really to discuss? As long as none of you are an illegal who is in love with GEG, then there's really no one with a dog in this fight...other than to banter back and forth about how 'wrong' her thought process is.

Having page after page of 'what about this/that/the other', then having her thought process called name after name does seem a bit curious, and quite hypocritical/ironic at the same time.

Edited November 9, 2007 by LisaD

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Something else I'm a little curious about - but perhaps GEG can elaborate on this.

Earlier she seemed (at least) to agree with me that the difference in how we make or indeed perceive relationship decisions is likely to do more with generational differences, personal experiences and cultural norms. She also said that she wouldn't look down on people for their relationship decisions.

Taking this as a given - it seems something of an about face to go from there to basically say that, after all, it is ok to make generalisations about people's relationship decisions. I mean, surely if you think it is perfectly ok to do this (though GEG said that she wouldn't indulge in it) then is it reasonable to get riled up if you perceive yourself to be made subject to the same reasoning? I dunno - Personally I think we would have been all better off if we'd just agreed to disagree on our different perceptions and just left it there.

Perhaps I'm biased here - but I didn't read PH's "clinical" comment as a comment on GEG's marriage specifically, only how she perceives the idea that omitting love from a discussion of marriage - that is as much an emotional as a rational life decision appears rather cold. I don't think that's difficult to understand, especially if you accept that people balance their relationship decisions on a different set of criteria. Essentially what is now being said is that after agreeing to disagree - that you can then turn around and pretty much say "I don't respect your opinion".

While I certainly won't say that anyone is heartless, or that their relationship is devoid or love or passion, to me talking about marriage as if it were primarily a business contract does seem somewhat clinical. But again if we can accept that we each have different criteria - that's not an attack on anyone personally, merely a different way of looking at the world.

I think the implications here is that her marriage is based in the clinical, devoid of love, cold, etc...

Which is just a different judgment on another's relationship process...which is ironic considering the $hit she's taken for voicing HER choice re: marrying an illegal. There's been a grillion posts of follow up questioning...as if no one here has a right to have his/her own standards. Hey, we might not like others' standards...but that doesn't mean they are 'right/wrong'.

Having page after page of that, then having her thought process called name after name does seem a bit curious, and quite hypocritical/ironic.

As I said earlier - this is where clarifying the earlier postings does help to alleviate misunderstanding. As far as that goes GEG actually did that, she also accepted that her way of looking at marriage/relationship decisions might be old fashioned, compared with say how I might look at it. I can accept that, and I don't think its better or worse than how I look at it - but going from that admission to saying its ok to make generalised sweeping judgments about other people's relationships seems a little contradictory and counter-productive.

BTW PH also clarified that posting saying specifically that she wasn't making an explicit judgment on GEG's marriage, only on the reasoning expressed in some of her earlier statements. Unless we're going to start questioning people's basic honesty - I'm not sure what is really to be gained here. We've gone from promising compromise on a tangential issue to the original discussion to not talking about the subject at all.

As far as "debate" goes - this is probably where the mods should step in.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think with that post you've hit something of a low in this thread. As I said it speaks volumes to you and your posting style and your general attitude. Again time for a line to be drawn under this thread (call that whining if you wish) but if you feel you can only 'win' in this discussion by calling me a pu$$y or a cockroach, well you're in it for different reasons than most of us.

yeah, he shoulda used these time honored classics:

Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

[natty bumppo 297]

Something else I'm a little curious about - but perhaps GEG can elaborate on this.

Earlier she seemed (at least) to agree with me that the difference in how we make or indeed perceive relationship decisions is likely to do more with generational differences, personal experiences and cultural norms. She also said that she wouldn't look down on people for their relationship decisions.

Taking this as a given - it seems something of an about face to go from there to basically say that, after all, it is ok to make generalisations about people's relationship decisions. I mean, surely if you think it is perfectly ok to do this (though GEG said that she wouldn't indulge in it) then is it reasonable to get riled up if you perceive yourself to be made subject to the same reasoning? I dunno - Personally I think we would have been all better off if we'd just agreed to disagree on our different perceptions and just left it there.

Perhaps I'm biased here - but I didn't read PH's "clinical" comment as a comment on GEG's marriage specifically, only how she perceives the idea that omitting love from a discussion of marriage - that is as much an emotional as a rational life decision appears rather cold. I don't think that's difficult to understand, especially if you accept that people balance their relationship decisions on a different set of criteria. Essentially what is now being said is that after agreeing to disagree - that you can then turn around and pretty much say "I don't respect your opinion".

While I certainly won't say that anyone is heartless, or that their relationship is devoid or love or passion, to me talking about marriage as if it were primarily a business contract does seem somewhat clinical. But again if we can accept that we each have different criteria - that's not an attack on anyone personally, merely a different way of looking at the world.

I think the implications here is that her marriage is based in the clinical, devoid of love, cold, etc...

Which is just a different judgment on another's relationship process...which is ironic considering the $hit she's taken for voicing HER choice re: marrying an illegal. There's been a grillion posts of follow up questioning...as if no one here has a right to have his/her own standards. Hey, we might not like others' standards...but that doesn't mean they are 'right/wrong'.

Having page after page of that, then having her thought process called name after name does seem a bit curious, and quite hypocritical/ironic.

As I said earlier - this is where clarifying the earlier postings does help to alleviate misunderstanding. As far as that goes GEG actually did that, she also accepted that her way of looking at marriage/relationship decisions might be old fashioned, compared with say how I might look at it. I can accept that, and I don't think its better or worse than how I look at it - but going from that admission to saying its ok to make generalised sweeping judgments about other people's relationships seems a little contradictory and counter-productive.

BTW PH also clarified that posting saying specifically that she wasn't making an explicit judgment on GEG's marriage, only on the reasoning expressed in some of her earlier statements. Unless we're going to start questioning people's basic honesty - I'm not sure what is really to be gained here. We've gone from promising compromise on a tangential issue to the original discussion to not talking about the subject at all.

As far as "debate" goes - this is probably where the mods should step in.

WoW ... comment about GEG ... then request the mods to step in

It could be considered polite to allow her the chance to reply.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think with that post you've hit something of a low in this thread. As I said it speaks volumes to you and your posting style and your general attitude. Again time for a line to be drawn under this thread (call that whining if you wish) but if you feel you can only 'win' in this discussion by calling me a pu$$y or a cockroach, well you're in it for different reasons than most of us.

yeah, he shoulda used these time honored classics:

Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

Saving posts now... Do you have a word document or something? And I used to think I took this too seriously...

I don't deny saying it - and even despite the fact that the thread it came from was rather heated all around - I won't justify it either. However I also think dispensing with the entire context of the thread that its from - as though you're somehow entirely blameless in your conduct is a bit rich IMO.

BTW - I also remember apologising to you for that comment some time ago. I guess that really counted for nothing, except as a tool for you to rub my nose in it whenever you like. Perhaps I should start keeping track of all your

objectionable postings so I can do likewise. I won't BTW - but I think as usual that says more about you than it does about me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Something else I'm a little curious about - but perhaps GEG can elaborate on this.

Earlier she seemed (at least) to agree with me that the difference in how we make or indeed perceive relationship decisions is likely to do more with generational differences, personal experiences and cultural norms. She also said that she wouldn't look down on people for their relationship decisions.

Taking this as a given - it seems something of an about face to go from there to basically say that, after all, it is ok to make generalisations about people's relationship decisions. I mean, surely if you think it is perfectly ok to do this (though GEG said that she wouldn't indulge in it) then is it reasonable to get riled up if you perceive yourself to be made subject to the same reasoning? I dunno - Personally I think we would have been all better off if we'd just agreed to disagree on our different perceptions and just left it there.

Perhaps I'm biased here - but I didn't read PH's "clinical" comment as a comment on GEG's marriage specifically, only how she perceives the idea that omitting love from a discussion of marriage - that is as much an emotional as a rational life decision appears rather cold. I don't think that's difficult to understand, especially if you accept that people balance their relationship decisions on a different set of criteria. Essentially what is now being said is that after agreeing to disagree - that you can then turn around and pretty much say "I don't respect your opinion".

While I certainly won't say that anyone is heartless, or that their relationship is devoid or love or passion, to me talking about marriage as if it were primarily a business contract does seem somewhat clinical. But again if we can accept that we each have different criteria - that's not an attack on anyone personally, merely a different way of looking at the world.

I think the implications here is that her marriage is based in the clinical, devoid of love, cold, etc...

Which is just a different judgment on another's relationship process...which is ironic considering the $hit she's taken for voicing HER choice re: marrying an illegal. There's been a grillion posts of follow up questioning...as if no one here has a right to have his/her own standards. Hey, we might not like others' standards...but that doesn't mean they are 'right/wrong'.

Having page after page of that, then having her thought process called name after name does seem a bit curious, and quite hypocritical/ironic.

As I said earlier - this is where clarifying the earlier postings does help to alleviate misunderstanding. As far as that goes GEG actually did that, she also accepted that her way of looking at marriage/relationship decisions might be old fashioned, compared with say how I might look at it. I can accept that, and I don't think its better or worse than how I look at it - but going from that admission to saying its ok to make generalised sweeping judgments about other people's relationships seems a little contradictory and counter-productive.

BTW PH also clarified that posting saying specifically that she wasn't making an explicit judgment on GEG's marriage, only on the reasoning expressed in some of her earlier statements. Unless we're going to start questioning people's basic honesty - I'm not sure what is really to be gained here. We've gone from promising compromise on a tangential issue to the original discussion to not talking about the subject at all.

As far as "debate" goes - this is probably where the mods should step in.

WoW ... comment about GEG ... then request the mods to step in

It could be considered polite to allow her the chance to reply.

My point about the mods stepping was not in relation to her but along the lines that this discussion has ceased to be of any useful purpose as its not even about the general subject anymore - just personal mudslinging and backbiting.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think with that post you've hit something of a low in this thread. As I said it speaks volumes to you and your posting style and your general attitude. Again time for a line to be drawn under this thread (call that whining if you wish) but if you feel you can only 'win' in this discussion by calling me a pu$$y or a cockroach, well you're in it for different reasons than most of us.

yeah, he shoulda used these time honored classics:

Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

Saving posts now... Do you have a word document or something? And I used to think I took this too seriously...

I don't deny saying it - and even despite the fact that the thread it came from was rather heated all around - I won't justify it either. However I also think dispensing with the entire context of the thread that its from - as though you're somehow entirely blameless in your conduct is a bit rich IMO.

BTW - I also remember apologising to you for that comment some time ago. I guess that really counted for nothing, except as a tool for you to rub my nose in it whenever you like. Perhaps I should start keeping track of all your

objectionable postings so I can do likewise. I won't BTW - but I think as usual that says more about you than it does about me.

not saving, fishdude - bookmark works so much better

the above just shows you're not infallible. but keep acting like the wounded maiden when you don't get your way.

[LaL 418]

...this discussion has ceased to be of any useful purpose as its not even about the general subject anymore - just personal mudslinging and backbiting.

I am tending to agree, what seemed to be continued discussion back on track after a bit of flaming, does not seem as though the thread has regained composure in its content. Back on topic please!

edited for typos

Edited November 9, 2007 by LaL

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think with that post you've hit something of a low in this thread. As I said it speaks volumes to you and your posting style and your general attitude. Again time for a line to be drawn under this thread (call that whining if you wish) but if you feel you can only 'win' in this discussion by calling me a pu$$y or a cockroach, well you're in it for different reasons than most of us.

yeah, he shoulda used these time honored classics:

Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

Saving posts now... Do you have a word document or something? And I used to think I took this too seriously...

I don't deny saying it - and even despite the fact that the thread it came from was rather heated all around - I won't justify it either. However I also think dispensing with the entire context of the thread that its from - as though you're somehow entirely blameless in your conduct is a bit rich IMO.

BTW - I also remember apologising to you for that comment some time ago. I guess that really counted for nothing, except as a tool for you to rub my nose in it whenever you like. Perhaps I should start keeping track of all your

objectionable postings so I can do likewise. I won't BTW - but I think as usual that says more about you than it does about me.

not saving, fishdude - bookmark works so much better

the above just shows you're not infallible. but keep acting like the wounded maiden when you don't get your way.

I never said I was infallible, so labouring under that impression is rather silly IMO. And as for "getting my way" what are we even talking about here? Dev, for one hasn't participated even remotely on-topic (even with the tangents we've spun off to) for pages now; and I thought keeping things on some sort of track was a good idea. That last comment wasn't connected to anything I really said - other than that this thread has turned pretty stale. Seizing on something that innocuous as a pretext for a direct personal insult seems rather cheap to me.

But silly me - I guess you're all getting something out of this "discussion".

...this discussion has ceased to be of any useful purpose as its not even about the general subject anymore - just personal mudslinging and backbiting.

I am tending to agree, what seemed to be continued discussion back on track after a bit of flaming, does not seem as though the thread has regained composure in its content. Back on topic please!

edited for typos

Thanks!

[natty bumppo 297]

I never said I was infallible, so labouring under that impression is rather silly IMO. And as for "getting my way" what are we even talking about here? Dev, for one hasn't participated even remotely on-topic (even with the tangents we've spun off to) for pages now; and I thought keeping things on some sort of track was a good idea. That last comment wasn't connected to anything I really said - other than that this thread has turned pretty stale. Seizing on something that innocuous as a pretext for a direct personal insult seems rather cheap to me.

But silly me - I guess you're all getting something out of this "discussion".

...this discussion has ceased to be of any useful purpose as its not even about the general subject anymore - just personal mudslinging and backbiting.

I am tending to agree, what seemed to be continued discussion back on track after a bit of flaming, does not seem as though the thread has regained composure in its content. Back on topic please!

edited for typos

Thanks!

Please .....

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think with that post you've hit something of a low in this thread. As I said it speaks volumes to you and your posting style and your general attitude. Again time for a line to be drawn under this thread (call that whining if you wish) but if you feel you can only 'win' in this discussion by calling me a pu$$y or a cockroach, well you're in it for different reasons than most of us.

yeah, he shoulda used these time honored classics:

Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

Saving posts now... Do you have a word document or something? And I used to think I took this too seriously...

I don't deny saying it - and even despite the fact that the thread it came from was rather heated all around - I won't justify it either. However I also think dispensing with the entire context of the thread that its from - as though you're somehow entirely blameless in your conduct is a bit rich IMO.

BTW - I also remember apologising to you for that comment some time ago. I guess that really counted for nothing, except as a tool for you to rub my nose in it whenever you like. Perhaps I should start keeping track of all your

objectionable postings so I can do likewise. I won't BTW - but I think as usual that says more about you than it does about me.

not saving, fishdude - bookmark works so much better

the above just shows you're not infallible. but keep acting like the wounded maiden when you don't get your way.

I never said I was infallible, so labouring under that impression is rather silly IMO. And as for "getting my way" what are we even talking about here? Dev, for one hasn't participated even remotely on-topic (even with the tangents we've spun off to) for pages now; and I thought keeping things on some sort of track was a good idea. That last comment wasn't connected to anything I really said - other than that this thread has turned pretty stale. Seizing on something that innocuous as a pretext for a direct personal insult seems rather cheap to me.

But silly me - I guess you're all getting something out of this "discussion".

it's about you having your way and your obsessive desire to always be right. the topic can wander if you lead it there, but when it gets too hot you throw a fit and demand it get back on topic - or be locked. but whatever dude, have fun talking with yourself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think with that post you've hit something of a low in this thread. As I said it speaks volumes to you and your posting style and your general attitude. Again time for a line to be drawn under this thread (call that whining if you wish) but if you feel you can only 'win' in this discussion by calling me a pu$$y or a cockroach, well you're in it for different reasons than most of us.

yeah, he shoulda used these time honored classics:

Just as I find your desire to dispense with morality and the rule of law to feed your own sadistic personal desires to be shameful and entirely distasteful, as well as being morally and ethically bankrupt.

Saving posts now... Do you have a word document or something? And I used to think I took this too seriously...

I don't deny saying it - and even despite the fact that the thread it came from was rather heated all around - I won't justify it either. However I also think dispensing with the entire context of the thread that its from - as though you're somehow entirely blameless in your conduct is a bit rich IMO.

BTW - I also remember apologising to you for that comment some time ago. I guess that really counted for nothing, except as a tool for you to rub my nose in it whenever you like. Perhaps I should start keeping track of all your

objectionable postings so I can do likewise. I won't BTW - but I think as usual that says more about you than it does about me.

not saving, fishdude - bookmark works so much better

the above just shows you're not infallible. but keep acting like the wounded maiden when you don't get your way.

I never said I was infallible, so labouring under that impression is rather silly IMO. And as for "getting my way" what are we even talking about here? Dev, for one hasn't participated even remotely on-topic (even with the tangents we've spun off to) for pages now; and I thought keeping things on some sort of track was a good idea. That last comment wasn't connected to anything I really said - other than that this thread has turned pretty stale. Seizing on something that innocuous as a pretext for a direct personal insult seems rather cheap to me.

But silly me - I guess you're all getting something out of this "discussion".

it's about you having your way and your obsessive desire to always be right. the topic can wander if you lead it there, but when it gets too hot you throw a fit and demand it get back on topic - or be locked. but whatever dude, have fun talking with yourself.

Right about what exactly? What are we (the collective 'we') even talking about at this point?

I must have missed the part where I was 'forcing' anyone to agree with me. I simply don't like Dev's posting style in this thread - I think its rude and not conducive to any sort of discussion.

As I said - I was perfectly happy to agree to disagree with GEG, who lets admit it has posted something substantive about her reasoning in the last few pages. I'm interested to hear what she has to say, but I am slightly disappointed that we've reversed course from a promising compromise down a narrow and nasty alley. It makes the whole thing rather futile IMO.

[Fandango 1,439]

As I said earlier - this is where clarifying the earlier postings does help to alleviate misunderstanding. As far as that goes GEG actually did that, she also accepted that her way of looking at marriage/relationship decisions might be old fashioned, compared with say how I might look at it. I can accept that, and I don't think its better or worse than how I look at it - but going from that admission to saying its ok to make generalised sweeping judgments about other people's relationships seems a little contradictory and counter-productive.

BTW PH also clarified that posting saying specifically that she wasn't making an explicit judgment on GEG's marriage, only on the reasoning expressed in some of her earlier statements. Unless we're going to start questioning people's basic honesty - I'm not sure what is really to be gained here. We've gone from promising compromise on a tangential issue to the original discussion to not talking about the subject at all.

As far as "debate" goes - this is probably where the mods should step in.

But GEG also said her opinions were for her....so I would infer that means that she, too, wasn't casting aspersions on others' relationships.

Old fashioned...maybe. Clinical? Implies a lot more imo.

I think sometimes people can be a bit sensitive towards others' opinions. Saying 'I wouldn't do x,y,z' offends the people who do x,y,z....why is that? I personally don't care what others' opinions are towards my own life and choices...my choices need no justification nor seal of approval from anyone but me. And if I say 'I wouldn't do this'...that means *I* wouldn't do it...that doesn't mean poster a,b, or c shouldn't....hey, fill yer boots, yanno?

I don't think it's necessary to always have to define or pigeonhole someone's opinions...oh that way of thinking is 'this' or 'that'....it is what it is, and will continue to be, without any affects from defining someone's way of thinking.

But you're right...this really is going nowhere...just thought I'd offer another perspective from an outsider not involved in this 'debate'.

Edited November 9, 2007 by LisaD