Friction at DC

[Gaith]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Just because they can't talk, it doesn't mean that dogs are not capable of emotional loyalty and love, and if "you" are in some sort of naked situation and that dog who loves you, who you have had a master pet relationship with for years, at that moment, of their own choice, free will and volition, begins to...

Aaaaand that's about as far as I need to go with this particular thread.

[RJDiogenes]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

It's situations like this that make liberals seem as totalitarian and repressive as conservatives.

There are no liberals. There are only Right-Wing conservatives and Left-Wing conservatives.

(Well, okay, there are liberals-- but they are few and far between.)

[Guy Gardener]

Until the early nineteen 70s, alcohol was responsible for all art, it was impossible to separate alcohol from any part of life, (IMPOSSIBLE!) so really alcohol is an unrealistically legal performance increasing drug for art and the only way to judge whether the ultracaustic effects are acceptable is to compare all art before 1972 to all art after 1972.

I thought as much.

The website for the national organization for marriage is displaying their own financials.

http://www.nationformarriage.org/sit...al_Reports.htm

They spent a total of 7 million dollars in 2011 on "everything" of which 1.1 million was lobbying for their cause and another 1.1 million was listed as "other" which could be harmless or could mean that they have a wet works black ops team ready to use against anyone one who is too especially gay.

1 million dollars?

That's Doctor Evil shit.

Orson has an archaic value system, and he seems to have attached himself to an organization that has no teeth. The message existing is more important than the message getting anywhere functional where it might actually accomplish anything like ending homosexuality.

With unlimited money (and time) how hard would it be to end homosexuality?

(Moving along.)

How much does it cost to buy a senator?

A million dollars a year could buy three Senators for an hour.

I'm more disturbed that Orson is a Mormon, all religion is equally Batshit, but white Jesus coming back down to earth centuries after the crucifixion to enslave the red Indians, dictating that they must obey the white Indian angels so that America is habitable and ready for when the white men show up?

What's more likely?

Orson writes a Superman story where Kal fire bombs a church with his heat ray vision which foolishly allows Gay marriage, or a story where Clark Kent is asked to join the Mormon tabernacle Choir on Christmas Eve (for a News paper article?) and has a nice night out Carolling? Dude has Superlungs. If he wants to sing like an angel, he'll sing like a fricking angle and it's a crime to deprive the new 52 of his voice... Super-Ventriloquism is (was?) one of his listed super powers. Even if his singing voice is shitty, Clark could just use his Super-Hypnosis to make the audience think that he is amazing to listen to.

http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/state/kansas

There's a 15 percent chance that Clark Kent was raised Catholic (Or about a hundred percent chance that he was raised Catholic if his origin point was still set in 1938.), but as soon as baby Kent had soaked up enough sunlight to kick in his "super intellect" who would he have seen through first as a fraud? Father Christmas or Joseph Smith?

I need a drink.

[Guy Gardener]

Gaith wrote:

---

Aaaaand that's about as far as I need to go with this particular thread.

Superman used to have sex with a mermaid with a fish vagina.

His stance on bestiality is pretty clear.

Humans are dooable.

[TREK_GOD_1]

DalekJim wrote:

---

It's clear you have no real desire for debate or points to bring to the table, so there seems little point.

That much is clear...about many in this thread.

[IndyJones]

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

---

Yes, because polls are really capturing the true opinion of half of 300+ million individuals, from the child to the elderly. As Mitt Romney learned somewhere around summer of last year, some polling data is not an accurate measure of real world opinion or action.

Not for nothing, but there's bound to be a large overlap in the type of people who believed the poll skewers that Mitt Romney was actually winning while ignoring many other polls, and people who believe that support for marriage equality isn't growing exponentially. It's the same group of people deluding themselves again.

[TREK_GOD_1]

Professor Zoom;77799402. wrote:

---

Card is free to continue to produce his art. He's a writer. He doesn't need anyone to hire him. He can write, anytime, anywhere he wants. Probably most of his money comes from his novels, not the occasional comic he does. So, he's not being stopped from writing. "Oh, but, he's being stopped from making a living." No, he's being stopped from working at DC. He can continue to write and sell his novels.

Reading betwen the lines: "you can write, just don't write where I do not want you to."

Thought and action (employment) control.

I am SURE they think they are trying to make the world a better place. So? What's your point? That you think I'm so closed minded or something?

It is clear that you are, and see any view other than your own as "bigoted" while avoid the reasons why OSC may hold certain beliefs. You cannot see that, so blanket attacks are the easy route.

I don't flee from it. I know I can. I know I have free will to buy another book. Just like I have free will to join a protest. And as far as absolute thought and action control?

Your every reply is an argument in favor of forcing DC to do your bidding--the end result being OSC never working for the company again, based on a view not connected to the publisher at all.

Let's not pretend you are in favor of the fair treatment of OSC that you demand for your position on marriage.

Hey, if you want to come out and say gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to marry, just say it. You don't have to hide it in obfuscation.

I see hyperbole draped in would-be "hot" wording is your little attempt to steer the matter away from your agenda.

Not working, son.

Oh, so you're not going to answer the question about whether or not ack. Nice. Transparent. But... nice tactic.

you are the issue, as you have taken a hostile position, so whether you will ever understand it or not, you have made yourself part of the problem: attempted thought and action control.

[A beaker full of death]

Neroon wrote:

---

Last chance, folks. Let's please return to the topic of the thread and not continue this irrelevant sidebar

Neroon, as the guy who started this thread, I see no harm in discussing this, and it's certainly not irrelevant. The entire issue is whether an artist's perceived or actual political stance should affect the appreciation of his art (and whether in fact they are separable), whether and how the artist should be impacted by the public reaction to his stances, etc.
The whole POINT of art is to spark such conversations. I know we culturally just want pretty pictures and Disney, but how about we actually have a conversation around here? Frankly, you're overstepping. We're all grown-ups here. Grown up enough for this conversation, anyway. "Last chance"? Really?

[BillJ]

We should treat those people who practice hate just like everyone else...

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[Guy Gardener]

I "begin" conversations with a friend who really, really cherry picks the religion she believes is utterly real, now and then, which has included commentary like this... "No, no, why do you think I hate homosexuals? Because I'm Christian? No, Christians don't hate gays. What would makes you think that? We love everyone."

The practice of hate (about eventually "something" even decimally) is everywhere Bill, and it takes a lot of denial to deal with a world as if it was pejoratively nothing but rainbows and kittens.

[Neroon]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

Neroon, as the guy who started this thread, I see no harm in discussing this, and it's certainly not irrelevant. The entire issue is whether an artist's perceived or actual political stance should affect the appreciation of his art (and whether in fact they are separable), whether and how the artist should be impacted by the public reaction to his stances, etc.
The whole POINT of art is to spark such conversations. I know we culturally just want pretty pictures and Disney, but how about we actually have a conversation around here? Frankly, you're overstepping. We're all grown-ups here. Grown up enough for this conversation, anyway. "Last chance"? Really?

Yes, really. There is conversation and discussion, both energetic and even tense. And there is ranting about unrelated topics simply to be arguing or to lead into political diatribes.

Since it seems that folk here are unwilling to keep clear of the latter, I'm closing the thread for now. Comments to PM, or if you want to try the subject again without the extra baggage, that's possible and we can discuss that via PM if you like.