LOL awesome!Just goes to show some things are set.And The Hulk is amazing.
HAHAHAHAHA… Sept that the “gods” in this case were “aliens” … >_> Yeah… haha.Regardless, this is great.
^ Thor and Loki are aliens? That’s news to me. *eye roll*
I’ve seen that one before. I chuckled. But I thought the movie had much funnier moments.
Hehehehehe!
@In_Reason_I_Trust - @LKJSlain - UGH! That reminds me of an article in a low-rent newspaper here after Thor came out… one of the first complaints they had was “they never mentioned what planet they were from”. First, it’s not a planet, it’s Asgard. Second, yes they did. And third… IT’S NOT A PLANET, IT’S FUCKING ASGARD!!!Plus, Hulk uttering the classic “Puny God” line pretty much seals that debate.
@Garistotle - I was pretty certain that in the MARVEL world, it was meant to be pretty obvious that they were “alien” and not necessarily Gods… In the other movies they say, “They’re legends, basically gods…” I thought the point was that people mistook them as gods long ago because they were alien and much stronger, etc. http://marvel.com/universe/Thor_(Thor_Odinson)Note what the first few lines say here- Thor is one of several powerful ancient beings who dwell in a magical realm calledAsgard. Through history, these beings have been revered and worshiped as gods.Note that it doesn’t say that they ARE gods. Just that they are worshipped as gods.
Thor’s still the hottest and that’s just a fact. Read about it in your Librabrary of Congress.
@LKJSlain - Your link is just to a Marvel Comics version of the history of the Norse gods. It’s a comic book, not history. The Norse gods were worshipped for a long time, and their legends equal any other mythology.
@LKJSlain - Hooray for comic book discussion!See, I always found it weird since, in the beginning, they were considered to be avatars almost… human hosts and Godly beings. I was more annoyed at the “what planet they’re from” than anything. And again, who are we to question The Hulk?
@whyzat - Dude, I am speaking about MARVEL, as this post is about MARVEL… In the marvel universe the characters are not gods. In the stories of history, they are.
@Garistotle - Right? The hulk is the man… Erm….. herehttp://youtu.be/2uaPZdhxnek
Captain America: “There’s only one God, ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.” #monotheismftw
@LKJSlain - Okay. I’m not a comic book reader, just a history nut. I will stay out of it. By the way, I’m not a dude.
lol and what about Black Widow?
@LKJSlain - on the link you listed.While Thor faced many struggles as an Avenger, his personal life as a human was also tumultuous. Despite the sincere love between Blake and Foster, Odin was displeased by the relationship between a god and a mortal.I don’t think Odin is none to happy with that Green Lantern neither….sounds Very Godlike to me.
@whyzat - I know you’re not a dude, I live in Cali… I grew up calling everyone dude. XDI wasn’t trying to fight, just state the obvious. Sorry.
@tendollar4ways - I think the issue is that they “see” themselves as gods as compared to say, lesser mortals, but in the comic book world they’re not gods… rather beings that are worshiped as gods. Note that just before Hulk smashes Loki’s face in, he says that he’s a “god”… well, he’s been told that he is, and he sees himself that way in comparison to the humans. It doesn’t mean that he is though. ^_^ And again because it’s an awesome scene.http://youtu.be/2uaPZdhxnek
@LKJSlain - ” I think the issue is that they “see” themselves as gods as compared to say, lesser mortals”Wow…..seeing it that way, I am TOTALLY a God.
@LKJSlain - No, in the comic book world, Thor is a god and has been since his inception. He refers to himself as a God, others refer to him as a god, and he is clearly based on the Norse god Thor. From the Thor wiki:[Stan] Lee in 2002 described Thor’s genesis early in the Marvel pantheon, following the creation of the Hulk: [H]ow do you make someone stronger than the strongest person? It finally came to me: Don’t make him human — make him a god. I decided readers were already pretty familiar with the Greek and Roman gods. It might be fun to delve into the old Norse legends…
@LKJSlain - You argue this like every other argument you make. I could give two fucks if they are gods, super natural beings, whatever…I don’t even like comic books. The friggin marvel website clearly says they are gods.
@UTRow1 - Well, then it’s confusing at best since other sources say otherwise. @tendollar4ways - same as the above… and I had no idea that we’d ever argued. XD And if you could really give two, ten or nine thousand fucks whether they’re gods or not, why are you even commenting back to me? Obviously you do give two fucks or you wouldn’t be commenting long enough to insist that they were in fact gods.
Hahahaha!
I’m keeping that picture.
@LKJSlain - (1) It’s really not confusing at all, as evidenced by the Wikipedia, the comics, the creator’s comments, etc. (2) Stan Lee trumps all other sources.
Something I’ve been thinking about for a while now: even if we knew everything, like, literally knew EVERYTHING there was to know, we still wouldn’t really “know” everything. By that I mean as long as we have imaginations and the ability to speculate, humanity will always be able to perceive of some kinda metaphysical construct beyond what they have come to know. So even if we did “know” everything about everything we could still speculate, still imagine that we didn’t know everything. That there was still more to be discovered, thus there can never really be any conclusive proof that something doesn’t exist, or that even if some final source was discovered, that something beyond that didn’t exist. So long as we can wax-metaphysical no amount of evidence will ever be able to stop us dreaming up something new beyond the horizon, even if that horizon was a literal dead-end. So Cap. can say “well, I know these guys call themselves Gods but they’re not and I still believe in mine.” Tony says “well, I know these guys call themselves Gods but they’re not and I still don’t believe in any god at all.” And both of them could say “OK, these guys are Gods…. but not my Gods!” And Hulk just says “HULK SMASH!!”
@UTRow1 - Perhaps true. As a writer I would agree so. It would seem that he thinks of them as “gods” of Marvel universe. He’s also made things a bit complicated however because of other things he’s said regarding them. If it is, then it is. I have no problems admitting if I’m wrong. ^_^
RE Speaker for the Dead (Ender, Part 2), by Orson Scott Card, the “Currently” book shown in this article:Orson Scott Card on Gay Marriage (specifically, a Greesnboro, NC Rhinoceros Times op-ed about a state constitution amendment to define marriage as being “between a man and a woman”)“There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples. They can visit each other in the hospital. They can benefit from each other’s insurance.”“No, legalizing gay marriage is not about making it possible for gay people to become couples.”“It’s about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children. Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.”“Our children will be barraged with the deceptions of the left. Parents will be forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda.”“Any child with any gender or sexual confusion will be pushed inexorably away from the decision to establish a traditional family. They’ll be told, again and again, that any sign of effeminacy or gender confusion or same-sex attraction is an irrevocable, lifelong compulsion and they might as well shape their lives accordingly.”“The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children’s education. That’s what those signs on the lawns are about.”“I’m not making this up – it’s already happening wherever the left hascomplete control of education. Parents in those places are already forbidden to opt out of sexual and gender propaganda.“Link to full article.You may or may not think that an author’s political and philosophical views should be considered when judging that author’s written works. Whatever those written works are – novels, short stories, essays, op-eds like the one quoted here – and whether or not those written works espouse the same views (does Speaker for the Dead champion the cause of “marriage between a man and a woman”, or fight the left’s “war with the family”?), whatever you pay for the privilege of reading those works pays the author’s salary. There’s a lot to consider for fans of Card’s fiction who are also opponents of his politics. BTW, do you live in one of “those places” where “the left has complete control of education”? Are you and the parents in your area “forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda”?
@AlanMintaka - (1) There are no places where parents are “forbidden” from removing their children from “propaganda” in the educational system, as parents can home school their children, move to a different school district, etc. (2) There are no places where the left has “complete control” of public education. None. Furthermore, the most overt ideologues in the public education system are easily conservatives. (3) Sure, the right to discriminate against homosexuals may be considered a right to some people, but what people consider a right isn’t legally important. We live in a society of conflicting values. Thus, what is legally important is whether a person or group of people have legally protected rights. Discriminating against gay people is not a legally protected right in many contexts. This reflects our society’s judgment that the right to discriminate against gay people is not as valuable as rights like equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, etc. It’s pretty easy to understand why this is teh case given the complete inability of conservatives to make valid arguments as to why homosexual discrimination should be permitted in any context. (4) History has proven Card’s arguments wrong on many counts. There is absolutely no evidence that promoting tolerance of homosexuals is linked with “gender confusion” or atypical life styles. There is no reason to believe alternative life styles are wrong or less valuable than “normal” lifestyles (whatever that means). Marriage/divorce rates have remained relatively constant despite society becoming progressively tolerant of homosexuals over the last few decades. Etc. In other words, this is just typical right-wing fear mongering. There are no good arguments against progressive attitudes about homosexuality, so conservatives have to grasp for straws and dream up a “parade of horribles” that will occur if we treat our fellow (gay) human beings with dignity. How dreadful.
haha awesome
@nyclegodesi24 - i really enjoyed this line in the movie. hell, i enjoyed the entire movie though hahah. but that line did stand out to me.
maybe i didn’t go through the comments well enough but how did this turn into an argument about homosexuality?
@UTRow1 - I agree that fear-mongering is involved, but I’m not sure Card is the one who’s doing all of the mongering. I think he’s come to believe the fear-mongerings of others, and is now “preaching the word”. A lot of what he says about “the left” and “the war on family” isn’t very original, after all. It’s the message that gets copied and repeated constantly in the right-wing media, for the simple reason that this is the only claim to credibility such a message has – repetition. Note the biblical verbage and irrational spin: “Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.” That’s well-rehearsed sermonizing, not independent thought.
@grizzlybearr - There’s usually a “Currently Reading” book title shown in the upper left of the blog postings here. The book for the “Avengers” post is Speaker for the Dead (Ender, Part 2), by Orson Scott Card. Card’s very public tirades against gay marriage and the threat of “the left” to “traditional family values” run a little counter to the free-thinking themes of this blog. I thought I’d beat the dead horse that is Orson Scott Card’s politics one more time.
@tendollar4ways - Dude, in this case the Marvel Universe is the unquestionable Bible on the matter of this. There have been villains in countless movies who have declared themselves gods, this does not make them so. Just in this case the “gods” are parallel to the mythology of ancient Scandinavia. If they had declared themselves the gods “Poopoo” and “Peepee” you wouldn’t be putting up a fight against LKJSlain on this. Just… take a breather, man.
@AlanMintaka - Card is an outspoken Mormon. This doesn’t detract from me enjoying reading his works. If I could never read the works of anyone I disagreed with on any single issue, I could never read the writings of anybody but myself. Go ahead and cite Card’s (obviously LDS-skewed) views on homosexuality, but it disagrees vehemently with his books’ views on treating people (or, in the books’ cases, aliens) who differ from us and have very different rituals as equals. Have you read the Ender series (there are two), or just Card’s professed pro-Mormon, anti-gay articles?
@AlanMintaka - [There's usually a "Currently Reading" book title shown in the upper left of the blog postings here.]So you read my blog often enough to notice this, but only comment now? Just curious, but why? And also, why don’t you comment on my movie and musical tastes?
@GodlessLiberal - I don’t “only comment now”. I’ve commented before in the past, as well as send you a private message welcoming you back to the blog after your recent absence. I just don’t comment very often. However if you do a search of your blog archive for my user name, you’ll find comments.RE “Just curious, but why?”Even if this had been my only comment and/or private message after all this time, why not? I just felt like commenting on this issue for a change, even though I’m silent much of the time. I guess I don’t understand your curiosity here. Don’t you get visitors from time to time who comment only once, never to be heard from again? Do you ask them the same question?RE “why don’t you comment on my movie and musical tastes?”Again, why not? Why can’t I comment on your “Currently Reading” selection in this article, and nothing else? If I had commented on the movie or musical tastes, would you ask me why I hadn’t commented on the “Currently Reading” selection?I’m kind of surprised by this attention because I don’t remember seeing you scrutinize occasional posters like this before. I’m in an audience that’s certainly hard to track, because unless we post once in a while the way I do, there’s no way you can know that we read you as often as we do. Speaking for just myself, I check out every article when I get one of those Xanga newsletters with blog posting notifications (actually you’re the only one I subscribe to on Xanga). Depending on the subject matter, I read the majority of the articles after checking them out. Now that I think about your question, I do tend to pay more attention to the essays than to the movie or music reviews.I hope you weren’t concerned that I was dropping in just for some hit-and-run trolling to stir up trouble. If that were the case, and given that I read your blogs often enough to notice the “Currently Reading” items, I would have trolled frequently enough to get my stupid opinionated butt kicked out of here, if not out of Xanga altogether. Check out my past posts and PM ( I think there was only that recent one but now I’m not sure). I have been around for a while now without (I think) causing much in the way of angst with my posts.It’s hard for me to compliment people without sounding like I’m serving up a healthy dose of lip service. That said, please keep on doing what you’re doing here. It’s an immensely handy and informative blog, covering many of the topics that interest me all in one place. Also it’s refreshing to see a mind at work, doing things with the mental energy I lost long, long ago.See what I mean? It’s not lip service!!! The Cassandra Syndrome.
@GodlessLiberal - RE “Have you read the Ender series….” et al,Yes, unfortunately I’m old enough to have read most of his stuff up until a year or two ago when his political diatribes started appearing. That includes the “Bean” spinoffs of the Ender series, as well as the “Homecoming” series. I do like what he’s written in the past, and I understand the issue you’ve raised here:”If I could never read the works of anyone I disagreed with on any single issue…”However in my case I don’t avoid the works of anyone I disagree with…. I talked only about Card and didn’t (I hope) generalize my comments to mean that I avoid any and all authors with whom I disagree.It’s just that Card now happens to be in the small group of authors I boycott. At the moment, one major reason comes to mind: it has to do with Card not minding his own business, and his arrogance in deciding for other people what must constitute marriage: a union of a man and a woman. He tries to skirt this requirement a bit by saying that hetero and same-sex couples who live together are treated the same by their friends and relatives as if they’re married. “As if”. In the bottom line, when it comes to marriage civil and religious, as binding as those institutions can be, he says no. If you’re a same-sex couple and you want to tie the knot officially in whatever institution you desire, you can’t – because Orson Scott Card says you can’t. That kind of arrogance rankles me beyond anything that ever bothered me about Heinlein’s opinions. We could probably talk for hours about that and other differences in my approach to works by Card and the authors I avoid as compared to, for example, the works of Heinlein, with whom I also disagree on many political and social issues. Then I might be able to identify a larger number of specific reasons why I feel the way I do about some authors and not others. Maybe the explanation is no more complicated than “there’s no accounting for taste.” For now, the arrogance card is trump.All of the foregoing is why I tacked on a disclaimer of sorts to my litany:”You may or may not think that an author’s political and philosophical views should be considered when judging thatauthor’s written works. Whatever those written works are – novels, short stories, essays, op-eds like the one quoted here – and whether or not those written works espouse the same views (does Speaker for the Dead champion the cause of “marriage between a man and a woman”, or fight the left’s “war with the family”?), whatever you pay for the privilege of reading those works pays the author’s salary.”There’s a lot to consider for fans of Card’s fiction who are also opponents of his politics.”Turns out it wasn’t that great of a disclaimer, so I’ll try again: “There’s a lot to consider” is what I do when deciding whether to keep going with Heinlein, say, and drop Card. Others might feel the opposite, dropping Heinlein and keeping Card, or neither, or both. Certainly “consider” included all of the points youi’ve made about how Card treats people in his fiction. His portrayal of his late handicapped son in the Homecoming series was especially touching, no doubt a depiction of the closeness in his family. I certainly never saw anything like that in Heinlein’s works. When all factors were weighed, however, Card still lost in my little universe. Evidently, arrogance trumps a lot of things on my world line. I should probably spend a little more time in front of the mirror.
@GodlessLiberal - Oh you…. Now you’ve got me re-reading my posts, a horrible punishment that no one deserves for any crime. Speaking of hysteria, that was another element of Card’s sermons that rankled me. The arrogance came through so loud and clear to me that it partially masked the hysterical tone of the hyperbole. Thus I should add this to my one-item list of reasons why I now shun everything Card has written.(From the Rhino Times article)”It’s about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children. Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.Our children will be barraged with the deceptions of the left. Parents will be forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda.Any child with any gender or sexual confusion will be pushed inexorably away from the decision to establish a traditional family. They’ll be told, again and again, that any sign of effeminacy or gender confusion or same-sex attraction is an irrevocable, lifelong compulsion and they might as well shape their lives accordingly.The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children’s education. That’s what those signs on the lawns are about.I’m not making this up – it’s already happening wherever the left has complete control of education. Parents in those places are already forbidden to opt out of sexual and gender propaganda.And with the teachers’ unions absolutely under the control of the extreme left, don’t kid yourselves: Legalizing gay marriage will make the false claims of the gay lobby the established religion of the American school system.”That is hysteria. It’s always ugly to see mindless spin and arbitrary correlations in an emotional context like this. When such blathering also comes from the mind of a creative author, it’s disgusting.So here I sit in judgement again. Guess it’s time to head back to the mirror. I don’t think I’ll judge gay marriage on the way, though.
@AlanMintaka - You seem to post in a way that appears antagonistic but is actually just vehemently arguing my point exactly. We seem to have a habit (well, I, if we want to be more on the ball here) of not understanding each other. Peace truce?
@GodlessLiberal - Yes! Essentially I overreacted to this: “So you read my blog often enough to notice this, but only comment now? Just curious, but why? And also, why don’t you comment on my movie and musical tastes?”
@GodlessLiberal - Huh?? Loki is pretty much the same as poopoo and peepee in my eyes. Never heard of him before. I honestly never liked comic books. I had two as a kid and never read them and didn’t like them. This is not to say I didn’t like other nerdy shit like Dungeons and Dragons…just never cared about CB’s.How this went down was I read LK’s comment and I saw Avengers and coulda sworn they Loki and Thor were gods so went to the link she provided. I READ the link which was the friggin Marvel website….aka the bible on this shit. I then copy and pasted from the link LK supplied and she told me I was wrong and infact they aren’t gods. Then I got annoyed because same ole shit as usually and thought I was arguing with Paige etc.
hahaha… me like
Just one simple entry from the bible. Also remembered reading something about the One God Above All Others…the creator God in the MU.
Your articles make complete sense out of each topic.mobile app
Comments (54)
LOL awesome!Just goes to show some things are set.And The Hulk is amazing.
HAHAHAHAHA… Sept that the “gods” in this case were “aliens” … >_> Yeah… haha.Regardless, this is great.
^ Thor and Loki are aliens? That’s news to me. *eye roll*
I’ve seen that one before. I chuckled. But I thought the movie had much funnier moments.
Hehehehehe!
@In_Reason_I_Trust - @LKJSlain - UGH! That reminds me of an article in a low-rent newspaper here after Thor came out… one of the first complaints they had was “they never mentioned what planet they were from”. First, it’s not a planet, it’s Asgard. Second, yes they did. And third… IT’S NOT A PLANET, IT’S FUCKING ASGARD!!!Plus, Hulk uttering the classic “Puny God” line pretty much seals that debate.
@Garistotle - I was pretty certain that in the MARVEL world, it was meant to be pretty obvious that they were “alien” and not necessarily Gods… In the other movies they say, “They’re legends, basically gods…” I thought the point was that people mistook them as gods long ago because they were alien and much stronger, etc. http://marvel.com/universe/Thor_(Thor_Odinson)Note what the first few lines say here- Thor is one of several powerful ancient beings who dwell in a magical realm calledAsgard. Through history, these beings have been revered and worshiped as gods.Note that it doesn’t say that they ARE gods. Just that they are worshipped as gods.
Thor’s still the hottest and that’s just a fact. Read about it in your Librabrary of Congress.
@LKJSlain - Your link is just to a Marvel Comics version of the history of the Norse gods. It’s a comic book, not history. The Norse gods were worshipped for a long time, and their legends equal any other mythology.
@LKJSlain - Hooray for comic book discussion!See, I always found it weird since, in the beginning, they were considered to be avatars almost… human hosts and Godly beings. I was more annoyed at the “what planet they’re from” than anything. And again, who are we to question The Hulk?
@whyzat - Dude, I am speaking about MARVEL, as this post is about MARVEL… In the marvel universe the characters are not gods. In the stories of history, they are.
@Garistotle - Right? The hulk is the man… Erm….. herehttp://youtu.be/2uaPZdhxnek
Captain America: “There’s only one God, ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.” #monotheismftw
@LKJSlain - Okay. I’m not a comic book reader, just a history nut. I will stay out of it. By the way, I’m not a dude.
lol and what about Black Widow?
@LKJSlain - on the link you listed.While Thor faced many struggles as an Avenger, his personal life as a human was also tumultuous. Despite the sincere love between Blake and Foster, Odin was displeased by the relationship between a god and a mortal.I don’t think Odin is none to happy with that Green Lantern neither….sounds Very Godlike to me.
@whyzat - I know you’re not a dude, I live in Cali… I grew up calling everyone dude. XDI wasn’t trying to fight, just state the obvious. Sorry.
@nyclegodesi24 - Hashtag WINNING
@tendollar4ways - I think the issue is that they “see” themselves as gods as compared to say, lesser mortals, but in the comic book world they’re not gods… rather beings that are worshiped as gods. Note that just before Hulk smashes Loki’s face in, he says that he’s a “god”… well, he’s been told that he is, and he sees himself that way in comparison to the humans. It doesn’t mean that he is though. ^_^ And again because it’s an awesome scene.http://youtu.be/2uaPZdhxnek
@LKJSlain - ” I think the issue is that they “see” themselves as gods as compared to say, lesser mortals”Wow…..seeing it that way, I am TOTALLY a God.
@LKJSlain - No, in the comic book world, Thor is a god and has been since his inception. He refers to himself as a God, others refer to him as a god, and he is clearly based on the Norse god Thor. From the Thor wiki:[Stan] Lee in 2002 described Thor’s genesis early in the Marvel pantheon, following the creation of the Hulk: [H]ow do you make someone stronger than the strongest person? It finally came to me: Don’t make him human — make him a god. I decided readers were already pretty familiar with the Greek and Roman gods. It might be fun to delve into the old Norse legends…
@LKJSlain - You argue this like every other argument you make. I could give two fucks if they are gods, super natural beings, whatever…I don’t even like comic books. The friggin marvel website clearly says they are gods.
@UTRow1 - Well, then it’s confusing at best since other sources say otherwise. @tendollar4ways - same as the above… and I had no idea that we’d ever argued. XD And if you could really give two, ten or nine thousand fucks whether they’re gods or not, why are you even commenting back to me? Obviously you do give two fucks or you wouldn’t be commenting long enough to insist that they were in fact gods.
Hahahaha!
I’m keeping that picture.
@LKJSlain - (1) It’s really not confusing at all, as evidenced by the Wikipedia, the comics, the creator’s comments, etc. (2) Stan Lee trumps all other sources.
Something I’ve been thinking about for a while now: even if we knew everything, like, literally knew EVERYTHING there was to know, we still wouldn’t really “know” everything. By that I mean as long as we have imaginations and the ability to speculate, humanity will always be able to perceive of some kinda metaphysical construct beyond what they have come to know. So even if we did “know” everything about everything we could still speculate, still imagine that we didn’t know everything. That there was still more to be discovered, thus there can never really be any conclusive proof that something doesn’t exist, or that even if some final source was discovered, that something beyond that didn’t exist. So long as we can wax-metaphysical no amount of evidence will ever be able to stop us dreaming up something new beyond the horizon, even if that horizon was a literal dead-end. So Cap. can say “well, I know these guys call themselves Gods but they’re not and I still believe in mine.” Tony says “well, I know these guys call themselves Gods but they’re not and I still don’t believe in any god at all.” And both of them could say “OK, these guys are Gods…. but not my Gods!” And Hulk just says “HULK SMASH!!”
@UTRow1 - Perhaps true. As a writer I would agree so. It would seem that he thinks of them as “gods” of Marvel universe. He’s also made things a bit complicated however because of other things he’s said regarding them. If it is, then it is. I have no problems admitting if I’m wrong. ^_^
RE Speaker for the Dead (Ender, Part 2), by Orson Scott Card, the “Currently” book shown in this article:Orson Scott Card on Gay Marriage (specifically, a Greesnboro, NC Rhinoceros Times op-ed about a state constitution amendment to define marriage as being “between a man and a woman”)“There are no laws left standing that discriminate against gay couples. They can visit each other in the hospital. They can benefit from each other’s insurance.”“No, legalizing gay marriage is not about making it possible for gay people to become couples.”“It’s about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children. Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.”“Our children will be barraged with the deceptions of the left. Parents will be forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda.”“Any child with any gender or sexual confusion will be pushed inexorably away from the decision to establish a traditional family. They’ll be told, again and again, that any sign of effeminacy or gender confusion or same-sex attraction is an irrevocable, lifelong compulsion and they might as well shape their lives accordingly.”“The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children’s education. That’s what those signs on the lawns are about.”“I’m not making this up – it’s already happening wherever the left hascomplete control of education. Parents in those places are already forbidden to opt out of sexual and gender propaganda.“Link to full article.You may or may not think that an author’s political and philosophical views should be considered when judging that author’s written works. Whatever those written works are – novels, short stories, essays, op-eds like the one quoted here – and whether or not those written works espouse the same views (does Speaker for the Dead champion the cause of “marriage between a man and a woman”, or fight the left’s “war with the family”?), whatever you pay for the privilege of reading those works pays the author’s salary. There’s a lot to consider for fans of Card’s fiction who are also opponents of his politics. BTW, do you live in one of “those places” where “the left has complete control of education”? Are you and the parents in your area “forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda”?
@AlanMintaka - (1) There are no places where parents are “forbidden” from removing their children from “propaganda” in the educational system, as parents can home school their children, move to a different school district, etc. (2) There are no places where the left has “complete control” of public education. None. Furthermore, the most overt ideologues in the public education system are easily conservatives. (3) Sure, the right to discriminate against homosexuals may be considered a right to some people, but what people consider a right isn’t legally important. We live in a society of conflicting values. Thus, what is legally important is whether a person or group of people have legally protected rights. Discriminating against gay people is not a legally protected right in many contexts. This reflects our society’s judgment that the right to discriminate against gay people is not as valuable as rights like equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, etc. It’s pretty easy to understand why this is teh case given the complete inability of conservatives to make valid arguments as to why homosexual discrimination should be permitted in any context. (4) History has proven Card’s arguments wrong on many counts. There is absolutely no evidence that promoting tolerance of homosexuals is linked with “gender confusion” or atypical life styles. There is no reason to believe alternative life styles are wrong or less valuable than “normal” lifestyles (whatever that means). Marriage/divorce rates have remained relatively constant despite society becoming progressively tolerant of homosexuals over the last few decades. Etc. In other words, this is just typical right-wing fear mongering. There are no good arguments against progressive attitudes about homosexuality, so conservatives have to grasp for straws and dream up a “parade of horribles” that will occur if we treat our fellow (gay) human beings with dignity. How dreadful.
haha awesome
@nyclegodesi24 - i really enjoyed this line in the movie. hell, i enjoyed the entire movie though hahah. but that line did stand out to me.
maybe i didn’t go through the comments well enough but how did this turn into an argument about homosexuality?
@UTRow1 - I agree that fear-mongering is involved, but I’m not sure Card is the one who’s doing all of the mongering. I think he’s come to believe the fear-mongerings of others, and is now “preaching the word”. A lot of what he says about “the left” and “the war on family” isn’t very original, after all. It’s the message that gets copied and repeated constantly in the right-wing media, for the simple reason that this is the only claim to credibility such a message has – repetition. Note the biblical verbage and irrational spin: “Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.” That’s well-rehearsed sermonizing, not independent thought.
@grizzlybearr - There’s usually a “Currently Reading” book title shown in the upper left of the blog postings here. The book for the “Avengers” post is Speaker for the Dead (Ender, Part 2), by Orson Scott Card. Card’s very public tirades against gay marriage and the threat of “the left” to “traditional family values” run a little counter to the free-thinking themes of this blog. I thought I’d beat the dead horse that is Orson Scott Card’s politics one more time.
@tendollar4ways - Dude, in this case the Marvel Universe is the unquestionable Bible on the matter of this. There have been villains in countless movies who have declared themselves gods, this does not make them so. Just in this case the “gods” are parallel to the mythology of ancient Scandinavia. If they had declared themselves the gods “Poopoo” and “Peepee” you wouldn’t be putting up a fight against LKJSlain on this. Just… take a breather, man.
@AlanMintaka - Card is an outspoken Mormon. This doesn’t detract from me enjoying reading his works. If I could never read the works of anyone I disagreed with on any single issue, I could never read the writings of anybody but myself. Go ahead and cite Card’s (obviously LDS-skewed) views on homosexuality, but it disagrees vehemently with his books’ views on treating people (or, in the books’ cases, aliens) who differ from us and have very different rituals as equals. Have you read the Ender series (there are two), or just Card’s professed pro-Mormon, anti-gay articles?
@AlanMintaka - [There's usually a "Currently Reading" book title shown in the upper left of the blog postings here.]So you read my blog often enough to notice this, but only comment now? Just curious, but why? And also, why don’t you comment on my movie and musical tastes?
@GodlessLiberal - I don’t “only comment now”. I’ve commented before in the past, as well as send you a private message welcoming you back to the blog after your recent absence. I just don’t comment very often. However if you do a search of your blog archive for my user name, you’ll find comments.RE “Just curious, but why?”Even if this had been my only comment and/or private message after all this time, why not? I just felt like commenting on this issue for a change, even though I’m silent much of the time. I guess I don’t understand your curiosity here. Don’t you get visitors from time to time who comment only once, never to be heard from again? Do you ask them the same question?RE “why don’t you comment on my movie and musical tastes?”Again, why not? Why can’t I comment on your “Currently Reading” selection in this article, and nothing else? If I had commented on the movie or musical tastes, would you ask me why I hadn’t commented on the “Currently Reading” selection?I’m kind of surprised by this attention because I don’t remember seeing you scrutinize occasional posters like this before. I’m in an audience that’s certainly hard to track, because unless we post once in a while the way I do, there’s no way you can know that we read you as often as we do. Speaking for just myself, I check out every article when I get one of those Xanga newsletters with blog posting notifications (actually you’re the only one I subscribe to on Xanga). Depending on the subject matter, I read the majority of the articles after checking them out. Now that I think about your question, I do tend to pay more attention to the essays than to the movie or music reviews.I hope you weren’t concerned that I was dropping in just for some hit-and-run trolling to stir up trouble. If that were the case, and given that I read your blogs often enough to notice the “Currently Reading” items, I would have trolled frequently enough to get my stupid opinionated butt kicked out of here, if not out of Xanga altogether. Check out my past posts and PM ( I think there was only that recent one but now I’m not sure). I have been around for a while now without (I think) causing much in the way of angst with my posts.It’s hard for me to compliment people without sounding like I’m serving up a healthy dose of lip service. That said, please keep on doing what you’re doing here. It’s an immensely handy and informative blog, covering many of the topics that interest me all in one place. Also it’s refreshing to see a mind at work, doing things with the mental energy I lost long, long ago.See what I mean? It’s not lip service!!! The Cassandra Syndrome.
@GodlessLiberal - lol
@GodlessLiberal - RE “Have you read the Ender series….” et al,Yes, unfortunately I’m old enough to have read most of his stuff up until a year or two ago when his political diatribes started appearing. That includes the “Bean” spinoffs of the Ender series, as well as the “Homecoming” series. I do like what he’s written in the past, and I understand the issue you’ve raised here:”If I could never read the works of anyone I disagreed with on any single issue…”However in my case I don’t avoid the works of anyone I disagree with…. I talked only about Card and didn’t (I hope) generalize my comments to mean that I avoid any and all authors with whom I disagree.It’s just that Card now happens to be in the small group of authors I boycott. At the moment, one major reason comes to mind: it has to do with Card not minding his own business, and his arrogance in deciding for other people what must constitute marriage: a union of a man and a woman. He tries to skirt this requirement a bit by saying that hetero and same-sex couples who live together are treated the same by their friends and relatives as if they’re married. “As if”. In the bottom line, when it comes to marriage civil and religious, as binding as those institutions can be, he says no. If you’re a same-sex couple and you want to tie the knot officially in whatever institution you desire, you can’t – because Orson Scott Card says you can’t. That kind of arrogance rankles me beyond anything that ever bothered me about Heinlein’s opinions. We could probably talk for hours about that and other differences in my approach to works by Card and the authors I avoid as compared to, for example, the works of Heinlein, with whom I also disagree on many political and social issues. Then I might be able to identify a larger number of specific reasons why I feel the way I do about some authors and not others. Maybe the explanation is no more complicated than “there’s no accounting for taste.” For now, the arrogance card is trump.All of the foregoing is why I tacked on a disclaimer of sorts to my litany:”You may or may not think that an author’s political and philosophical views should be considered when judging thatauthor’s written works. Whatever those written works are – novels, short stories, essays, op-eds like the one quoted here – and whether or not those written works espouse the same views (does Speaker for the Dead champion the cause of “marriage between a man and a woman”, or fight the left’s “war with the family”?), whatever you pay for the privilege of reading those works pays the author’s salary.”There’s a lot to consider for fans of Card’s fiction who are also opponents of his politics.”Turns out it wasn’t that great of a disclaimer, so I’ll try again: “There’s a lot to consider” is what I do when deciding whether to keep going with Heinlein, say, and drop Card. Others might feel the opposite, dropping Heinlein and keeping Card, or neither, or both. Certainly “consider” included all of the points youi’ve made about how Card treats people in his fiction. His portrayal of his late handicapped son in the Homecoming series was especially touching, no doubt a depiction of the closeness in his family. I certainly never saw anything like that in Heinlein’s works. When all factors were weighed, however, Card still lost in my little universe. Evidently, arrogance trumps a lot of things on my world line. I should probably spend a little more time in front of the mirror.
@GodlessLiberal - Oh you…. Now you’ve got me re-reading my posts, a horrible punishment that no one deserves for any crime. Speaking of hysteria, that was another element of Card’s sermons that rankled me. The arrogance came through so loud and clear to me that it partially masked the hysterical tone of the hyperbole. Thus I should add this to my one-item list of reasons why I now shun everything Card has written.(From the Rhino Times article)”It’s about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children. Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.Our children will be barraged with the deceptions of the left. Parents will be forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda.Any child with any gender or sexual confusion will be pushed inexorably away from the decision to establish a traditional family. They’ll be told, again and again, that any sign of effeminacy or gender confusion or same-sex attraction is an irrevocable, lifelong compulsion and they might as well shape their lives accordingly.The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children’s education. That’s what those signs on the lawns are about.I’m not making this up – it’s already happening wherever the left has complete control of education. Parents in those places are already forbidden to opt out of sexual and gender propaganda.And with the teachers’ unions absolutely under the control of the extreme left, don’t kid yourselves: Legalizing gay marriage will make the false claims of the gay lobby the established religion of the American school system.”That is hysteria. It’s always ugly to see mindless spin and arbitrary correlations in an emotional context like this. When such blathering also comes from the mind of a creative author, it’s disgusting.So here I sit in judgement again. Guess it’s time to head back to the mirror. I don’t think I’ll judge gay marriage on the way, though.
@AlanMintaka - You seem to post in a way that appears antagonistic but is actually just vehemently arguing my point exactly. We seem to have a habit (well, I, if we want to be more on the ball here) of not understanding each other. Peace truce?
@GodlessLiberal - Yes! Essentially I overreacted to this: “So you read my blog often enough to notice this, but only comment now? Just curious, but why? And also, why don’t you comment on my movie and musical tastes?”
@GodlessLiberal - Huh?? Loki is pretty much the same as poopoo and peepee in my eyes. Never heard of him before. I honestly never liked comic books. I had two as a kid and never read them and didn’t like them. This is not to say I didn’t like other nerdy shit like Dungeons and Dragons…just never cared about CB’s.How this went down was I read LK’s comment and I saw Avengers and coulda sworn they Loki and Thor were gods so went to the link she provided. I READ the link which was the friggin Marvel website….aka the bible on this shit. I then copy and pasted from the link LK supplied and she told me I was wrong and infact they aren’t gods. Then I got annoyed because same ole shit as usually and thought I was arguing with Paige etc.
hahaha… me like
Just one simple entry from the bible. Also remembered reading something about the One God Above All Others…the creator God in the MU.
Your articles make complete sense out of each topic.mobile app
No wonder why you get so many feedbacksKliplist Bookmarks
Your contents are too simple to read and easy to understand.Relationship Tips by Witch Thorn
I’m glad to find so many useful and informative data on your website.Relationship Advice by Our Luxury
Info is out of this world, I would love to read more.Good Relationship With Do-Group
Thanks for sharing out this content it are really fastidious.Relationships by Meelba
These articles and blogs are certainly sufficient for me personally for a day.Look for Cafe Titto Here