• Antonia E Dorsay commented on the blog post We Don’t Have A Word For “Apple”

    2011-09-14 00:55:20View | Delete


    For about two years, now. Possibly longer.

    IIRC, the first time I used it, in fact, was on one of your posts, in response to someone.

    Which isn’t a big deal. It is an excellent analogy that allows one to escape the traps that come.

    I’ll seriously worry if you suddenly wake up one day and realize that identity is a zero sum game — ever reducible, and that it is distinct from a the entirely voluntary association of social affinity.

    But then, I’ve been talking about that even longer.

  • Antonia E Dorsay commented on the blog post We Don’t Have A Word For “Apple”

    2011-09-12 16:00:58View | Delete

    I am *so* going to get you for stealing my apples bit, Autumn.

    Somehow, somewhere…

  • I agree with Mercedes on this.

    In terms of concern, the use of this language in other jurisdictions is relevant, especially in light of the reasoning behind such.

    Arizona, for example, does not place such importance on the particular conjunction in most situations (most, because this is Arizona, and hey, if there’s a loophole, it’ll be used).

    Unless the statute has language that indicates the stated items are examples of proof of identity or expression, I fear, personally, that there will judgments applied that are not in line with the intent of those who wrote the bill.

    not through fault of their effort, but because of quirks in the way the law is applied. While in most situations such isn’t going to be all that big a deal, a strong challenge could create an appellate ruling not too dissimilar from the tightening that occurred with rulings of the ADA, conceivably based on those same arguments.

    I am, however, grateful for the effort to be reassuring that this demonstrates, and will await some sort of actual test of the law prior to having my bovine’s in public.

  • Antonia E Dorsay commented on the blog post Welcome to the new coffeehouse. Excuse the dust.

    2011-08-29 13:12:17View | Delete

    Oh, what marvels we produce,
    what limitless wonders!

    I like the WP base, not super fond of the color scheme (I’ll live), and it shall be interesting to see how the Blending of different people’s affects the discourse.

    I, on the other hand, shall continue to be moi.

  • Hrrrm.

    Um, this isn’t new. All of it still traces back to the book from the late 1800′s that cemented the idea of homosexuality as bad in the first place.

    Sexual Psychopathy: a Clinical-Forensic Study postulated

    This early book written and widely accepted long before Freud’s work reached a similar standing was created by an individual who felt that the only purpose for sex was strictly procreation. As a result, any form of sex that was not strictly for procreation was a perversion — a
    cerebral neuroses of a sort labeled paraesthesia (sex for a purpose other than procreative,and a term that later became paraphilia).

    Into this category was included sexual fetishism, masochism, and pedophilia.

    That book was so widely distributed that it often sat on the shelves of a country Doctor, right next to the Bible.

    In turn, it found its way into the social efforts of a group that sought to end certain activities that were believed responsible for a wide variety of social ills, notably the drinking of alcohol.

    And that led to the leadership of that movement, including people who were deeply involved in the then revisions of the Revised Standard Bible and similar.

    This is just a continuation of the same effort begun a hundred years ago, and since science has moved long past the ideas of that age, they can no longer rely on it, and instead rely on the belief that their predecessor’s inserted into that faith a hundred years ago.