Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » a little fyi on the leading two american anti ssm pundits (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: a little fyi on the leading two american anti ssm pundits
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"your proposal would lead to an al Qaeda victory in Iraq, therefore your position is pro al Qaeda"

"Your proposal of rescinding the Patriot act would make it harder to stop terrorism therefore your position is pro terrorist"

Like the company you keep, threads?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you Pete?

Nah, scratch that. We know you don't. Your position just happens to be collateral damage. The empty park in the warzone nobody even considered as a loss.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not true, DW. I do count the loss but believe that the gains for same sex couples and their families, specifically, are better all the way around under my proposal than under a neutered marriage regime. As well as better for society at large.

I'll bet you that hate crimes and discrimination against same sex couples are far lower in areas that had SSU legislation for 10+ years than in areas that went straight to SSM.

Compare Vermont to Massachussetts or to California. Compare Scandinavia to the Netherlands.

So by threads' logic, I could say that threads' position is "homophobic" since I think that his plan leads to more persecution of gays than would happen under SSUs.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Don't think that word applies to a socital norm being destroyed.
Nor do I.

quote:
Or is it ok to repurpose genocidal to fit this new meaning?
No, I don't think so, DW. Although if the norm is central to a particular culture, the term "cultural genocide" would certainly be appropriate. For example, many have argued that it was cultural genocide for the USA to ban certain native religions from using their peyote sacrament, or from using their native language.

quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I think it would have to result in the abolishment of one or more religions for it to be genocidal.

I predict that in the next 50 years, that at least two religions and a number of actual cultures will be obliterated if the Goodridge construct of neutered marriage becomes the law of the land.

But Genocide, like homophobia, presumes INTENT. I don't buy into threads gibberophile argument that we can discard intent in terms where intent is presumed. SCOTUS has labored to discard such despicable intent-neutral felonies. It's bad thinking that leads to atrocity.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, do YOU think it's OK to use words like homophobia, murder, genocide, etc, without evidence of motive ... basically to attack someone who disagrees with your doom and gloom prediction of harm?

I don't agree with threads' stupid prediction that distinguishing ssus from ssm will lead to oppression of gays. Therefore it's crap for him to say that my position is "homophobic".

threads probably doesn't agree with my prediction that neutering the marriage concept will lead to obliteration of certain religions and cultures. Therefore it would be crap for me to say that his position is "genocidal."

It's stupid and dangerous for us to make horrible accusations against each other on the mere basis that we don't agree with each others' predictions.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obviously I would bet the other way. Do you attribute some specific advantage in SSU over SSM to homosexuals?
Or is the only benefit that they have made a concession which just MIGHT be enough to keep those prone to hate crimes or discrimination from acting out? If that’s the only benefit, then I can see how your bet may cash in yet still be “wrong”.
So what other benefit is there besides, “Cave in, things will go easier on you.”
To try and answer my own question, there would be increased societal pressure against casual sex on the gay community. To the extent there is against the strait community now anyway. You could see this as a detriment to gay culture or a positive depending on your point of view or propensity for casual sex. Any others?

quote:
DW, do YOU think it's OK to use words like homophobia, murder, genocide, etc, without evidence of motive ... basically to attack someone who disagrees with your doom and gloom prediction of harm?
Not directly, but indirectly yes. I think it is perfectly justified to say that your position, will reinforce homophobic thinking and may lead to more, or impede the reduction of, hate crime murders. Your motives are irrelivent and you must face the inevitable outcome of your position. That is a valid position to take. To call someone a homophobe or murderer or accessory to murder is not as those do require motive. So yes, I’m ok with attacking someone’s position with “doom and gloom predictions” as you put it. I try not to make accusations against the individual (but have slipped into that mode on occasion). I think it’s good that you call attention to the distinction.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
predict that in the next 50 years, that at least two religions and a number of actual cultures will be obliterated if the Goodridge construct of neutered marriage becomes the law of the land.
Probably best a separate topic but I’d be curious as to your reasoning. I don’t disagree with the outcome within 50 years but I’m curious why the Goodridge construct would bear the bulk of the blame.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because the Goodridge 14th amendment is premised on tgecdeclaration that any opposition to SSM is "invidious" is meant to oppess gays. That paints a target on opposing individuals and groups.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You think it will come down to, "Drop your opposition to X law or be labeled by the government as a hate group and suffer continual investigations (harassment)?

Or do you see our society changing enough in 50 years that the oppression of, or unofficially or officially sanctioned violence will be used against the religions which don’t fall in line? The most punitive action I can see being taken is loss of tax exempt status and forcing religious based employers to make concessions against their beliefs as they pertain to the work place. That isn’t to say that the P.R. hit couldn’t be so significant as to shrink into obscurity those who are left behind by a shifting culture.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not just harassment. Outright mass murder. Do you not read the news?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently not enough...
News, not history?

Or are you refering to other countries? I was talking about in the U.S. Now that you made me spell that out however, it does seem a bit idealistic to think "it couldn't happen here."

[ April 28, 2014, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am talking about the us.
The 14th amendment only applies in the us.
The Goodridge atrocity affects only the us, and poor saps that listen to our courts like the Canadians.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
:W, Google the following:

" Floyd Corkins" +"hate group" +designation

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We've short circuited the Goodridge thing with a proper Act of Parliament. If it weren't for you yanks having conniptions over gay rights, we'd never talk about it.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if there is social or political support for the “hate group” label then it is inevitable that disturbed vigilantes will exterminate those religious groups? Seems a bit of a stretch. I think I follow your reasoning at least even if your claim of mass murder was hypothetical rather than actual. Luckily the security guard stopped him. If you are just checking to make sure I, and others, condemn this guy just as we do those who murder abortion clinic doctors or commit other “hate crime” murders, I do. Even if I agreed that a religion is entirely without exception a hate group, that does not justify violence against them. It may warrant further scrutiny and loss of some privileges and exceptions we afford to religions.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete at Home wrote,
quote:
predict that in the next 50 years, that at least two religions and a number of actual cultures will be obliterated if the Goodridge construct of neutered marriage becomes the law of the land.
Which religions and cultures? With 22,000 or more Christian denominations in the U.S. - not to mention groups which are not Christian - some are sure to disappear in fifty years regardless of their stance on gay marriage. And cultures die out all the time, and have for centuries, as small groups get absorbed by larger ones.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We will likely see a few new ones as well.

We're starting to see some religions advocating *for* SSM.
http://www.amendmentonelawsuit.com/

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
We've short circuited the Goodridge thing with a proper Act of Parliament. If it weren't for you yanks having conniptions over gay rights, we'd never talk about it.

But you are caught in americ's cultural backwash. The insane lawsuits and prosecutions Canada is doing would never happen in Scandinavia.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly, the sooner you guys can get over your national obsession with teh gay, the sooner I can count on our reactionaries leaving me and mine alone [Razz]
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Pete at Home wrote,
quote:
predict that in the next 50 years, that at least two religions and a number of actual cultures will be obliterated if the Goodridge construct of neutered marriage becomes the law of the land.
Which religions and cultures? With 22,000 or more Christian denominations in the U.S. - not to mention groups which are not Christian - some are sure to disappear in fifty years regardless of their stance on gay marriage. And cultures die out all the time, and have for centuries, as small groups get absorbed by larger ones.
I'm talking specifically about churches collapsing because of economic persecution and because of public schools teaching kids that certain views are evil, thereby painting a target on the kids. Same way the school system was used to wipe out some native cultures.


------
using the creation of new culture as justification for genocide, where have we heard that before [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, murder is inevitable from Goodridge brainwashing. Extermination is unlikely. But terrorism has an effect, especially when those inspiring the violence go unpunished
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
50 years of periodic vandalism, terrorism, public hate, school brainwashing, and economic sanctions will destroy a number of communities.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And if you treat enough people like the KKK, eventually some will act like it. Do you know where the Hunan lampshades idea came from, BTW? British ww1 propaganda. Then in Ww2 some Germans decided to live up yo their reputation.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is this any different, or more serious, a threat of groups which treat abortion as evil leading some to justify slaying of doctors who perform them? I don't fault your logic, I just don’t believe this is a reason to consider not pushing equal treatment forward.

While I think you are now having your try at "doom and gloom" as you put it, the other possibility is that people will become outwardly more tolerant until, possibly a generation further down the line, the mask becomes the reality. It may not even take that long.

Intellectually I agree that what you fear would be wrong and unfair. I must admit there is a part of me who would be glad to see any group, who would rather adhere to an interpretation of their beliefs calling for a condemnation of a people or behavior instead of adapting to accept them, consigned to the history books instead of our city streets.

I realize this in some ways makes me the hypocrite, intolerant of just those people. Somehow my sense of what is right and wrong trumps what I see as logical and fair. Forcing religious groups to stay out of the way should be enough, but I admit to wanting them to change as well. While I wouldn’t excuse violence or criminal acts against them no matter how slight, I do welcome all the legal social pressure possible be brought to bear against them until they wither or accommodate. Given the history and cultural identity of being oppressed many religions incorporate I don’t expect anything I would wish for would have much effect however. If you believe God is against something a popularity contest shouldn’t mean much. Suffer quietly or loudly as society turns down a path you would warn against.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" a threat of groups which treat abortion as evil leading some to justify slaying of doctors who perform them?"

The courts and the schools and the press was not on the pro life bombers' side. And most prolifers condemned the bombers. Most prossmers don't even admit that the killing was an outgrowth of their rhetoric and have issued no condemnations like those from pro life groups over pro.life bombings.

[ April 28, 2014, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the response is more likely to be what we see re: racism. A public racist is likely to get shouted down and possibly even beaten up depending on the context. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing about anti-gay sentiment - there are places where that would be the case now - though I think anti-SSM may be a little harder to suss out. Once SSM is fully mainstream, are people really going to go out of their way to lash out at the then powerless institutions that still oppose SSM at that time? I think more likely that they will dwindle in irrelevance than suffer much in the way of direct assault.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW I have no idea of God's opinion on ssm. I do know that the constitutional law arguments for ssm are postmodern gibberish and will lead to an anything goes jurisprudence.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
-phobic means fear, threads. So to use that word without thought to the object's frame of mind is an anti-brain usage. If you mean will have results harmful to gays, then say that. phobic is a state of.mind.

"Homophobic" has nothing to do fear. Im using common vernacular here.

Edit: the most common usage is basically "prejudice against homosexuals". I tend to prefer discussing it in terms of systematic prejudice (the academic definition).

[ April 29, 2014, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: threads ]

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
It's basically the mainstream American pro SSM left I see as linked to the brainwashing. Because it's in America where the SSM .oeent got married to the big lie that anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot, because that's the only way they can hijack Loving v Virginia to shoehorn ssm into equal protection.

I think the more mainstream pro-SSM position is that banning SSM contributes to the oppression of homosexuals and is therefore homophobic. The intention of those opposed to SSM is not relevant as to whether or not their position is homophobic.
Your argument results in telling people that they don't have to think before passing judgment. You offer no evidence or objective argument that distinguishing SSM from actual marriage will result in "oppression". I could just as soon declare that SSM results in fewer kids being raised by a mom and dad there for SSM is "anti-child" regardless of intentions.
Therefore by your own discussion standards, your argument is anti-child, anti-brain. Anti human.

All I did was state [what I believe] to be a simple summary of the "mainstream" pro-SSM position.I don't understand your objection here, are you objecting to the fact that I didn't provide evidence supporting pro-SSM position or are you objecting to the fact that I didn't provide evidence supporting my generalization of the pro-SSM position?
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Let's follow this ghastly thread of bad thinking to its logical extreme, this idea that one can impute evil thinking based on presumed results rather than actually looking at intent:

"Your idea will result in people lying therefore your potion is dishonest."

"Your idea will result in people dying therefore your position is murderous."

"Your.idea would.result in lots of sex therefore your position is horny"

Gibberish, threads. Pure gibberish.

Those analogies are really vague and don't directly map to how I used "homophobic". A position can result in people lying without being dishonest (why would the position itself have to be dishonest?). A position can result in people dying without being murderous (murder requires intent AFAIK). A position can result in a lot of sex without being horny. On the other hand, if your goal is to prevent the oppression of homosexuals then positions that result in such oppression are going to be very relevant to you. Classifying such positions as homophobic is useful because it helps identify issues that need to be targeted. If you don't think this definition is useful then feel free to argue that. If you don't like the definition because of Latin or Greek root words or whatever then I don't care.

There are good reasons to avoid including intent as part of homophobia:
* if you want to stop the oppression of homosexuals then intent doesn't matter too much; you just want to stop the oppression
* requiring intent provides a blanket a cover for those who are actually homophobic by allowing them to invent other justifications for their positions

[ April 29, 2014, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: threads ]

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"your proposal would result in the gradual disappearance of a culture, therefore your position is genocidal"

Threads, do you recognize the stupidity and unfairness of the reasoning when it's directed at you?

Im not sure whether you are arguing against the definition I'm using or my classification of anti-SSM as falling under that definition. I think it's the former so here's the basis of my argument: Words should be useful. Society should stop oppressing homosexuals. We should have a word that describes things that contribute to such oppression. "Homophobia" is a good fit. Intent is not a good factor to include in the definition because people can unintentionally contribute to the oppression of homosexuals or (less likely) can try to oppress homosexuals but fail. Neither of those two scenarios warrants attention.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"your proposal would lead to an al Qaeda victory in Iraq, therefore your position is pro al Qaeda"

"Your proposal of rescinding the Patriot act would make it harder to stop terrorism therefore your position is pro terrorist"

Like the company you keep, threads?

I see vague similarities in sentence structure but the meaning of those sentences is unrelated to the discussion at hand.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So by threads' logic, I could say that threads' position is "homophobic" since I think that his plan leads to more persecution of gays than would happen under SSUs.

Yep. If you want to advance that argument then let us know.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
But Genocide, like homophobia, presumes INTENT.

Lol? If the intent isn't there then what is it? Xenocide? [Wink]
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The courts and the schools and the press was not on the pro life bombers' side.
Didn’t realize mainstream media and society at large cheered the guy as he shot a security guard but was thwarted before completing his noble quest… [Roll Eyes]
quote:
do know that the constitutional law arguments for ssm are postmodern gibberish and will lead to an anything goes jurisprudence.
You would know better than I. A lot of it seems to struggle very hard for a PC method of saying, “Don’t be an ******* to your fellow citizens” and creating inadvertent problems in doing so.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A phobia is a state of mind, threads. Using homophobic to describe what you predict as a result is not honest. It's inflammatory propaganda.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, political correctness can continue to change the meaning of words to demonize people that don't do what PC says they should do and think what PC says they should think. by all means continue with the brainwashing but please not on this forum.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Economics, education, etc are too hard to fake being intelligent on to be the next big debate. SSM allowed millions of people to make believe they were intelligent. It was the era of "intellectualism for Dummies." They aren't going to want to let that go. Belle Knox is the new Matthew Shepherd.

Everyone has spent time in a classroom, so everyone feels like an expert on education.

Have you been watching the debate over common core? Tons of people who have no idea what they are talking about convinced that not only do they know what they are talking about, they have a better grasp on what is going on than people who are actually making it go on.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" While I wouldn’t excuse violence or criminal acts against them no matter how slight, I do welcome all the legal social pressure possible be brought to bear against them until they wither or accommodate. Given the history and cultural identity of being oppressed many religions incorporate I don’t expect anything I would wish for would have much effect however. If you believe God is against something a popularity contest shouldn’t mean much"

Since you recognize that social pressure won't have the desired effect, do you recognize that what's really at play here is self righteous sadism? Like beating on an Amish guy. If this is what feels good to you, maybe your feelings are wrong, DW. Sadism is very often the product of operating in a conflict based on obvious lies. Sadism is an outlet to sate all that cognitive dissonance. Hence all those military rapes in Iraq.

Give truth a chance.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"your proposal would lead to an al Qaeda victory in Iraq, therefore your position is pro al Qaeda"

"Your proposal of rescinding the Patriot act would make it harder to stop terrorism therefore your position is pro terrorist"

Like the company you keep, threads?

I see vague similarities in sentence structure but the meaning of those sentences is unrelated to the discussion at hand.
Think harder and look past superficialities. Those sentences, like your phobic fatwa, apply an inflammatory term that should reasonably require evidence of a mental state, on the mere basis of an outcome.predicted by the speaker.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
It's basically the mainstream American pro SSM left I see as linked to the brainwashing. Because it's in America where the SSM .oeent got married to the big lie that anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot, because that's the only way they can hijack Loving v Virginia to shoehorn ssm into equal protection.

I think the more mainstream pro-SSM position is that banning SSM contributes to the oppression of homosexuals and is therefore homophobic. The intention of those opposed to SSM is not relevant as to whether or not their position is homophobic.
Your argument results in telling people that they don't have to think before passing judgment. You offer no evidence or objective argument that distinguishing SSM from actual marriage will result in "oppression". I could just as soon declare that SSM results in fewer kids being raised by a mom and dad there for SSM is "anti-child" regardless of intentions.
Therefore by your own discussion standards, your argument is anti-child, anti-brain. Anti human.

All I did was state [what I believe] to be a simple summary of the "mainstream" pro-SSM position.I don't understand your objection here, are you objecting to the fact that I didn't provide evidence supporting pro-SSM position or are you objecting to the fact that I didn't provide evidence supporting my generalization of the pro-SSM position?
I am objecting to your inflammatory misleading misuse of the word "homophobic" to describe your predicted results rather than the object's state of mind.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1