Back in July, the David family had breakfast during Shore Leave convention with George Takei and Brad Altman, and naturally we discussed the upcoming wedding. They were talking about how they’d had to whittle the invite list from several thousand to two hundred. And I had to ask the question that I”m sure you would have asked: “Are you inviting Shatner?”
“Yes,” said Brad, nodding firmly, and George agreed, adding, “I think it’s time to let the past go.” They could not have been more definitive: the olive branch was being extended, bygones allowed to be bygones, hatchets being buried and every other cliche you’d care to roll out.
The result? The invite, which was sent to Shatner’s manager, was never forwarded to Shatner for whatever reason, and now a video Shatner released in which he excoriates George is getting all kinds of media play.
“George came out. Who cares?” asks Shatner in the video. The answer to that, of course, is the opponents of gay marriage who are circulating e-mails and fliers filled with baseless scare tactics in order to try and push through Proposition 8. A Proposition that would make sure joyous days such as the one Kath and I shared with George, Brad and a couple hundred guests–which could have included William Shatner–will never occur again for anyone who’s gay in California. Those bigots, those jerks, those killjoys…they’re the ones who care, Mr. Shatner.
So that answers your questions: The questions of why George Takei didn’t invite you (he did) and who cares that George is gay (those who want to push through Prop 8). So here’s my question to you:
What are you going to do about it?
PAD
• 
I got snippy because it seemed to me that you were playing games with me instead of addressing the issue.
“And my answer is still that I disagree with your premise; I think opposition to gay marriage is quite common among social conservatives (and the US population in general, frankly), but the idea that they should stay closeted much less so.”
And this, as Rene pointed out, is a change from previously held positions among social conservatives and among people in general, which is why it is worth discussing. But you assumed I was interested in attacking the social conservative movement at large instead of exploring developments in that movement, and specifically among social conservatives, as refelected by Iowa Jim’s words. So instead of addressing the issue itself you decided to mount a kind of political defense of “hey, we also have gays in the Republican party, and Sarah Pailin is not that bad”, which I already knew, and which did not address what I was interested in, namely the shifting attitudes among people who starting position is that homosexuality is bad. Furthermore, while Iowa Jim has gotten some flack for his views, he did not get them from me. I asked him the question because I was interested in treatinng his views seriously although I oppose them.
I got snippy because it seemed to me that you were playing games with me instead of addressing the issue.
“And my answer is still that I disagree with your premise; I think opposition to gay marriage is quite common among social conservatives (and the US population in general, frankly), but the idea that they should stay closeted much less so.”
And this, as Rene pointed out, is a change from previously held positions among social conservatives and among people in general, which is why it is worth discussing. But you assumed I was interested in attacking the social conservative movement at large instead of exploring developments in that movement, and specifically among social conservatives, as refelected by Iowa Jim’s words. So instead of addressing the issue itself you decided to mount a kind of political defense of “hey, we also have gays in the Republican party, and Sarah Pailin is not that bad”, which I already knew, and which did not address what I was interested in, namely the shifting attitudes among people who starting position is that homosexuality is bad. Furthermore, while Iowa Jim has gotten some flack for his views, he did not get them from me. I asked him the question because I was interested in treatinng his views seriously although I oppose them.
And this, as Rene pointed out, is a change from previously held positions among social conservatives and among people in general, which is why it is worth discussing.
That’s something I’ll agree with. I wasn’t mounting a political defense though– people are entitled to their opinions, and I don’t feel a need to defend anyone’s opinion to anyone else. They can do that themselves. I was just pointing out that the casual association of “social conservatives” with “people who think gays should stay closeted” is kind of insulting and factually inaccurate. I realize you don’t live here, so your perspective may be affected by the media through which you get our news, but please believe me when I tell you that the people who think gays should stay quietly in the closet are a relative fringe here. Social conservatives, on the other hand, are at least a large minority group and probably comprise the plurality in large sections of the country.
The topic of how opinions about gay rights have changed is fascinating and I’d love to talk about that. I think it’s shocking how quickly things have changed, from homosexuality being a criminal offense just a couple generations ago to the status now. Gay marriage was a fringe idea when I was in college and is now the law in 2.5 states. (California is in a state of quantum flux.) Gay marriage is coming. It’s going to be the law eventually, despite the self-inflicted damage that gay rights groups’ litigation strategies have caused. When you think about how long the civil rights movement took to get to a similar level of racial or sexual equality, gay rights has been moving at a blinding speed. Proof of that? There’s a generation of conservatives, including me, who have no problem with gay marriage.
I think it’s a mistake to confuse disapproval with a serious problem. Some of the posters above who made snide comments about their tolerance for Iowa Jim’s religious beliefs should drop the sarcasm, because that’s really the point of a pluralistic society. Tolerance would be an easy virtue if we only had to tolerate people we already liked. Iowa Jim is free to hold his religious beliefs, and other people are free to dislike them. People are free to be gay, and other people are free to think it’s icky. The viewpoint that “We tolerate everything but intolerance” is the worst kind of intolerance, because it’s intellectually dishonest. Tolerance can’t have an “Everything but” clause, because then it isn’t tolerating someone, and who’s to say that someone’s “everything but” opinion is inferior to yours? Invidious discrimination is bad… so vote against it.
And this, as Rene pointed out, is a change from previously held positions among social conservatives and among people in general, which is why it is worth discussing.
That’s something I’ll agree with. I wasn’t mounting a political defense though– people are entitled to their opinions, and I don’t feel a need to defend anyone’s opinion to anyone else. They can do that themselves. I was just pointing out that the casual association of “social conservatives” with “people who think gays should stay closeted” is kind of insulting and factually inaccurate. I realize you don’t live here, so your perspective may be affected by the media through which you get our news, but please believe me when I tell you that the people who think gays should stay quietly in the closet are a relative fringe here. Social conservatives, on the other hand, are at least a large minority group and probably comprise the plurality in large sections of the country.
The topic of how opinions about gay rights have changed is fascinating and I’d love to talk about that. I think it’s shocking how quickly things have changed, from homosexuality being a criminal offense just a couple generations ago to the status now. Gay marriage was a fringe idea when I was in college and is now the law in 2.5 states. (California is in a state of quantum flux.) Gay marriage is coming. It’s going to be the law eventually, despite the self-inflicted damage that gay rights groups’ litigation strategies have caused. When you think about how long the civil rights movement took to get to a similar level of racial or sexual equality, gay rights has been moving at a blinding speed. Proof of that? There’s a generation of conservatives, including me, who have no problem with gay marriage.
I think it’s a mistake to confuse disapproval with a serious problem. Some of the posters above who made snide comments about their tolerance for Iowa Jim’s religious beliefs should drop the sarcasm, because that’s really the point of a pluralistic society. Tolerance would be an easy virtue if we only had to tolerate people we already liked. Iowa Jim is free to hold his religious beliefs, and other people are free to dislike them. People are free to be gay, and other people are free to think it’s icky. The viewpoint that “We tolerate everything but intolerance” is the worst kind of intolerance, because it’s intellectually dishonest. Tolerance can’t have an “Everything but” clause, because then it isn’t tolerating someone, and who’s to say that someone’s “everything but” opinion is inferior to yours? Invidious discrimination is bad… so vote against it.
He should imagine how would he feel if Christians were a minority
Rene, it should be noted that there are Christians out there who apparently believe they’re a minority; it’s the only way that said folks can get their cries of ‘persecution’ to be heard.
From friends in CA I’m being told that a lot of the anti Prop 8 ads don’t even mention gays–they are trying to make it about freedom or some other greater point but deliberately not mentioning gay marriage.
And on the flip side, some of the pro Prop 8 ads are using children and fear to try and get this to pass. “Gay marriage means we’ll be forced to be parents to our kids and actually talk to them about gays! How dare we allow that to happen!”
If you’re cool with public displays of romantic-affection between dudes, what’s left to call yourself a social conservative over?
If you’re cool with public displays of romantic-affection between dudes, what’s left to call yourself a social conservative over?
Arguing about homosexuality is a given for my generation, but what I find fascinating is the upcoming generation: Gay is cool. In my generation, a highschool kid who openly said he’s gay would still probably be pounded on physically and socially (hence my best friend didn’t come out until college). Fast forward just 25 years, same town, same highschool, 1500 kids, and my daughter knows dozens of classmates who identify themselves and gay or bisexual, and that’s perfectly fine. No stigma attached. Myself, I think half of them claim it just for the attention, or are perhaps experimenting, and what their final orientation will be is not yet determined, but it’s out in the open, and not an issue with these kids. It’s the “in” thing. Granted, we’re a Blue State, but I’m surprised and impressed at the acceptance.
Or else it’s just more acceptable among girls.
If you watch cable channels like Home and Garden or Discovery Health, there is a higher percentage of gay couples profiled, either having their homes renovated or adopting babies (mostly Canadian or California couples), or needing help training their dogs, etc. Rarely are these couples directly labeled (Steve and Mark’s new house, Four Babies, Two Moms…), but I never see or hear protests about these channels, or their programming. Either the Far Right doesn’t watch these programs, as they’re part of the Liberal Axis of Evil, or we’ve hit that mark of “who cares?”.
Arguing about homosexuality is a given for my generation, but what I find fascinating is the upcoming generation: Gay is cool. In my generation, a highschool kid who openly said he’s gay would still probably be pounded on physically and socially (hence my best friend didn’t come out until college). Fast forward just 25 years, same town, same highschool, 1500 kids, and my daughter knows dozens of classmates who identify themselves and gay or bisexual, and that’s perfectly fine. No stigma attached. Myself, I think half of them claim it just for the attention, or are perhaps experimenting, and what their final orientation will be is not yet determined, but it’s out in the open, and not an issue with these kids. It’s the “in” thing. Granted, we’re a Blue State, but I’m surprised and impressed at the acceptance.
Or else it’s just more acceptable among girls.
If you watch cable channels like Home and Garden or Discovery Health, there is a higher percentage of gay couples profiled, either having their homes renovated or adopting babies (mostly Canadian or California couples), or needing help training their dogs, etc. Rarely are these couples directly labeled (Steve and Mark’s new house, Four Babies, Two Moms…), but I never see or hear protests about these channels, or their programming. Either the Far Right doesn’t watch these programs, as they’re part of the Liberal Axis of Evil, or we’ve hit that mark of “who cares?”.
Posted by: Susan O
…my daughter knows dozens of classmates who identify themselves and gay or bisexual, and that’s perfectly fine. No stigma attached. Myself, I think half of them claim it just for the attention, or are perhaps experimenting, and what their final orientation will be is not yet determined, but it’s out in the open, and not an issue with these kids. It’s the “in” thing. Granted, we’re a Blue State, but I’m surprised and impressed at the acceptance.
Or else it’s just more acceptable among girls.
ITYM “fashionable”.
Stepdaughter Helen attended North Georgia College – which is a military school in one of the redder red states – and did ROTC (where she met her husband), and a large number of the young women there were experimenting with (or playing at) lesbianism/bi-sexuality.
She said it’s considered “cool” to spend a couple of semesters “discovering your sexuality” (or something else a little more pithy i can’t recall at the moment…).
Susan O: Arguing about homosexuality is a given for my generation, but what I find fascinating is the upcoming generation: Gay is cool. In my generation, a highschool kid who openly said he’s gay would still probably be pounded on physically and socially (hence my best friend didn’t come out until college). Fast forward just 25 years, same town, same highschool, 1500 kids, and my daughter knows dozens of classmates who identify themselves and gay or bisexual, and that’s perfectly fine. No stigma attached. Myself, I think half of them claim it just for the attention, or are perhaps experimenting, and what their final orientation will be is not yet determined, but it’s out in the open, and not an issue with these kids. It’s the “in” thing. Granted, we’re a Blue State, but I’m surprised and impressed at the acceptance.
Same thing here too. When I was in high school in the early to mid ’90s, I heard lots of anti-gay slurs thrown around. In that environment, nobody was comfortable coming out.
A few years ago I met somebody who had gone to the same high school I’d been to, who was bi, and they told me that it had changed, and that these days nobody was going to give you crap if you were gay.
Susan O: Arguing about homosexuality is a given for my generation, but what I find fascinating is the upcoming generation: Gay is cool. In my generation, a highschool kid who openly said he’s gay would still probably be pounded on physically and socially (hence my best friend didn’t come out until college). Fast forward just 25 years, same town, same highschool, 1500 kids, and my daughter knows dozens of classmates who identify themselves and gay or bisexual, and that’s perfectly fine. No stigma attached. Myself, I think half of them claim it just for the attention, or are perhaps experimenting, and what their final orientation will be is not yet determined, but it’s out in the open, and not an issue with these kids. It’s the “in” thing. Granted, we’re a Blue State, but I’m surprised and impressed at the acceptance.
Same thing here too. When I was in high school in the early to mid ’90s, I heard lots of anti-gay slurs thrown around. In that environment, nobody was comfortable coming out.
A few years ago I met somebody who had gone to the same high school I’d been to, who was bi, and they told me that it had changed, and that these days nobody was going to give you crap if you were gay.
If you’re cool with public displays of romantic-affection between dudes, what’s left to call yourself a social conservative over?
Abortion. It’s the biggest reason Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman weren’t the GOP Vice Presidential nominee. Social conservatives were OK with Palin vetoing a anti-same-sex benefits bill, but a pro-choice VP selection would have caused a revolt.
If you’re cool with public displays of romantic-affection between dudes, what’s left to call yourself a social conservative over?
Abortion. It’s the biggest reason Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman weren’t the GOP Vice Presidential nominee. Social conservatives were OK with Palin vetoing a anti-same-sex benefits bill, but a pro-choice VP selection would have caused a revolt.
If you’re cool with public displays of romantic-affection between dudes, what’s left to call yourself a social conservative over?
Abortion. It’s the biggest reason Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman weren’t the GOP Vice Presidential nominee. Social conservatives were OK with Palin vetoing a anti-same-sex benefits bill, but a pro-choice VP selection would have caused a revolt.
1) Abortion.
2) Differing standards of “decency” pertaining to broadcast television, music and movies.
3) The role of religion (specifically the Christian faith) in government, family and life in general.
4) Immigration. (Although that one falls under both social and economic listings.)
5) Culture. (English first, making English the official language of America, etc.)
6) Differences in the belief of what should and should not be taught in schools.
7) Differing approaches to crime, crime prevention and criminal punishments such as the death penalty.
8) Domestic surveillance VS domestic spying.
9) Specific interpretations of Constitutional intent (Guns anyone?) and how they affect the rights of the citizenry.
10) Legalization of drugs VS stricter enforcement of drug laws.
11) The war. (Again, that one falls under both social and economic listings.)
Hëll, and that was without even thinking about it very hard. I’m sure Iowa Jim could add about 20 more things to that list easily.
Why is the association of social conservatives with “people who think gays should stay closeted” insulting, but not their association with “people who think victims should be forced to carry their rapists’ children?”
Why is the association of social conservatives with “people who think gays should stay closeted” insulting, but not their association with “people who think victims should be forced to carry their rapists’ children?”
I agree with Jerry’s list for the most part, certainly for the first half. The second half (and maybe #4) are characteristics where social conservatives probably largely agree with one another, but where large numbers of other people would join them, so I think they’re a bit overinclusive.
Mike asked, Why is the association of social conservatives with “people who think gays should stay closeted” insulting, but not their association with “people who think victims should be forced to carry their rapists’ children?”
Well, if I’d actually said anything of that sort, that would have been insulting as hëll. In fact, it would have tracked the original comment perfectly, inasmuch as it would impute to an entire group the more extreme opinions of a minority of their membership. It would have been very much like saying liberals are in favor of exterminating babies who survive abortion procedures, based on the relatively few votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. So I’m really glad I wasn’t that much of a dufus.
Well, where does the anti-abortion position deviate from the insult? Where is the gap?
Well, where does the anti-abortion position deviate from the insult? Where is the gap?
I agree with Jerry’s list for the most part, certainly for the first half. The second half (and maybe #4) are characteristics where social conservatives probably largely agree with one another, but where large numbers of other people would join them, so I think they’re a bit overinclusive.
Oh, I don’t think that no one on the Left may agree with someone on the Right with some of those, but the level or degree to which some of those things would be put forward as law or seen as too much or too little might tend to mark someone as a social con or social lib.
I agree with Jerry’s list for the most part, certainly for the first half. The second half (and maybe #4) are characteristics where social conservatives probably largely agree with one another, but where large numbers of other people would join them, so I think they’re a bit overinclusive.
Oh, I don’t think that no one on the Left may agree with someone on the Right with some of those, but the level or degree to which some of those things would be put forward as law or seen as too much or too little might tend to mark someone as a social con or social lib.
Well, where does the anti-abortion position deviate from the insult? Where is the gap?
1) Phrasing matters. Compare “Candidate N is opposed to the death penalty” with “Candidate N is in favor of showing mercy to criminals who kidnap, rape, and murder small children.” The latter is actually true if the former is, but I highly doubt that’s how N thinks about it.
2) It’s an untrue description of the antiabortion camp as a whole. A large majority of pro-choice people append “except in the case of rape or incest” to their position papers. I think it’s actually McCain’s position, in fact. It’s certainly Medicaid’s position, because those are the scenarios under which Federal funds can pay for abortions. Sherry Colb wrote an interesting essay about that last year. http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/colb/20070711.html
A large majority of pro-choice people append “except in the case of rape or incest” to their position papers.
I wish I hadn’t phrased that in that manner. It is my sense that it’s the majority opinion among people who are otherwise pro-life, but I don’t have the data available to support that as an empirical claim. I’ve been able to find gobs of support for the claim that it made a difference to South Dakota voters, because pollsters actually asked that when the SD abortion law was on the ballot in 2006, so I think I’m right but I can’t prove it. It’s incontrovertible that the rape/incest exceptions are common opinions, and I should have said it that way.
A large majority of pro-choice people append “except in the case of rape or incest” to their position papers.
I wish I hadn’t phrased that in that manner. It is my sense that it’s the majority opinion among people who are otherwise pro-life, but I don’t have the data available to support that as an empirical claim. I’ve been able to find gobs of support for the claim that it made a difference to South Dakota voters, because pollsters actually asked that when the SD abortion law was on the ballot in 2006, so I think I’m right but I can’t prove it. It’s incontrovertible that the rape/incest exceptions are common opinions, and I should have said it that way.
All this talk about mutiny in the GOP and splintering, is a direct result of the VP pick and that for certain aspects of the GOP social concerns will trump everything else in a campaign.
Something that’s sometimes forgotten is that during the republican primaries the right wing pundits HATED McCain. I believe Limbaugh said he would destroy the Republican party. Ironically enough he’s looking like he may have been on to something but not necessarily for the reasons he thought.
Really the blame falls back to W and Rove who so blatantly exploited the far right in the run for the presidency in 2000 they gave them too much clout.
Moderate republicans clearly didn’t want another Bush type in office which is why McCain did so well in New Hampshire and other moderate states. That left Huckabee out, Guliani didn’t have a chance. As Obama so eloquently put it, it’s hard to imagine how a several times divorced crossdressing mayor of New York City could do so poorly in a republican primary. That left Romney again hurt by the fact he was from a blue state and that he had flipfloped on a few issues put it past and he Dropped out pretty dámņ quick, thinking it’s better to reduce the infighting to the absolute minimum (probably on a guarantee that he would get a decent post in the McCain cabinet.)
What ultimately became clear is that McCain could not count on the far right.
Instead of it being something like, McCain is not going to be a strong champion of what you want most, but you’re going to get even less support from the Dems so vote with us. They were going to sit out and wait four years for someone who was going to push a more conservative agenda rather than the centre right McCain was offering.
McCain was forced to bring in Sarah Palin who energized the base. (Every time someone asks McCain about that he brings up how she energizes the base. I want someone to ask him why he can’t energize the base.)
The problem of course being her presence drove away the moderates and any disenchanted democrats.
The far right have taken the GOP hostage, where social conservatism is more important then anything else.
If Obama takes all but the deep conservative states then the GOP will get more insular and they will be forced to tie themselves more so, which will only make things worse.
All this talk about mutiny in the GOP and splintering, is a direct result of the VP pick and that for certain aspects of the GOP social concerns will trump everything else in a campaign.
Something that’s sometimes forgotten is that during the republican primaries the right wing pundits HATED McCain. I believe Limbaugh said he would destroy the Republican party. Ironically enough he’s looking like he may have been on to something but not necessarily for the reasons he thought.
Really the blame falls back to W and Rove who so blatantly exploited the far right in the run for the presidency in 2000 they gave them too much clout.
Moderate republicans clearly didn’t want another Bush type in office which is why McCain did so well in New Hampshire and other moderate states. That left Huckabee out, Guliani didn’t have a chance. As Obama so eloquently put it, it’s hard to imagine how a several times divorced crossdressing mayor of New York City could do so poorly in a republican primary. That left Romney again hurt by the fact he was from a blue state and that he had flipfloped on a few issues put it past and he Dropped out pretty dámņ quick, thinking it’s better to reduce the infighting to the absolute minimum (probably on a guarantee that he would get a decent post in the McCain cabinet.)
What ultimately became clear is that McCain could not count on the far right.
Instead of it being something like, McCain is not going to be a strong champion of what you want most, but you’re going to get even less support from the Dems so vote with us. They were going to sit out and wait four years for someone who was going to push a more conservative agenda rather than the centre right McCain was offering.
McCain was forced to bring in Sarah Palin who energized the base. (Every time someone asks McCain about that he brings up how she energizes the base. I want someone to ask him why he can’t energize the base.)
The problem of course being her presence drove away the moderates and any disenchanted democrats.
The far right have taken the GOP hostage, where social conservatism is more important then anything else.
If Obama takes all but the deep conservative states then the GOP will get more insular and they will be forced to tie themselves more so, which will only make things worse.
So if an outcome isn’t intended, it can’t have happened?
Didn’t you say you were a prosecutor? If everything has to be reconciled with subjective accounts, it’s a wonder anyone sits in jail.
If you don’t know, then why even take offense? What does that make your offense to anyone else?
You give slack to everyone else’s intent, except for those who have to live with the consequences of the changes you want to implement. It’s how the meek are the uncelebrated benefactors of our world. What does it say about you that you think nothing of telling them how to live?
So if an outcome isn’t intended, it can’t have happened?
Didn’t you say you were a prosecutor? If everything has to be reconciled with subjective accounts, it’s a wonder anyone sits in jail.
If you don’t know, then why even take offense? What does that make your offense to anyone else?
You give slack to everyone else’s intent, except for those who have to live with the consequences of the changes you want to implement. It’s how the meek are the uncelebrated benefactors of our world. What does it say about you that you think nothing of telling them how to live?
If you don’t know, then why even take offense? What does that make your offense to anyone else?
Reading is fundamental. I said I couldn’t prove that the rape exception is held by a majority of pro-lifers (although I still suspect it is). I can prove that it’s a common opinion among them with trivial effort. See below for the offense.
So if an outcome isn’t intended, it can’t have happened? Didn’t you say you were a prosecutor? If everything has to be reconciled with subjective accounts, it’s a wonder anyone sits in jail.
That actually is the difference between guilt and innocence in a variety of contexts. Consider:
“I killed him just to watch him die.” Murder, possibly capital.
“I killed him because I was emotionally disturbed and angry.” Manslaughter, and if the emotional disturbance is severe enough and comes from mental disease, not guilty by reason of insanity.
“I killed him because I was too drunk to drive straight, and I never meant to kill or hurt anyone at all.” Could be any of a variety of vehicular homicides, which are laws that vary widely from state to state.
“I killed him because I was afraid for my life.” Self defense is not a crime at all. (We had a big discussion about self defense law a while back that I don’t want to repeat, and this one requires objective facts to support the defense, but still.)
The “why” matters, intent matters, in life as well as in law. Look at the rape exception from the pro-lifer’s own vantage point. If you believe, sincerely, that killing a fetus is infanticide, why do you allow it in the case of rape and/or incest? Because forcing the victim of a crime to carry to term a baby born of that crime is just too cruel. The fetus is no less dead, and its life was as valuable as any other, but there is a countervailing value: mercy for the victim. A similar argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson actually was what moved me into the pro-choice camp. Assume for a moment that pro-lifers are right and life begins at conception. That life depends on its mother for gestation; in what other context do we legally obligate someone to sacrifice her bodily integrity to provide life-support for another person? Abortion may well terminate another human life, but it’s a justified death. I couldn’t come up with a response to that objection when I read the essay, and I still can’t. And that’s why Mike’s formulation was so insulting: it blithely ignored large numbers of pro-lifers who explicitly back away from the specific example he mentioned because it’s too horrible. It imputes that lack of compassion to the entire pro-life movement… which is an insult and untrue.
You give slack to everyone else’s intent, except for those who have to live with the consequences of the changes you want to implement. It’s how the meek are the uncelebrated benefactors of our world. What does it say about you that you think nothing of telling them how to live?
Um, what changes did I say I wanted to implement, now? Hmmmmm? Oh that’s right, I said I was inclined to support gay marriage, which would be a change. Besides, your argument proves too much if accepted. All laws tell people how to live. That’s why they’re called “laws” and not “suggestions.” The only regime in which nobody tells anyone how to live is anarchy, wherein life is “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Any leviathan is better than no leviathan; I’m not saying Hobbes was right about everything, but he was right about that.
If you don’t know, then why even take offense? What does that make your offense to anyone else?
Reading is fundamental. I said I couldn’t prove that the rape exception is held by a majority of pro-lifers (although I still suspect it is). I can prove that it’s a common opinion among them with trivial effort. See below for the offense.
So if an outcome isn’t intended, it can’t have happened? Didn’t you say you were a prosecutor? If everything has to be reconciled with subjective accounts, it’s a wonder anyone sits in jail.
That actually is the difference between guilt and innocence in a variety of contexts. Consider:
“I killed him just to watch him die.” Murder, possibly capital.
“I killed him because I was emotionally disturbed and angry.” Manslaughter, and if the emotional disturbance is severe enough and comes from mental disease, not guilty by reason of insanity.
“I killed him because I was too drunk to drive straight, and I never meant to kill or hurt anyone at all.” Could be any of a variety of vehicular homicides, which are laws that vary widely from state to state.
“I killed him because I was afraid for my life.” Self defense is not a crime at all. (We had a big discussion about self defense law a while back that I don’t want to repeat, and this one requires objective facts to support the defense, but still.)
The “why” matters, intent matters, in life as well as in law. Look at the rape exception from the pro-lifer’s own vantage point. If you believe, sincerely, that killing a fetus is infanticide, why do you allow it in the case of rape and/or incest? Because forcing the victim of a crime to carry to term a baby born of that crime is just too cruel. The fetus is no less dead, and its life was as valuable as any other, but there is a countervailing value: mercy for the victim. A similar argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson actually was what moved me into the pro-choice camp. Assume for a moment that pro-lifers are right and life begins at conception. That life depends on its mother for gestation; in what other context do we legally obligate someone to sacrifice her bodily integrity to provide life-support for another person? Abortion may well terminate another human life, but it’s a justified death. I couldn’t come up with a response to that objection when I read the essay, and I still can’t. And that’s why Mike’s formulation was so insulting: it blithely ignored large numbers of pro-lifers who explicitly back away from the specific example he mentioned because it’s too horrible. It imputes that lack of compassion to the entire pro-life movement… which is an insult and untrue.
You give slack to everyone else’s intent, except for those who have to live with the consequences of the changes you want to implement. It’s how the meek are the uncelebrated benefactors of our world. What does it say about you that you think nothing of telling them how to live?
Um, what changes did I say I wanted to implement, now? Hmmmmm? Oh that’s right, I said I was inclined to support gay marriage, which would be a change. Besides, your argument proves too much if accepted. All laws tell people how to live. That’s why they’re called “laws” and not “suggestions.” The only regime in which nobody tells anyone how to live is anarchy, wherein life is “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Any leviathan is better than no leviathan; I’m not saying Hobbes was right about everything, but he was right about that.
There’s a difference between taking a step back to look for the pattern, and changing the subject. I took a step back to refer to your selective application of principle regarding intent. Your response doesn’t seem to qualify as the former, and it doesn’t seem to invalidate what I said.
You lack compassion enough to obstruct a woman’s agenda to abort a pregnancy. Why take offense from an observation of what’s obvious?
I was referring to overturning Roe v Wade. Unless you want to make it a first for the pro-life movement and come out to being pro-Roe-v-Wade.
Dude, this was kind of a telling thing to bury in your extra-long paragraph. I don’t know why you’re bugging about others not tip-toeing around pro-lifers like they’re more vulnerable to osteoporosis than anyone else.
Dude, this was kind of a telling thing to bury in your extra-long paragraph. I don’t know why you’re bugging about others not tip-toeing around pro-lifers like they’re more vulnerable to osteoporosis than anyone else.
David the lawyer,
I’m going to be really nice to you here.
I’m going to be nice and let you know that you are headed towards the edge of a very stupid cliff that we all rather less than affectionately refer to as “Mikeness” around here. Mike’s been rather tame of late so you haven’t had the chance to really see him shine. It looks like he’s offering you that chance though and, trust me on this, you don’t want a look.
Mike has issues with fixating on words or just a single set of words in a sentence, applying his own strange meaning to them and then going down a rather strange rabbit hole where you finally have no real idea what the hëll he’s even saying you said or sometimes even what point he’s actually still arguing.
I’ll give you a small example. Bill Mulligan isn’t a big fan of hate crime laws. He said as much about halfway through a thread some time ago titled ‘PRINCIPAL POOPYPANTS’ and several of us made the nightmarish mistake of agreeing with him.
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/004874.html
The reason that this was nightmarish was because Mike started down his rabbit hole and took us all along for the ride for a little while before we came up for air, left it behind and washed the slime off. I’ll explain the progression of Mikeness that happened there and from the early warning signs here that he’s warming up to start with you.
1 – We stated that we weren’t big fans of hate crimes.
2 – Mike then questions our racist motivations and points out that we’re doing something or other to preserve our white male privileges at the expense of minorities and such. We say that’s garbage.
3 – Mike responds by asking us why we deny genocide happens.
4 – We respond that we have no idea what planet his brain is own or where it got that idea since we hadn’t mentioned genocide.
5 – Mike links the concept of a hate crime to genocide. He also starts the regular Mikeness phenomenon of creating huge posts comprised largely of the same posts copied and pasted over and over and over again to point out people’s words to them after Mike has taken them out of context and applied his own spin to them. Sometimes he even has fun and edits out an entire half of a sentence to claim you said something that you didn’t in the full context say at all.
6 – We calmly point out that we’re not discussing the systematic elimination of an entire race, but rather hate crimes which are usually rather isolated and smaller in their overall scale.
7- Mike then claims that the clearly worded definition of genocide matches perfectly the Miriam-Webster definition of hate crimes, murders or some other blather that he has decided that genocide really means.
8 – We point out, yet again, that hate crime laws are usually aimed at one person who has committed a small handful of criminal acts and, if murder has been involved, has likely only killed one or two people.
9 – Mike responds that a white male killing even one member of a minority because they’re a minority matches the clearly worded definition of genocide’s system of systematically murdering an entire race of people, claims that we’re denying the very existence of genocide because we won’t agree with him on this point, claims to have caught a group of white males sheltering racism to preserve their privilege and goes on to call us “Eichmanns” for the better part of three plus weeks and a number of following threads.
10 – He then goes on to randomly throw statements about our supposed white male privilege, racism sheltering, genocide denying natures into threads and discussions for the better part of a year.
Now, my having told you this will cause one of three probable outcomes to occur.
1 – You’ll ignore me and carry on down the rabbit hole until Mikeness has reached its fullest mode and you have no idea what the conversation is even about anymore.
2 – You’ll carry on with the conversation but Mike, in an attempt to make this appear to be a false warning, will reign himself in a bit and go easy with the Mikeness in order to maybe bait you down the hole another day.
3 – You’ll see what’s been done before, see where Mike is setting this conversation of yours up to go and run away while your sanity is still intact.
Not telling what to do or who to debate with here, I’m just offering a friendly warning and reference link to back it with. It’s your call, but there are lots of better people to go round and round in a debate with on this blog.
Later.
David the lawyer,
I’m going to be really nice to you here.
I’m going to be nice and let you know that you are headed towards the edge of a very stupid cliff that we all rather less than affectionately refer to as “Mikeness” around here. Mike’s been rather tame of late so you haven’t had the chance to really see him shine. It looks like he’s offering you that chance though and, trust me on this, you don’t want a look.
Mike has issues with fixating on words or just a single set of words in a sentence, applying his own strange meaning to them and then going down a rather strange rabbit hole where you finally have no real idea what the hëll he’s even saying you said or sometimes even what point he’s actually still arguing.
I’ll give you a small example. Bill Mulligan isn’t a big fan of hate crime laws. He said as much about halfway through a thread some time ago titled ‘PRINCIPAL POOPYPANTS’ and several of us made the nightmarish mistake of agreeing with him.
http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/004874.html
The reason that this was nightmarish was because Mike started down his rabbit hole and took us all along for the ride for a little while before we came up for air, left it behind and washed the slime off. I’ll explain the progression of Mikeness that happened there and from the early warning signs here that he’s warming up to start with you.
1 – We stated that we weren’t big fans of hate crimes.
2 – Mike then questions our racist motivations and points out that we’re doing something or other to preserve our white male privileges at the expense of minorities and such. We say that’s garbage.
3 – Mike responds by asking us why we deny genocide happens.
4 – We respond that we have no idea what planet his brain is own or where it got that idea since we hadn’t mentioned genocide.
5 – Mike links the concept of a hate crime to genocide. He also starts the regular Mikeness phenomenon of creating huge posts comprised largely of the same posts copied and pasted over and over and over again to point out people’s words to them after Mike has taken them out of context and applied his own spin to them. Sometimes he even has fun and edits out an entire half of a sentence to claim you said something that you didn’t in the full context say at all.
6 – We calmly point out that we’re not discussing the systematic elimination of an entire race, but rather hate crimes which are usually rather isolated and smaller in their overall scale.
7- Mike then claims that the clearly worded definition of genocide matches perfectly the Miriam-Webster definition of hate crimes, murders or some other blather that he has decided that genocide really means.
8 – We point out, yet again, that hate crime laws are usually aimed at one person who has committed a small handful of criminal acts and, if murder has been involved, has likely only killed one or two people.
9 – Mike responds that a white male killing even one member of a minority because they’re a minority matches the clearly worded definition of genocide’s system of systematically murdering an entire race of people, claims that we’re denying the very existence of genocide because we won’t agree with him on this point, claims to have caught a group of white males sheltering racism to preserve their privilege and goes on to call us “Eichmanns” for the better part of three plus weeks and a number of following threads.
10 – He then goes on to randomly throw statements about our supposed white male privilege, racism sheltering, genocide denying natures into threads and discussions for the better part of a year.
Now, my having told you this will cause one of three probable outcomes to occur.
1 – You’ll ignore me and carry on down the rabbit hole until Mikeness has reached its fullest mode and you have no idea what the conversation is even about anymore.
2 – You’ll carry on with the conversation but Mike, in an attempt to make this appear to be a false warning, will reign himself in a bit and go easy with the Mikeness in order to maybe bait you down the hole another day.
3 – You’ll see what’s been done before, see where Mike is setting this conversation of yours up to go and run away while your sanity is still intact.
Not telling what to do or who to debate with here, I’m just offering a friendly warning and reference link to back it with. It’s your call, but there are lots of better people to go round and round in a debate with on this blog.
Later.
David the lawyer,
I’m going to be really nice to you here.
I’m going to be nice and let you know that you are headed towards the edge of a very stupid cliff that we all rather less than affectionately refer to as “Mikeness” around here. Mike’s been rather tame of late so you haven’t had the chance to really see him shine. It looks like he’s offering you that chance though and, trust me on this, you don’t want a look.
Mike has issues with fixating on words or just a single set of words in a sentence, applying his own strange meaning to them and then going down a rather strange rabbit hole where you finally have no real idea what the hëll he’s even saying you said or sometimes even what point he’s actually still arguing.
I’ll give you a small example. Bill Mulligan isn’t a big fan of hate crime laws. He said as much about halfway through a thread some time ago titled ‘PRINCIPAL POOPYPANTS’ and several of us made the nightmarish mistake of agreeing with him.
peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/004874.html
The reason that this was nightmarish was because Mike started down his rabbit hole and took us all along for the ride for a little while before we came up for air, left it behind and washed the slime off. I’ll explain the progression of Mikeness that happened there and from the early warning signs here that he’s warming up to start with you.
1 – We stated that we weren’t big fans of hate crimes.
2 – Mike then questions our racist motivations and points out that we’re doing something or other to preserve our white male privileges at the expense of minorities and such. We say that’s garbage.
3 – Mike responds by asking us why we deny genocide happens.
4 – We respond that we have no idea what planet his brain is own or where it got that idea since we hadn’t mentioned genocide.
5 – Mike links the concept of a hate crime to genocide. He also starts the regular Mikeness phenomenon of creating huge posts comprised largely of the same posts copied and pasted over and over and over again to point out people’s words to them after Mike has taken them out of context and applied his own spin to them. Sometimes he even has fun and edits out an entire half of a sentence to claim you said something that you didn’t in the full context say at all.
6 – We calmly point out that we’re not discussing the systematic elimination of an entire race, but rather hate crimes which are usually rather isolated and smaller in their overall scale.
7- Mike then claims that the clearly worded definition of genocide matches perfectly the Miriam-Webster definition of hate crimes, murders or some other blather that he has decided that genocide really means.
8 – We point out, yet again, that hate crime laws are usually aimed at one person who has committed a small handful of criminal acts and, if murder has been involved, has likely only killed one or two people.
9 – Mike responds that a white male killing even one member of a minority because they’re a minority matches the clearly worded definition of genocide’s system of systematically murdering an entire race of people, claims that we’re denying the very existence of genocide because we won’t agree with him on this point, claims to have caught a group of white males sheltering racism to preserve their privilege and goes on to call us “Eichmanns” for the better part of three plus weeks and a number of following threads.
10 – He then goes on to randomly throw statements about our supposed white male privilege, racism sheltering, genocide denying natures into threads and discussions for the better part of a year.
Now, my having told you this will cause one of three probable outcomes to occur.
1 – You’ll ignore me and carry on down the rabbit hole until Mikeness has reached its fullest mode and you have no idea what the conversation is even about anymore.
2 – You’ll carry on with the conversation but Mike, in an attempt to make this appear to be a false warning, will reign himself in a bit and go easy with the Mikeness in order to maybe bait you down the hole another day.
3 – You’ll see what’s been done before, see where Mike is setting this conversation of yours up to go and run away while your sanity is still intact.
Not telling what to do or who to debate with here, I’m just offering a friendly warning and reference link to back it with. It’s your call, but there are lots of better people to go round and round in a debate with on this blog.
Later.
I was referring to overturning Roe v Wade. Unless you want to make it a first for the pro-life movement and come out to being pro-Roe-v-Wade.
To that I have three responses:
1) Scroll up to where I said I was pro-choice. In two different posts. Note that I keep referring to pro-lifers in third person.
2) It’s actually much more trendy to be pro-choice but anti Roe v Wade. That is because Roe is a horrible opinion, poorly crafted, badly written, with a judgment that goes far beyond what was actually necessary to decide the case. Early pro-choice critics of Roe included that notorious conservative firebrand, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and John Hart Ely, who summarized it thus: “It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” (Google “John Hart Ely Wages of Crying Wolf” and you can find the entire article.) The reason pro-lifers have been able to seize upon “judicial activism” as a code for abortion law is that Roe was a particularly egregious example of it. You won’t find pro-lifers defending Roe in part because it’s hard to find anyone trying to defend its argument, though when people try the intellectual gymnastics are kind of amusing. (You do occasionally find people defending opinions they don’t like. Clarence Thomas is notorious for penning concurrences that boil down to, “I agree that [insert “the majority” or name of other Justice]’s opinion is the correct application of precedent. However, our precedent still sucks.” Thurgood Marshall used to do the same thing on death penalty cases– sign on to someone else’s opinion, but write separately to say that he’d go further and strike down the death penalty entirely.)
3) See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992). Roe hasn’t been the law since the summer I turned 19. It is literally impossible to overturn it. I know people keep referring to it as a shorthand for abortion rights, but it bugs me when people use legal jargon without knowing what it means.
After quoting a snippet from later in the same paragraph, Mike apparently went back and read what I actually said, and commented: Dude, this [in reference to my pro-choice epiphany] was kind of a telling thing to bury in your extra-long paragraph. I don’t know why you’re bugging about others not tip-toeing around pro-lifers like they’re more vulnerable to osteoporosis than anyone else.
So as long you only misrepresent the views of groups I’m not a member of I shouldn’t worry? Pro-lifers take a principled position, albeit one I disagree with, and they deserve a little respect. It’s the same with capital punishment abolitionists; I don’t agree with them, but I recognize that there are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made on their behalf. That’s why I threw out that unnecessarily offensive characterization of their viewpoint as an example of how NOT to conduct a civilized discussion. You accused pro-lifers of being unconcerned with making rape victims bear their rapists’ children. That is flatly untrue of a large portion of the pro-life community, possibly a majority of them. There are fair criticisms of the pro-life position. I mentioned the one that convinced me. You went after a straw man, and used particularly incendiary language to do so. I backed off when I misstated something in this thread. You should do the same.
I was referring to overturning Roe v Wade. Unless you want to make it a first for the pro-life movement and come out to being pro-Roe-v-Wade.
To that I have three responses:
1) Scroll up to where I said I was pro-choice. In two different posts. Note that I keep referring to pro-lifers in third person.
2) It’s actually much more trendy to be pro-choice but anti Roe v Wade. That is because Roe is a horrible opinion, poorly crafted, badly written, with a judgment that goes far beyond what was actually necessary to decide the case. Early pro-choice critics of Roe included that notorious conservative firebrand, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and John Hart Ely, who summarized it thus: “It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” (Google “John Hart Ely Wages of Crying Wolf” and you can find the entire article.) The reason pro-lifers have been able to seize upon “judicial activism” as a code for abortion law is that Roe was a particularly egregious example of it. You won’t find pro-lifers defending Roe in part because it’s hard to find anyone trying to defend its argument, though when people try the intellectual gymnastics are kind of amusing. (You do occasionally find people defending opinions they don’t like. Clarence Thomas is notorious for penning concurrences that boil down to, “I agree that [insert “the majority” or name of other Justice]’s opinion is the correct application of precedent. However, our precedent still sucks.” Thurgood Marshall used to do the same thing on death penalty cases– sign on to someone else’s opinion, but write separately to say that he’d go further and strike down the death penalty entirely.)
3) See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992). Roe hasn’t been the law since the summer I turned 19. It is literally impossible to overturn it. I know people keep referring to it as a shorthand for abortion rights, but it bugs me when people use legal jargon without knowing what it means.
After quoting a snippet from later in the same paragraph, Mike apparently went back and read what I actually said, and commented: Dude, this [in reference to my pro-choice epiphany] was kind of a telling thing to bury in your extra-long paragraph. I don’t know why you’re bugging about others not tip-toeing around pro-lifers like they’re more vulnerable to osteoporosis than anyone else.
So as long you only misrepresent the views of groups I’m not a member of I shouldn’t worry? Pro-lifers take a principled position, albeit one I disagree with, and they deserve a little respect. It’s the same with capital punishment abolitionists; I don’t agree with them, but I recognize that there are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made on their behalf. That’s why I threw out that unnecessarily offensive characterization of their viewpoint as an example of how NOT to conduct a civilized discussion. You accused pro-lifers of being unconcerned with making rape victims bear their rapists’ children. That is flatly untrue of a large portion of the pro-life community, possibly a majority of them. There are fair criticisms of the pro-life position. I mentioned the one that convinced me. You went after a straw man, and used particularly incendiary language to do so. I backed off when I misstated something in this thread. You should do the same.
David–Jerry spake wisdom. As did Mark Twain in a warning regarding arguments, fools and onlookers not being able to tell the difference.
Pro-lifers take a principled position, albeit one I disagree with, and they deserve a little respect.
Respect? Respect?! Despite being a staunch believer in RVW, I do not go around picketing in front of pro-life churches, obstructing congregants from attending them, send them gruesome misleading pictures in the mail or paste them to the sides of trucks, bomb the churches or shoot the ministers. I realize there are extremists to every group and they do not represent the majority, but money donated to the ’cause’ does support them. Don’t want an abortion? That’s fine with me. Your choice. I couldn’t care less. But I cannot give my respect to a group of people that will not grant me the same respect and right to my own life.
Pro-lifers take a principled position, albeit one I disagree with, and they deserve a little respect.
Respect? Respect?! Despite being a staunch believer in RVW, I do not go around picketing in front of pro-life churches, obstructing congregants from attending them, send them gruesome misleading pictures in the mail or paste them to the sides of trucks, bomb the churches or shoot the ministers. I realize there are extremists to every group and they do not represent the majority, but money donated to the ’cause’ does support them. Don’t want an abortion? That’s fine with me. Your choice. I couldn’t care less. But I cannot give my respect to a group of people that will not grant me the same respect and right to my own life.
Jerry, the word “genocide” doesn’t appear in the page you link to.
You’re referring to a post from Thanksgiving 2006, but you aren’t going to find me referring to racist motives in what you’ve been posting before this year. You’re projecting. You’re a projecting cyber-bully. And an áššhølë.
Watch Changeling, Jerry. You fit in with the villains. You devote yourself to proving their tactics work. Or don’t watch it. I think trying to make their tactics work will break you, and I don’t like you enough to do anything other than tell you the truth.
David, when I frame their position as “people who think victims should be forced to carry their rapists’ children?” you’re disagreeing with how their concerns are framed.
But that string literally does not refer to protesters’ concerns at all. Why should I give a rat’s ášš to their concerns if I’m not misrepresenting them?
Jerry, the word “genocide” doesn’t appear in the page you link to.
You’re referring to a post from Thanksgiving 2006, but you aren’t going to find me referring to racist motives in what you’ve been posting before this year. You’re projecting. You’re a projecting cyber-bully. And an áššhølë.
Watch Changeling, Jerry. You fit in with the villains. You devote yourself to proving their tactics work. Or don’t watch it. I think trying to make their tactics work will break you, and I don’t like you enough to do anything other than tell you the truth.
David, when I frame their position as “people who think victims should be forced to carry their rapists’ children?” you’re disagreeing with how their concerns are framed.
But that string literally does not refer to protesters’ concerns at all. Why should I give a rat’s ášš to their concerns if I’m not misrepresenting them?
————————————————————————————–
Mike: “Jerry, the word “genocide” doesn’t appear in the page you link to.
You’re referring to a post from Thanksgiving 2006, but you aren’t going to find me referring to racist motives in what you’ve been posting before this year. You’re projecting. You’re a projecting cyber-bully. And an áššhølë.”
————————————————————————————–
David,
Mike is also a bit of a liar. Proof of statement from Principle Poopy Pants.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2006 07:55 PM
Mike, yes, it DOES touch a nerve with me.
Well, your post to Rich was kind of a passive-aggressive way to express it, now, wasn’t it?
What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
Right. The Holocaust was just the execution of 6 million people. There is no such thing as genocide. Check.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2006 08:28 PM
What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
…
No, moron, nobody is saying there is no such thing as genocide…
Right, there is genocide, but any special concession for it is totally bs.
Establishing Isreal — when it most likely wouldn’t have been established after WWII — was totally fûçkëd up.
Thanks for clearing that up, Bill Mulligan.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2006 08:59 PM
What the hëll is going on?
Peter says, “I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope.”
I say, “I think hate crime laws make as much sense as laws protecting police.
“The safety of cops are disproportionately vulnerable to the predatorial agendas of those who reserve for themselves the privilege of committing crime, because of their high visibility in performing a public service antagonistic to them. We need cops, so it can’t be helped.
“The safety of minorities are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of indulging in predatorial agendas because of their visible non-conformity. Minorities and gays can’t help living and going out in public.”
Bill says, “What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.”
Look at the highlighted words. If that isn’t genocide, what is?
What is your problem?
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 06:04 AM
The great thing is, if you just ignore him he keeps on trying to get you back into it! I keep checking back to see how many posts he’s made begging for me to pay attention to him. It’s nice to be wanted.
Bill Mulligan,
Here are the plainly observable facts:
You said:
What I object to is making it worse to penalize a killer for supposedly holding some emotion in their heart, especially if such emotion is only likely to apply to certain racial/ethnic/sexual identity/political affiliation groups.
For comparison, here is the definition of genocide:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
“Deliberate” meaning on purpose. “Systematic” meaning “presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles.”
1. You are trying to flatten the distinction between a race-based murder and murder. In effect, to render the word genocide obsolete.
2. I expressed this by saying “Right.. There is no such thing as genocide. Check.”
3. On this, you call me a moron, and end the exchange.
As it stands, you’ve only left us to imagine that you are sheltering some kind of nazi sympathy and I touched on a nerve or something.
I didn’t invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2006 07:05 AM
1. You are trying to flatten the distinction between a race-based murder and murder. In effect, to render the word genocide obsolete.
2. I expressed this by saying “Right.. There is no such thing as genocide. Check.”
3. On this, you call me a moron, and end the exchange.
As it stands, you’ve only left us to imagine that you are sheltering some kind of nazi sympathy and I touched on a nerve or something.
ZING! In your face, Mulligan! There’s just no beating this intellectual juggernaut!
My assertion is ridiculous, why? Because there’s no such thing as a nazi?
If there’s no such thing as a nazi, that must mean there’s no such thing as genocide. By Bill Mulligan’s definition, you’re a moron, too.
Mike, I’ve noticed you’ve taken to repeating this phrase of mine.
Nurse Ratched, please don’t tell my mother.
****************************************
****************************************
From a later thread and posted less than month later which proves the lie of Mike’s “but you aren’t going to find me referring to racist motives in what you’ve been posting before this year” statement above…
****************************************
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 09:33 AM
Like how a group of defensive white guys deny “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the defninition of genocide, you needy closet eichmann?
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 11:06 PM
Yes. I know. Worked that bit out. You would have picked up on that if you could actually understand what you’re reading half the time. There was a pretty good hint in my post from 3:47 today. Much like logic, common sense and intelligent discourse, it went way over your head.
I don’t see how, but thanks for admitting you engage in the coded-speech that shelters racism, my little macaca.
As for what chicken soup or slurping has to do with race, you are, as I’ve already said, in a world all your own.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2006 10:58 PM
As for the ridicule you have taken, it’s no more than you’ve dished out. You can continue to nurse a grudge about it, or try to move forward. That’s entirely up to you.
If the ridicule and grudge aren’t affecting you — what the hëll did you apologize for?
I haven’t made a single post that hasn’t carried a point. You’re in the habit of making posts for the sole purpose of ridicule. You have a taste for blood.
And by denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide, you are sheltering your taste for blood as a virtue. What a sorry thing to fight for.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at November 18, 2006 09:11 PM
My point is, if you’re going to be a troll, you’re going to have to do a better job. I’m sorry, but I’ve been watching you since I’ve gotten here, and you just aren’t doing that well. I’ve been kicked off of communities before, and now no one even notices I’m a troll at all. Maybe I can help.
Since I wrote that, I’ve read Mark Waid complain he was kicked off of John Byrne’s board. There is no shame in being called a troll by the likes of you, Bill Mulligan, or John Byrne.
…but if you are seen as repeating yourself, you will dilute your own effectiveness as a troll.
Mike, seeking to give trolling advice to another troll only a year and a half ago. Was he kidding or serious? Hard to say which is funnier now, given what’s happened to him.
You’ve given me a lot of freedom by abandoning any moral ground whatsoever. At least Hitler tried to justify racism by misinterpreting Darwin. Borat justified misogyny by citing Kazakh scientists saying women’s brains are bird-sized, which is laughable.
With you, the denial “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is justified by willful and naked stupidity, which is pitiful.
You don’t have to be Shakespeare to put that kind of wrong in its place. Your denial of something so plainly observable withstands repetition.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at November 19, 2006 07:35 PM
Bill Myers, you should charge money for the public display of your moral cretinism.
No I shouldn’t.
Thank you for finally admitting your moral cretinism. Your sheltering of racism is not so dismaying when you dismiss your own credibility. This seems appropriate considering your denial of plainly observable facts.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at November 20, 2006 08:58 AM
Has anyone else had the impression that Mike’s doing an eloquent (comparably) version of “your mother” in every post?
You heard it here, folks: there is no virtue in challenging racism.
To do otherwise would be to lose credibility and/or support with the country. It would be like giving in to Mike…
Like this, Sean Scullion?
Yes, you semantic whiz kid, the phrases match.
As with Bill Myers, dismissing your own credibility makes your sheltering racism less dismaying, if that is the virtue of your continued challenge of me.
Also, ubiquitous means widespread at the same time, like “Comic Book Guy” posting to defend racism with Bill Mulligan and Micha. The meanings of persistent and ubiquitous are not interchangeable.
****************************************
Posted by: Mike at November 24, 2006 12:29 AM
Because this might be the first time Bill Mulligan actually reads this, I’m going to fix it:
The only virtue of denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide is to shelter racism.
****************************************
****************************************
****************************************
But enough fun showing once again that Mike is nuts, a brick wall and a liar. If Mike wishes to claim that he’s being misrepresented by other’s words or that people other than he are telling untruths; his own words from the Principle Poopy Pants thread show otherwise.
Like I said, David, it’s your choice. But you seem like a nice guy and since you tag yourself David the lawyer I figure that the least that Jerry the cop could do is extend you the professional courtesy of warning you of Mikeness at its best and where you may be headed here. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go get the power sprayer and wash the Mikeness slime off of me.
Susan O,
Susan O: “Respect? Respect?! Despite being a staunch believer in RVW, I do not go around picketing in front of pro-life churches, obstructing congregants from attending them, send them gruesome misleading pictures in the mail or paste them to the sides of trucks, bomb the churches or shoot the ministers. I realize there are extremists to every group and they do not represent the majority, but money donated to the ’cause’ does support them. Don’t want an abortion? That’s fine with me. Your choice. I couldn’t care less. But I cannot give my respect to a group of people that will not grant me the same respect and right to my own life.”
Susan, by actually acknowledging that the acts that you site are those of the extremist fringe and then seemingly dismissing that difference within the same statement does nothing to help your side, your argument or make you look good.
A large number of the pro-life people are not the ones that make the problems and public spectacles of the noisy minority fringe. Many believe that their view is just that; it’s their view. They don’t preach, protest, bomb, or murder. My wife is a perfect example. She and her sisters are pro-life. They don’t believe in abortion other than in the event of saving the mother’s life. However, you would never know it to be around them. They don’t lecture you if the topic comes up and, if you were a friend of theirs contemplating an abortion, the only thing they might say, and only if you specifically asked about it, would be that it wasn’t something they themselves would do.
To say that you would fail to show some level of respect to people, or even to actively state disrespect to them, because you refuse to separate the fools, morons and extremist minority from the majority only makes you look bad.
Let me ask you something. Are you against the war? If you are, if you can articulate why you are intelligently and you don’t do some of the stupid crap that the more vile, fringe extremist in the anti-war side do; how intelligent do you think someone would come off if they told you that they couldn’t respect you because some fringe idiots in the anti-war crowd tried to plant a bomb in protest or got caught planning the murder of recruiters?
Are you for McCain or Obama? What would you think of someone who, despite your being able to intelligently articulate why you are for the candidate of your choice, told you that you are deserving of no respect because some fool girl faked an assault and attempted to make a racial matter of it as well or because some Obama supporters were vandalizing people’s cars and homes if they had McCain bumper stickers or yard signs? You may not have done any of this, but you support the cause, you therefore support the actions and you therefore deserve no respect either.
I would think that you would find them rather foolish. If that’s the case, maybe you might want to rethink what you said above. If that’s not the case, well, then you’re as much of an extremist as the people you voiced your displeasure against.
Susan O,
Susan O: “Respect? Respect?! Despite being a staunch believer in RVW, I do not go around picketing in front of pro-life churches, obstructing congregants from attending them, send them gruesome misleading pictures in the mail or paste them to the sides of trucks, bomb the churches or shoot the ministers. I realize there are extremists to every group and they do not represent the majority, but money donated to the ’cause’ does support them. Don’t want an abortion? That’s fine with me. Your choice. I couldn’t care less. But I cannot give my respect to a group of people that will not grant me the same respect and right to my own life.”
Susan, by actually acknowledging that the acts that you site are those of the extremist fringe and then seemingly dismissing that difference within the same statement does nothing to help your side, your argument or make you look good.
A large number of the pro-life people are not the ones that make the problems and public spectacles of the noisy minority fringe. Many believe that their view is just that; it’s their view. They don’t preach, protest, bomb, or murder. My wife is a perfect example. She and her sisters are pro-life. They don’t believe in abortion other than in the event of saving the mother’s life. However, you would never know it to be around them. They don’t lecture you if the topic comes up and, if you were a friend of theirs contemplating an abortion, the only thing they might say, and only if you specifically asked about it, would be that it wasn’t something they themselves would do.
To say that you would fail to show some level of respect to people, or even to actively state disrespect to them, because you refuse to separate the fools, morons and extremist minority from the majority only makes you look bad.
Let me ask you something. Are you against the war? If you are, if you can articulate why you are intelligently and you don’t do some of the stupid crap that the more vile, fringe extremist in the anti-war side do; how intelligent do you think someone would come off if they told you that they couldn’t respect you because some fringe idiots in the anti-war crowd tried to plant a bomb in protest or got caught planning the murder of recruiters?
Are you for McCain or Obama? What would you think of someone who, despite your being able to intelligently articulate why you are for the candidate of your choice, told you that you are deserving of no respect because some fool girl faked an assault and attempted to make a racial matter of it as well or because some Obama supporters were vandalizing people’s cars and homes if they had McCain bumper stickers or yard signs? You may not have done any of this, but you support the cause, you therefore support the actions and you therefore deserve no respect either.
I would think that you would find them rather foolish. If that’s the case, maybe you might want to rethink what you said above. If that’s not the case, well, then you’re as much of an extremist as the people you voiced your displeasure against.
Jerry, has been spoiling me. Now he’s busted me for an inaccuracy. Fortunately for my soul, I have no reservation against removing the inaccuracies from what I’ve said:
You’re referring to [posts from 2 years ago], but [I never attributed racist motives to “sheltering racism.” That’s why I phrased it exactly that way. You] aren’t going to find me referring to racist motives in what you’ve been posting before this year. [That’s why I can say] You’re projecting. You’re a projecting cyber-bully. And an áššhølë.
Thank you for helping me validate everything I’ve ever said here. Unless I’ve missed something, everything I’ve ever posted here can now be reconciled. If you find anything else, please continue to be generous enough to let me know.
Jerry, has been spoiling me. Now he’s busted me for an inaccuracy. Fortunately for my soul, I have no reservation against removing the inaccuracies from what I’ve said:
You’re referring to [posts from 2 years ago], but [I never attributed racist motives to “sheltering racism.” That’s why I phrased it exactly that way. You] aren’t going to find me referring to racist motives in what you’ve been posting before this year. [That’s why I can say] You’re projecting. You’re a projecting cyber-bully. And an áššhølë.
Thank you for helping me validate everything I’ve ever said here. Unless I’ve missed something, everything I’ve ever posted here can now be reconciled. If you find anything else, please continue to be generous enough to let me know.
And Jerry, today lesson from Changeling: fights aren’t for you to start, they’re for you to finish.