July 10, 2015 at 8:07 pm #12228RobPParticipant
Ah, missing you were doing so good until the name calling. Takes what you wrote and puts it in the shitter. Too bad.July 10, 2015 at 8:35 pm #12231
No it doesn’t. There isn’t any reason why I should respond reasonably to “because crazy and abused” implications.
And that’s not the first time with NT either.
Anyone choosing to dismiss the whole thing was never going to consider it seriously anyway. Think about it.July 10, 2015 at 8:39 pm #12233stevethedjParticipant
No, I will just ignore you.July 10, 2015 at 8:59 pm #12234
Like I said, you would have anyway.
Rather than make snide implications, it is much higher value to state it directly.
NT knew what he was writing, and to whom.
Respect due is respect given. He got what he gave.
The whole, “oh, look! A bad word!” …is the excuse those looking really hard for one need to avoid actually having the real dialog.
His post tries really hard to imply there is something wrong with me, without actually providing a meaningful argument to juatify any of it, including that other opinions and intolerance bullshit. Worse, along with the garbage Broadway has been putting here, implies that bigots have some valid, respectable standing for the harm they do to others.
It is absolutely not my problem that NT does not have a solid defense for that garbage.
Quite frankly, implications like that are not OK. It is the kind of thing an asshole does when confronted with the reality of not having any leg to stand on.July 11, 2015 at 6:25 am #12242stevethedjParticipant
Doug- I really like you as a person. But, your sounding like a fundelmest Christian at times with a liberal tone.July 11, 2015 at 10:02 am #12243
Hey, on this one, it’s simple:
Where is the argument in favor, or that can justify or marginalize this discrimination?
Like with racism, there is a marginalization argument linked to ignorance and age. A really old person lived under very different norms. This will clash with the choices made today, and we can wink and nod past that, recognizing their otherwise benign intent. Call this the grandpa rule.
Ignorance is an artifact of our socialization. Somebody who has grown up in Russia is going to struggle here, as would a rural kid somewhere. Call this the education rule.
Some tolerance is warranted here, but not enabling. Just a gentle effort to help them get there, and or minimize harm.
Some fundamentalists do things like cut body parts off instead of talk about it. Big difference. Go and ask ISIS about this kind of dialog. Now go and ask American fundamentalists, and you find significantly different answers.
So let’s at least quantify and be real about fundamentalists, and set that aside.
Now take those scenarios, the education one and the grandpa one, and extend them to people attempting to judge others, or make law.
The case for tolerance falls away. Now we aren’t just being good humans trying to get along. It’s now about actually marginalizing real people for nothing they did to deserve said marginalization and worse. It’s here that we have a big clash.
And the reasons for that clash aren’t all rational either. We’ve got religion mixed in there, which can be anything really. No joke. God says gimme a fiver carries no more weight than God hates fags does. Those are just proxies for other things. For some of us, it’s painful to contemplate.
Understandable. I suffer from that problem personally. It’s icky. But hey, it’s not in my bedroom either. Lots of things are icky, and those aren’t in my bedroom either.
There are great reasons for giving people room to find their way on all this.
There are no reasons for going the other way, backward, or to enable bigotry of this kind. It’s time to move forward.
Making it all about people who have gotten there isn’t going to go well at all. Again, for lack of those reasons. And we’ve seen this exact same dynamic play out on every civil rights progress issue. I think it’s perfectly ordinary.
Call that what you want, but it’s not bad. How can it be, lacking a basic argument otherwise?
I submit, had that argument actually existed, SCOTUS would have ruled much differently.
This is not to say SCOTUS always gets that part of law right. They don’t. But on this one, there really isn’t a rational argument to justify another decision.
Finally, we all have our thoughts. I know I have them. But it’s what we do, the law we draft, and the norms we set that makes the difference for people. That has to be a hard line, or none of the effort will work.
Rather than attempt to make this about me, please put a solid argument here otherwise. Got one?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.