“This…”Hopefully, for you, you’ll find a skill which earns you enough money to go somewhere where you’ll have all the freedoms you need”
was a response to ….”if I could afford to move there, I would.”
not..“lazy, leechy Leftist”.”
Point taken. I see your comment made sense in context. My mistake.
“No, we covered this already. They are being treated equally. Any man (even a gay one), can marry any woman (even a gay one). You don’t like the argument but it is a valid one.”
Yes, we did cover that – that argument is ridiculous. It totally misses the point – they are not allowed to marry who they want to marry. That’s the issue, that is where they are being denied freedom and equality. Perhaps it is a structurally valid argument if it were put in syllogism form, but it misses the point entirely.
Gay people are denied the right to marry who they want to marry, straight people are not.
Again, as a parallel example, you could just as easily argue that blacks before 1967 were not being treated unequally in marriage because they had every right to marry someone of their own race, just like white people. It is the exact same stupid argument, and I have soundly refuted it several times. They were not allowed to marry who they wanted to marry. Can you not understand this reasoning, or do you just deny it?
“It is not a religious tradition it is human tradition. We covered this in talking about every other culture (until the Europeans and Canadians of the last few years) having this very definitive understanding about what marriage means.”
It is human religious tradition at this time, in this country. Perhaps it served some purpose to only marry that way in the past, but there is no purpose served by it now. It is like clinging to a vestigial organ.
Just because a practice is old, doesn’t mean it is good.
“You don’t like that argument either so you got us caught up in the polygamy issue.”
I don’t like that argument, and I explained why. The comparison to slavery was an apt comparison, in that slavery was also once a tradition. Tradition, by itself, is not a reason to justify a practice – there needs to be some merit in the practice that stems from its own nature. I don’t see any merit in defining marriage in this particular way.
“The Bill of Rights and the Constitution only protect Americans. You don’t like that. I don’t really care.”
But don’t you understand that, as supposed freedom lovers, we are supposed to value freedom and human rights for all people? There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. The things the Bush administration have done are against the spirit (and some of them are against the letter as well) – they are against human liberty. If we only want liberty and rights for ourselves, then our love of liberty is a sham.
“You don’t care about the real people who contribute to making the environment you spawned from. You care about ethereal notions like humanity in general and issues with such broad dimension as rights.”
But I do care about real people. I care about my family and people I know. I am grateful for a lot of things built into the environment of this country. I just don’t happen to value the lives of my fellow citizens over the lives of foreigners simply on the basis of what chunk of land we are born on. That’s what I mean when I say patriotism – the assumption that Americans, simply by being Americans, are better than people in other countries – without knowing anything else about them.
If I had the choice to save the life of either an American or a foreigner, without knowing anything about either of them, I would not be able to choose on the basis of that alone.
“See, you only have issues with other people’s religion. Your religion, the Church of Humanity, is perfectly valid.”
I don’t have a religion – but almost all religions are intolerant of other religions. Hinduism is supposedly open to all religions – but Hindus sure don’t get along with the Muslim way of living.
“Bigots, “screw em”. Misogynists, “screw em”. The lustful, “screw em”. Real people, “screw em”.”
I have no problem with the lustful. But I do have a problem when the lustful cannot control their impulses so much that they rape another person or coerce another person into sex. If their sexual urges are that out of control, they need therapy. I will not excuse their behavior as something they can’t help.
Also, as for “real people”, not all people are bigots and misogynists.
As for why bigots and misogynists do not deserve the freedom to discriminate against people of different races and sexes in business practices, it is because allowing them to do that causes real economic harm to minority groups and women. I will not allow one group of people (the bigots and misogynists) to cause real economic harm to another group of people (minorities, gays, women) to protect their feeling of not wanting to interact with those people on the basis of their hate.
“The pure of heart, the oppressed, the poor, the ignorant, the lame, they deserve the freedom you’ll not give the lecher who avoids the temptation to hurt another human being by avoiding them. He should have the strength to overcome that lust or “screw em”. Thats what I mean by crapping the bed.”
He is the one with the problem. He has the freedom to seek therapy. He is responsible for his own actions, and an innocent person (the woman who wants to work there) should not be denied employment because he can’t control himself. I thought you valued responsibility, yet you are making excuses for this irresponsible type of person.
“It doesn’t take long to scratch the surface of a militant freedom writer before you find the intolerance they’ve projected onto others.”
It is not intolerance to demand that people who have such urges control their urges to rape and coerce others – nor is it intolerant to demand that a person resist the temptation to enter an illicit relationship with an employee who is attempting to seduce them. I value freedom and responsibility.
“To my mind, the propensity towards fascism is much more a feature of the left today then on the right.”
You completely excluded one of the most important aspects of fascism – a rabid, fanatical nationalism and excessive aggression and militarism. That belongs to the right, not the left.
As far as controlling speech – it is the right, for the most part, that favors censorship. There is the libertarian right, and there is the libertarian left, who are against censorship. There are people on the left who favor censorship as well – certain radical feminists, etc., in the form of political correctness. But the people who favor censorship in the name of “decency” are much more common on the right.
The right is the side that favors secret prisons for our enemies and is not abiding by human rights.
The Left wants the option of affordable health care for everyone – not forced state health care for everyone.
The Left wants the option of affordable and decent public schools for everyone – they are not trying to shut down private schools.
“(in response to why people should not be allowed to discriminate in hiring and business practices) Or not.”
Yeah, you could have responded to the rest of my point there…or not.
“(in response to Captain Fucking America) Or not.”
I’ve explained why I value liberty for more people than you. You value the freedom of bigots to discriminate in business practices, and the freedom and civil rights of Americans. While I don’t value the former, I value the latter and I value freedom and human rights for people all over the world. You don’t. I am more consistent in my belief in liberty.
““They should be protected by decency and a true belief in freedom and human rights – not just for Americans, but for everyone.”
Or not.”
Um…okay, freedom and human rights are only good for Americans. You got me there, buddy. Man, fuck the Geneva Conventions – we should be allowed to do whatever we want to them foreigners!
“(in response to media consolidation) Or not.”
My, you’ve gotten lazy. A proper rebuttal? No.
“Your superior sensitivity to freedom is your religion mate.”
Nope. “Ideology” is a much more accurate and appropriate word there. Stop abusing language.
“I was you once. I don’t miss that bigot one bit.”
I’m not a bigot. It is not bigotry to value freedom and responsibility, and it is not bigotry to dislike certain ideas.
“I much prefer the bigot my son will become if we don’t let idealistic fools like yourself ruin his chances.”
Huh? You want your son to become a bigot? Why would you want that? You’re not a bigot, are you?
Well, I hope he rebels and turns out to be as liberal as me. That would piss you off. But I suspect you did a good job indoctrinating him, so we will likely have to contend with a new generation of tradition-oriented followers. Do you tell him what to believe instead of letting him choose for himself?
